Stopping trespassers

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118882656#Comment_118882656

It would be worse. You would want them well used of an electric fence. Vicious f@@kers. Nobody would go for not that field while they were there, well of they did they would not be walking back out.

whisky_galore

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118880084#Comment_118880084

It's a shame and, this coming from a landowner, it's also a shame that there's no right to roam like some of Scandinavian countries where people actually behave themselves and respect property. Cleaning up after them that you'd never know anyone camped there.

We can't have that here because our arseholes do whatever they feel like and sue you if they so much as stub their toe.

LawBoy2018

CreadanLady

putting a bull in the field is stupid advice. A bull breed known to be aggressive even moreso. It is in the same league as confronting tresspassers with a gun under your arm, and wiring up the gate to an electric fence.

If someone gets hurt or killed by that bull then you are up in front of a judge with a barrister questioning you......

You were aware that the field was often tresspassed upon by walkers and mountain bikers? And that they tended to disobey signs warning them to keep out?

Would you consider that type of bull to be dangerous to a person walking in the field who is not familiar with handling bulls.

Do you normally keep such bulls? When did you get him and for what reason did you get that particular breed?

But yet you decided to put a bull in that field, and not just any bull, a bull breed known to be more volatile than average.

And why did you choose to put that particular bull in that particular field? You have a a large farm with many other fields, some of them farther away from this area, and which were not frequented by tresspassers. Why did you put him in that field, and not in another field that didn't have a tresspassing problem?

Judge, it is the prosecutions opinion that Op deliberately put a volatile breed of bull into a field that was frequently tresspassed upon in an effort to deter would be tresspassers from entering the land, and he did so knowing full well that the bull would be a grave danger to any person who did enter the field. And the sad result was the death of a young man who was not accustomed to being around large farm animals and was unaware of the severe danger in the field.

Good luck coming out the right side of that in court.

Can people please stop suggesting that the op do things that are going to get him in trouble and put other people at risk of injury.

maestroamado

If i were me i would ask your friend that is using to leave and buy a bull...

CreadanLady

As I said, a bull is asking for serious trouble.

You won't be able to defend putting a lethal animal into a field known to be popular with tresspassers. The judge will see through it straight away that you did it deliberately as a deterrent.

Putting a lethal hazard like a bull in is grossly inadvisable. It is the equivalent of lacing the place with land mines. A deliberate action done to put tresspassers in danger of serious injury or death.

If it is on the verge of an urban area, you cannot reasonably expect teenagers and the like to be aware of the dangers of bulls, especially when it appears overnight in a field that is regularly tresspassed on and that did not have a bull until one random morning.

You won't be able to defend that in court. It'll be manslaughter.

Whether we like or not, any landowner has a duty of care to anyone who might be on a premises, whether they be an employee or a tresspasser or a friend with permission. And that goes for whether it is a business premises, a field, a construction site, a hotel, anywhere. No amount of moaning or bitching is going to change that. it is a fact of life. And farmers are not immune to that principle of law.

If that field is regularly tresspassed on , then any of these dangerous things like diggin big holes, electrifying gates, vicious bulls, walking around with guns etc are, sooner or later, going to end in tears and with the OP up in court for either a civil or criminal case or both. They are irresponsible, immature and dangerous actions.

The way around this is to fence it off securely, clear and re-seed that land, or put it in forestry or a crop or something. None of them are cheap, but it is cheaper than having to pay a solicitor and barrister to defend you in court and pay the inevitable damages claim.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118883236#Comment_118883236

No its not. Farmers have bulls in fields all the time. With dairy bred inefficent converting animals leaving as bulls is practised reqularly. He would not be putting in one but rather 10+. Put up a standard bewrae of bull sign. Biggest issue is you need excellent fencing. Why you put them there is a two way road. If you cannot farm anything else there Sheep horses or other cattle because of dogs or people interfering with them, then putting bulls in the field may be the only farm animal you can farm on it.

While solicitors can argue any point the judge also has to consider the land is yours, you are entitled to farm it ad try to make a living off it.

whisky_galore

Putting a bull in when you've no business having a bull is just creating mischief though.

Some of the the suggestions here are like a Looney Tunes cartoon.

James2022

Putting in a bull overnight would be a hard case to defend but it would still fall on the trespasser to prove to the court it was done with malicious intent. In this case the evidence would be against the landowner.

