Woman sues over exploding lemonade bottle

eamonnq

Hococop wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what your opinion on someone breaking into a house, gets injured while robbing the place and claims against the owners?

I see nobody has actually given their opinion yet ?

ohnonotgmail

eamonnq wrote: »

I see nobody has actually given their opinion yet ?

its an interesting question. unless the homeowner was in some way negligent i cant see how a claim could succeed.

Of course they could sue the homeowner for not maintaining a safe work environment. (joke btw)

ford2600

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

its an interesting question. unless the homeowner was in some way negligent i cant see how a claim could succeed.

Of course they could sue the homeowner for not maintaining a safe work environment. (joke btw)

Do homeowners not have a duty of care under the Occupier's liability act to trespassers? Not sure what it means in practice.

Having a booby trap set up on jewellery box might get one in bother or something extreme.

Not sure what would happen with a defective stairs or some such. I'm sure lawyers have argued about it before...

ohnonotgmail

ford2600 wrote: »

Do homeowners not have a duty of care under the Occupier's liability act to trespassers? Not sure what it means in practice.

Having a booby trap set up on jewellery box might get one in bother or something extreme.

Not sure what would happen with a defective stairs or some such. I'm sure lawyers have argued about it before...

doing something that deliberately injures a thief (your booby trap example) would be a criminal offence

Hococop

Hococop wrote: »

Out of curiosity, what your opinion on someone breaking into a house, gets injured while robbing the place and claims against the owners?

I would say while it's not explicitly precluded, such a case would be the longest of long shots, particularly since the Occupier's Liability Act.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say while it's not explicitly precluded, such a case would be the longest of long shots, particularly since the Occupier's Liability Act.

being a law speaking guy do you know how the occupiers liability act is interpreted by the courts in this respect?

(1) In respect of a danger existing on premises, an occupier owes towards a recreational user of the premises or a trespasser thereon (“the person”)
a duty—


(a) not to injure the person or damage the property of the person intentionally, and


(b) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person,

--SNIP--

(3) (a) Where a person enters onto premises for the purpose of committing an offence or, while present thereon, commits an offence,
the occupier shall not be liable for a breach of the duty imposed by subsection (1) (b) unless a court determines otherwise
in the interests of justice.

MarkAnthony

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

being a law speaking guy do you know how the occupiers liability act is interpreted by the courts in this respect?

Litterally I'd assume.