Walking on your land

The irony of your last sentence 😂😂

I always thought with cases where someone trespassing on land/property had an accident the judge would award something to them. It's like when you see those signs in a carpark stating the carpark is not responsible for any vehicles, well a judge would most likely see it different. Another example is construction sites where people have trespassed despite adequate warning signs and fencing. If they get injured then the builder could be liable in court. The best you can do to limit the damage in court is have warning signs etc. People laugh at me when I keep checking fencing and signage on sites. There are plenty people out there who have no issue in pulling a fast one at you expense.

You are missing the point here. What I’m saying is that if you are found negligent you will be liable. For example y leave a chain Harrow in a field and forget about it and the grass grows up through it - best of luck to you if some uninvited guest gets injured. Other greyer examples might be if someone tore an eye off a briar that was growing out of a ditch.

Both examples are not intentional harm but liability or a portion of it might lie with farmer. I’m not saying I agree with the law but case law will show that unfortunately this is often the case. Below is a classic example

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/injured-trespasser-wins-6-500-in-damages-1.1061484

Well you should read the Irish times article and it’ll show you are wrong. The clue is in the title ‘injured trespasser wins €6500 in damages’

have a nice day.

Have an interest in this topic for various reasons .What I do know is that I asked my solicitor some years ago about this and his advice was that if I saw someone "trespassing " best thing was to pretend I had not seen them .Its back to the duty of care argument as Bass Reeves said ;as long as you do not intentionally harm them etc then you have no duty of care to uninvited guests .

Slightly higher standard for invited guests but again this is what your public liability is for .

Trespassing is a civil offence as far as I know ie you have to bring the case yourself .

From the Examiner article ;

Firstly the landowner is not to intentionally injure or harm the person, and secondly, the landowner is not to act with reckless disregard for their safety.

Thats all you have to do .

The purpose of "no trespassing" sign, its only a deterrent.

I have never seen a legal action about this, and Gardai will not get involved - its a civil matter.

Its happened on my land, when I challenged a couple of people, what were they doing?

I have signs and fences everywhere on my perimeter, just happens to be a very scenic area.

I got a load of guff about right to roam, land should be enjoyed by all.

I am not Jack Reacher, so not going to take on people in a possible fight.

In the case of the woman who paraphrase

‘sued the National Parks and Wildlife Service, who placed the boardwalk on the lands. Last year at Dublin Circuit Court judge Jacqueline Linnane found the NWPS was negligent and was ordered to pay Wall €40,000 damages.

The NPWS, who denied negligence, appealed that ruling to the High Court. How many people would have the means to appeal a €40k award to the high court?

I think it’s safe to assume that NPWS didn’t intentionally set out to harm her but the circuit court saw fit to award her €40k.

I doubt either the woman set out to intentionally injure the child but it cost her €6k

No issue on your point of duty of care is to not intentionally harm anyone but case law will show that where negligence is proven, whether intentional or not, that liability or part of will lie with landowner. A simple google will provide plenty of evidence. I’m not a subscriber to the examiner but I can read their articles

but anyways Bass I’ll leave it with you and hopefully for you, you’ll never find out and more importantly I hope I never find out.

I wouldn't be defending it my insurance company would. And they have appealed any of these cars they lost to the High court and onto the Supreme court if necessary. That is why all case law shows that the legislation is robust. That is why I pay for insurance.

The NPWS like many government bodies or larger companies self insure and again they pursue cases where they consider judges make incorrect decisions. The first main case law on this was where FBD pursued a case where a women slipped down a cliff and a HC judge gave a significant award as the cliff edge was not properly fenced . The SC red that the women should have known that because there was a fence there even though it was in poor condition that by going beyond she was at risk and should have known it

As Paddydream solicitor advised I ignore trespassers and because they are uninvited guests my insurance company will sort the rest. That is what I pay insurance for

.

They are plenty places in this country to walk dogs we are blessed with lovely parks and walks and greenways all over Ireland. There is absolutely no need to be entering people's private property and places of business.

No, it's up to uninvited members of the public onto your land to take care of their own safety. You can't recklessly endanger them, by say building a pit trap with stakes in it, with the intent of injuring someone. But that's the sort of reckless endangerment you'd have to do, in order to answer a case. The Occupiers Liability Act was brought in precisely to address this issue.

On the other hand, you do have a duty of care to people who you actively invite onto your land - whether neighbours or contractors etc. Where landowners agree to public walkways and greenways etc., the state will indemnify them once they are open and approved.

As for the OP, does it not depend on who they are and what they're about, time of year etc.

In relation to NPWS and the boardwalk woman, the circuit court made an error and the case was appealed and rightfully turned over. She should have been looking where she was walking. Full stop.

In relation to Spike Woman, that may well fall into the area of reckless endangerment - just like building a pit trap. She deliberately had the spiked fence built with that knowledge and intent.

You don’t have public liability insurance?

That doesn’t seem like a good idea either…

I am not twisting the argument. The facts are clear. with public liability insurance I would not be fighting the case it would be my insurance company. The other fact is the 1996 act has stood the test of time. Yes there has been cases but in any case where an adult was not deliberatly hurt there has been no pay out. It is insurance companies and larger organisations that handle these cases. That is not twisting anything it plain and simple facts

I have no problem with people deciding to keep there lands or property private. but when peopleuse the excuse that treasspers couldsue them as a reason I consider it scare mongering. It is grand to say there is plenty of parks and greenways, however many of these can be 30 minutes to an hour from people and it may not be feasible for them to travel there for a 20-30 minute walk.

The problem I have with cases like that is the judge not awarding costs to the defending entity. Just because it is a big public organisation why should it have to pay it own costs in a failed case. There tend to be risks legal professionals will take for clients suing large public or private organisations know that if they lose costs will not be awarded against them. I have seen it in accidents at work etc. In one case 20-30 years ago the judge told the defending council that they should maybe negotiate a settlement even though there defence was rock solid. The defending entity asked there defence team what was the story and they were told that the judge '' not only did he the judge not want to award costs against the plantiff he was looking for there legal team to be looked after''. The owner of the company was shocked he was staniding to lose 20-30K in costs. He instructed his barrister to tell the other legal team that he was not settling and he was willing appeal the case to the supreme court if the judge awarded against him. his own legal team was shocked but the other side backed down.

No house insurance??? 😯