Cleaning up the field with a digger, fencing and then putting in a bull(s) with warning signs would plant the fault directly on the trespasser since they knowingly and illegally entered into a field with a dangerous animal. It's going to be a slow process to stop trespassing but it starts with retaking the field. Just pile everything in one corner, fence the field and put stock in. If its surrounded by neighbours then I'm sure they'd like to use it for grazing if you don't. Again do not try to harm trespassers with hidden traps. A court case will cost you more than that field.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118880294#Comment_118880294

That is an interesting question. The landowner didn't lay the ramps nor is it public property but if he has told the guards about the ramps then he is aware of them and could be held liable.

CreadanLady

Yes I get you, but putting a bull in a field as part of your routine farming operation is one thing.

But suddenly putting a bull into a field you know to have tresspassers, and when you never previously put a bull, and when you had other fields that were less risky to have a bull in them, will be seen for what it is - a deliberate act done to install a danger into a place as a deterrent.

If the OP never previously kept a bull, and then all of a sudden aquires a bull and just by chance puts it in that particular field, will only copperfasten that argument. If you never had bulls before, why suddenly get one? And why put it in the place where it is likely to present the greatest danger to other people?

At absolute best, the OP would be seen to have failed to adequately consider the impact of their actions on safety of people on the land, which he knew full well was happening, and failed to reduce the risk. At worst, he could be up for manslaughter.

You absolutely would not have a hope in hell of winning a case like that.

Even in normal circumstances, did you ever hear of someone being killed by a bull and a court or the HSA saying that the farmer did verything 100% right and that they could not have done any more and they they are absolved of all liability and are in the clear.

JustJoe7240

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118883395#Comment_118883395

Do you have a license to practice law or are you speculating?

CreadanLady

And another thing, I guess that because there are bike ramps and the like, the field is close to an urban area with estates and children and teenagers. THerefore, anyone with experience would know that it is the last place you should be putting bulls unless you cannot avoid it. If you have other more rural fields farther out, and you need to keep bulls, then the basic principles of prevention woudl tell you that you should put the bulls in the part of the farm where they are least likely to be a danger - ie, fields farther away from houses, farther away from the road etc, and put the less risking activities near the more sensitive neighbours.

All that aside, at the end of the day, if you end up in court for an accident on land, be it because of animals or machinery or whatever, the reality is you are not going to win a case. The reality is that the legal system is biased in favour of the injured party, and the burden of liability is with the owner of the offending animal/machine/building almost by default.

When was the last time someone was killed by an animal or machine, or fell down a hole, and a court ruled that it was the person was liable for their own demise? Yeah, practically never. Not any time in modern times anyway.

James2022

I tried searching but I can't find much information on the laws for trespassers being injured by animals. I can only find laws around cattle trespassing onto neighbour's property. They have public liability laws in the UK but I don't recall every hearing about a case brought against a farmer in Ireland when stock injured a trespasser.

CreadanLady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118883433#Comment_118883433

I am not a lawyer, nor am i speculating wildly, but I can tell you this , I have enough experience and knowlege through my line of work that tells me that knowingly placing hazards and ignoring or deliberately creating risks is not going to end well when you end up in court.

When you are facing a claim, you are immediately on an uphill battle as the reality is the legal system is biased in favour of the injured party. And if you have done things to exacerbate risks, then you are extremely unlikely to be able to defend it succesfully and to be able to walk away in the clear. Even if you do somehow manage to win, you are still facing what may be very significant legal costs.

I can tell you, putting up a few hundred meters of palisade fencing will look like good value against bills from a solicitor and barrister and a judgement for payment of damages from the court.

MacDanger

Spreading slurry in the field is the best option, it'll have some beneficial effect on the land and will keep trespassers out. Obviously there's a cost to it but other than that, very little downside for the OP

JustJoe7240

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118883435#Comment_118883435

This entire post is speculation. Could you direct me to the legal requirement to practice the "basic principals of protection" you're referring to? Noone will end up in court, The op has public liability. This is just scaremongering.

CreadanLady

With pleasure.....

Schedule 3 of the Act details the General Principles of Prevention. These can apply to any enterprise, including farms.

Basically, in order of priority, they can be summaries as...

