Liability Question

Conology

Just wondering - if I give a loan of a Beach-buggy, Sailing Boat or Kayak to one of my friends and he/she suffers some unfortunate accident, who is liable for any claims / compensation if the person is hospitalised or out of work as a result. ?


Thank you

Jim2007

It would depend on the cause of the accident, if it was for example as the result of a failure to adequately maintain the equipment then you could be liable and so on.

oldyouth

I agree with Jim 2007 as being the most likely example of where you could be held liable. However, I have also come across a situation where an injured party's solicitor is maintaining that a person, who lent his friend a particular piece of equipment, should have known he was inexperienced in using it and is holding him liable.

Bottom line is that there is never a problem until their is a problem. Personally, I wouldn't lend it

Conology

oldyouth wrote: »

I agree with Jim 2007 as being the most likely example of where you could be held liable. However, I have also come across a situation where an injured party's solicitor is maintaining that a person, who lent his friend a particular piece of equipment, should have known he was inexperienced in using it and is holding him liable.

Bottom line is that there is never a problem until their is a problem. Personally, I wouldn't lend it

I agree with "Not lending " in the first instance, but it can be difficult to refuse something to friends.
It goes back to my father's advice - "neither a borrower nor a lender be ", but surely responsibility lies with the borrower to use an item correctly, and not to take on an activity he/she is not capable of.
If I give someone a loan of a ladder and he/ she falls off of it, am I responsible too ?? ( Lets say - we both have no house insurance )

Pro Hoc Vice

Conology wrote: »

I agree with "Not lending " in the first instance, but it can be difficult to refuse something to friends.
It goes back to my father's advice - "neither a borrower nor a lender be ", but surely responsibility lies with the borrower to use an item correctly, and not to take on an activity he/she is not capable of.
If I give someone a loan of a ladder and he/ she falls off of it, am I responsible too ?? ( Lets say - we both have no house insurance )

The law of tort is complex and not black and white, also a large number of books have been produced. But fora valid claim you need 2 main things to happen 1 a injury 2 that a third party to be liable for that injury. Depending on the facts lending a ladder to a person that results in injury may or may not lead to a finding of liability. Say you mew that the ladder had a falty rung that you forgot to mention to your friend say that rung was striped on by your friend and he falls and breaks a leg that is your fault.

Conology

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

The law of tort is complex and not black and white, also a large number of books have been produced. But fora valid claim you need 2 main things to happen 1 a injury 2 that a third party to be liable for that injury. Depending on the facts lending a ladder to a person that results in injury may or may not lead to a finding of liability. Say you mew that the ladder had a falty rung that you forgot to mention to your friend say that rung was striped on by your friend and he falls and breaks a leg that is your fault.

Seems to me that when the law is "an ass" - it should be changed.
Unless the lender intends to hurt someone "intentionally" I cannot see why the lender should be held responsible for someone else's carelessness or stupidity.

oldyouth

Conology wrote: »

If I give someone a loan of a ladder and he/ she falls off of it, am I responsible too ?? ( Lets say - we both have no house insurance )

The existance (or lack) of insurance has absolutely no bearing on things. You are either liable or you are not.

Pro Hoc Vice

Conology wrote: »

Seems to me that when the law is "an ass" - it should be changed.
Unless the lender intends to hurt someone "intentionally" I cannot see why the lender should be held responsible for someone else's carelessness or stupidity.

How is it careless or stupid to step on a worn rung of a ladder. The legal principle is called the neighbour principle for a reason.

Jim2007

Conology wrote: »

Seems to me that when the law is "an ass" - it should be changed.
Unless the lender intends to hurt someone "intentionally" I cannot see why the lender should be held responsible for someone else's carelessness or stupidity.

That is were the concept of contributory negligence comes in.... in other words both parties can be held partially liable.

Conology

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

How is it careless or stupid to step on a worn rung of a ladder. The legal principle is called the neighbour principle for a reason.

Yes - and conveniently "Judges have therefore found themselves departing from a strict ‘neighbour principle' when moral and practical considerations arise, for example recognising the need to protect professionals whose work inherently poses susceptibility to negligence claims. This can be seen in Rondel v Worsley (1969) where the court was not prepared to impose liability on a barrister for his conduct in court" -(http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/essays/neighbour-principle.php#ixzz3A42D9tX1 )

In addition - the above article states that "The neighbour principle remains the foundation of the law on the duty of care, but it has been added to and refined by the courts over the years and thus should not be relied upon slavishly or in a blinkered fashion".

So....
If I give you a ladder - surely there is a "reasonable expectation" that you would check it over before getting up on it.?? - Another Wiki source states that " Injuries resulting from defective products are normally claimed on the basis of a "contract of sale" between the seller and the consumer" - In my ladder case - there is no Contract ???

Pro Hoc Vice

Conology wrote: »

Yes - and conveniently "Judges have therefore found themselves departing from a strict ‘neighbour principle' when moral and practical considerations arise, for example recognising the need to protect professionals whose work inherently poses susceptibility to negligence claims. This can be seen in Rondel v Worsley (1969) where the court was not prepared to impose liability on a barrister for his conduct in court" -(http://www.lawteacher.net/tort-law/essays/neighbour-principle.php#ixzz3A42D9tX1 )

In addition - the above article states that "The neighbour principle remains the foundation of the law on the duty of care, but it has been added to and refined by the courts over the years and thus should not be relied upon slavishly or in a blinkered fashion".

So....
If I give you a ladder - surely there is a "reasonable expectation" that you would check it over before getting up on it.?? - Another Wiki source states that " Injuries resulting from defective products are normally claimed on the basis of a "contract of sale" between the seller and the consumer" - In my ladder case - there is no Contract ???

In the UK Barristers can now be held liable for what they say and do in court in Ireland at the moment the law stands, there is a very strong argument as to why the difference is there.

In relation to defective products causing an injury, in that case it is covered by statute law not the common law and it's not a defective product for a ladder to have a rung worn away. In any event a latent defect would not be know or would not ought to have been know by the owner of say a lader with a design flaw.