1. Eliminate risks at source (use AI rather than having a bull)
2. Reduce unavoidable risk (if you must have a bulls, place in a field farthest away from where people might regularly be, well away from road)
3. Inform (put up signs, warnings etc)
4. Control (very strong fences, physically prevent access to trespassers, eg, palidade fencing, keep the bull in a shed or secure yard etc.)

Now, if you just lob a bull or a few bulls into a field near a housing estate, when you had other more remote fields, you will have a hard time defending that decision.

And when the HSA take cases against businesses, very often a lot of it boils down to them showing that the accused failed to live up to their obligations in regard to those principles.

When you look at the cases, the vast majority of those brought up have pleaded guilty. The chances are, if you are pulled up on a safety case, you will lose. It is tough legislation. Most times, people just plead guilty and take their scolding.

Donald Trump

Duty of care towards trespassers is higher under the common law since a famous case in the 70's when a child lost an arm (I think) at an ESB substation.

This was somewhat fixed by the 1995 Occupiers liability act but that does not cover all scenarios. A person classed as "recreational user" would probably be somewhat similar in the circumstances, although if ramps etc. are constructed and left there for a while, the owner might actually become liable for their maintenance.

In relation to the bull suggestions, in general, a scienter action may be taken in respect of a domesticated animal where they can prove you knew it was a dangerous animal. How that would pan out might depend on signage and warnings etc.

JustJoe7240

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118883543#Comment_118883543

Does that act refer to trespassers?

That's an interesting perspective regarding the bulls, Say hypothetically, A bull was in with a herd of dairy cows, and the paddock currently being grazed was next to an urban area and someone was injured. Would that still apply?

tjhook

It seems to me that when a member of the public has an accident, the person/organisation with insurance tends to be the one to pay for it. Whether that's public policy or not, it's how those things appear to me to be resolved

OP, if I was you I'd make sure to complain to the Gardai a number of times, and take note of when and to who. If there was ever to be trouble, that may work in your favour. It won't do you any harm anyway, and it's free. Same for putting up signage. Cheap, and may go in your favour. At the very least, it would show that you were not implicitely allowing people use your land.

I also disagree with purposely creating dangers on the land. Too much risk that somebody will actually get hurt. And it could come back on you.

I also agree with other posters here saying that increasing the fencing is the most straight-forward way to completely stop the trespassing. But I can imagine it would be expensive.

CreadanLady

The General principles of prevention in the Safety legislation basically give you the principles of how to run a safe operation.

The occupiers liability act says that you have a duty of care towards people, including tresspassers.

If you do something reckless that causes a danger to people, well it would run foul of both the principles of prevention, and your duty of care.

So between the two, you are most unlikely to be able to defend yourself successfully.

Again the vast majority of the time, when accidents occur, the person who owns the land or the machine or animal or whatever, it almost always found to be at fault and bear liability in court.

A long time ago, if someone had an accident, they were usually blamed for incompetence or misuse or whatever, but those days a long gone. In the modern era, the person with the responsibility and insurance is almost universally liable, almost by default in practice, unless there is a compelling case to the contrary - an example of a compelling circumstance to absolve you of liability might be a bull in a secure yard with a locked gate, high fencing, and warning signs but someone on a dare breaks the lock, goes in and starts smacking the bull on the nose with a stick. You would probably be seen to have taken all reasonably practicable measures to make the situation safe, but despite that someone made a very concerted effort to defy everything you did and broke in, goaded the bull and got killed.

Basically, you can only get away with something if it is a genuinely freak occurrence that could not have been reasonably foreseen.

If you put a bull in a field that is close to an urban area and known to have tresspassers in it, then it is reasonably foreseeable that someone would be in the field and again and that the bull could harm them. You are just not going to get away with it if that happens. It is not going to wash with a judge.

That is just the reality of it, and there is no point moaning about it because that is the way it is.

And another thing, in the Safety legislation the burden of proof is actually reversed. If the HSA are prosecuting you, the legislation is such that you are pretty much presumed to be at fault and it is up to your to prove your innocence. Section 81 of the Act. That there, is pretty much how tough these laws are when you are faced with them. That is why nearly everyone pleads guilty as pleading not guilty is only going to make things worse for them.

I've had a browse through the HSA case records for recent years. Everyone plead guilty. All the verdicts were guilty. In fact, I cannot see a single case record where someone plead not guilty, let alone a verdict of not guilty.

So the OP needs to have a cool head, and think about it logically. Don't do anything rash or emotional that might increase his exposure to trouble. So stay away from the mad Road Runner & Coyote stuff from Looney Toons and be a bit more mature and grown up in their handling of the situation.

A good mantra is that everything you do , and every decision you make, you need to satisfy yourself that you can stand over it and justify it if you are ever challenged.

keno-daytrader

For Gods sake, spread the slurry and problem over.

CreadanLady

Yeah, for a week or two.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118883990#Comment_118883990

Almost. The duty of care to a trespasser under the 1995 Act is only not to injure intentionally or through reckless disregard. The Act would probably not apply in the case of a bull unless a judge determined that the bull was a feature of the property itself. It also doesn't apply to an activity for example. It only applies to the actual "premises" itself - for example a hole of water in the middle of the land.

If the Act does not apply then you actually have a higher duty of care towards the trespasser. That is when the "reasonably foreseeable" aspect comes into play and you have a duty of "reasonable care" towards the trespasser.

If you have a bull in a field, and the field is secure as regards the bull, and reasonably secure so as to prevent access, and you have plenty of warning signs in place, then you would be pretty well covered unless it could be proven that you placed a wicked bull there intentionally to damage people.

Ultimately, you don't want to injure anyone, regardless of liability.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118879463#Comment_118879463

The Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 disagrees. You can also legally shoot Travellers who encroach on your property..

CreadanLady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884186#Comment_118884186

I think it would be very much an uphill battle to be successful with that, even if you think you are pretty well covered.

I tell you this. I spoke to a guy very high up in councils some time ago about claims and liability and the like. He said that a lot of the time fighting claims is an utterly futile task. He said you know going into court that, regardless of how strong your defence case is, you are going to lose. Almost always. He said even if you did everything 100%, many judges take the view that, "well Johnny did get injured, therefore he deserves something at least. And since there is insurance (in the case of private landowner or a business) or an effectively infinite money pot (in the case of government bodies) therefore judgement will be awarded against them and in favour of Johnny", unless there is a very very compelling case to the contrary.

I was surprised. But it just shows that if there is a claim, the bar for exonerating yourself is exceptionally and practically unreachably high.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884208#Comment_118884208

That only allows for proportionate use of force appropriate to given circumstances. And the bar for that is pretty high in reality. To use force would only really be accepted by a judge if you were genuinely in mortal fear of the intruder killing or seriously injuring you or someone else. And the bar for use of force in defence of property would be even higher, such as you forcibly repelling someone who was intent on something like burning your house down. Someone threatening to steal or burn your car or steal your TV simply would not cut it, let alone a few teenagers on bikes messing around in your field.

"Defence" is the key there, even in the title of the Act. Brandishing a shotgun under your arm to intimidate a few teenagers on bikes is closer to going on the offensive. Plus, if you tried that with the wrong person there is a chance that you'd end up having it taken from you and used against you, or getting stabbed or something. To do so would be very foolish.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884208#Comment_118884208

You can also legally shoot Travellers who encroach on your property.

I don't think the act is quite phrased exactly like that

maestroamado

I am assuming you already have animals... If have not i would rent the field to a local farmer for a fee... this way you will not have responsibility for the animal... Bulls dont work for the whole year ans i expect all their work done in a few months... Lots of farmers have difficulty keeping them away from the work they do as they seem to like their job... I expect having a place like yours would work for both of you... a win-win as it were... you could likely sell tickets... Pampalona...

CreadanLady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884537#Comment_118884537

Ya and reading the act at purely at face value is another thing that and disregarding the nuances that go along with it are a trap people often fall into. For example,

" it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person or the property of another person where—

(a) he or she believes the other person has entered or is entering the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of committing a criminal act, and

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be—

(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act,

(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of another person from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act,

That does not entitle you to shoot someone dead if they come into your house to steal your car and your iphone, even if you in your own head thought that was a reasonable response.

I don't know the law in the USA, but you can legally shoot a person for a lot less there than you'd be allowed to here. There is a much lower value on human life in USA culture. One only has to look at the level of racism and inequality and the fact that healthcare is only accessible if you are of the privileged class to see that.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884593#Comment_118884593

There is a man currently locked up awaiting trial who was refused bail after shooting a trespasser. And that was someone highly educated and trained in law.