What would you do if you saw a stranger walking on your land with a dog on a lead?
BTW, I from the city.
Was a good move on the bitcoin, but a lot depends on how much was in the bank account in 2016 😀
Still, you're about 50 times up I would guess. Not bad in 5 years...
As a matter of interest, do you have a number at which you'll sell at?
It takes away the duty of care to trespassars..
If that attraction is a registered monument then it's illegal for the metal detector lads to be near it. I wouldn't be letting them in if that was the case and it was me.
About as much legal standing as putting up a plastic Santy.
Funny you should mention me and my dog - which I don't happen to have - but someone dropped several over the fence of a property I lease the grazing of and 54 sheep were slaughtered or had to be put down. But thanks for the suggestian that I might be the sort of person to do something like that.
Foolish, that's me all right - what posessed my to empty a bank account to buy bitcoin in 2016 and still have it, is beyond me.
I agree with you entirely if there is an attraction it needs be open... that's different to a stranger wandering through property... i have hares and pheasants here but i do not tell anyone... i am not anti-hunting as long as its food... I do not tell people they are here so they not be coming around... There are also badgers... are they bad for disease as some people say...
Have to say, over years of canoeing the inland waterways & rivers and camping along the way, I've never been refused permission to camp by a farmer. Even before they were navigable and were were shooting rapids and weirs we were met with interest and welcomed, even offered dinner & space to park the car on a few occasions.
We always asked permission though.
Oh and on the house insurance thing ,anyone who thinks they are smart saving maybe 200/300 euro a year by not insuring their property is someone who is the very definition of penny wise , pound foolish .
Also they had better not have a dog ever worry my sheep because it will be coming from their own pocket rather than the insurance company in that scenario .
Be handy to fence a gap if sheep were escaping but other than that ?
I have something on my land ,actually adjoining one farmyard ,that is an attraction .Its private property (have the deeds ,OPW or whatever they were called at the time ,signed it over to us in the 1940's )but have no issue with people calling in to look at it etc .Often see some looking from the road and would always ask if they would like to go and see it .Have met some very interesting people over the years .
No bother with people shooting pheasant ,foxes etc as long as they ask first .
On the other hand have had the Gardai out here a couple of times after the half hound brigade .
Think its really down to each individual case ,like most things in life .No hard and fast rules although did ask a local farmer if he thought it was ok to shoot on my land without asking me while he had "no shooting land preserved " signs on his own gates .Think he got the message as he hasn't been around since.
Have a couple of lads who metal detect as well during the Summer .
All fine and well being a stickler but have a few times gotten a call about a ewe on her back (one lad kept one upright till she came round ) a lamb stuck in a ditch or drain or a heifer after breaking out .
Maybe that's cause I am ,in the words of a local man "a hell of a nice fella " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i would say nothing but the very next day i would get a large PRIVATE PROPERTY sign...
I have and quite a few of them your not going to get much by the way of investment for 350/400 EURO per year
A bit mad imo
Each to their own, as they say.
Nope, I don't work in insurance, I just know a lot of people, have a broad social & family group & have lived in a few different places. My own house was flooded in the city centre along with all my neighbours. The ones that didn't have insurance suffered massive financial losses, another friend (farmer) had their house very very badly damaged with frost and snow (house still isn't right after decades), another friend from work had everything in his house destroyed by smoke from an electrical fault and one more I know from sports had a house fire.
That's fine, but you might work in insurance or some other job that would bring you into contact with this tiny group of people, for all I know. Neither of my paents ever new anyone who suffered a house loss, no one I have known over the course of my life has suffered a house loss. I couldn't find the stats for ireland, but for the UK, house fires would appear to effect 0.6% of dwellings in a given year.
That's a punt I'm willing to take. Flooding isn't a prospect.
I'm not suggesting you or anyone else not have home insurance. I personally decided it's not worth the cost and that the risks are minuscule.
Know a man whos house burned down, no insurance. In a tight bind now
You may think I might say that but I wouldn't. I have met people that had their houses destroyed by floods and fires and have had everything replaced by house insurance. If they had no insurance they'd have a life-altering financial loss.
No. You might say I put money saved on insurance premiums into investments. I have never personally encountered anyone who lost their house and needed insurance to replace it.
No house insurance??? 😯
I absolutely agree - full costs of both sides should be borne by those taking and losing these cases. That'd soften the coughs of the chancers out there.
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.
Nope. Dont have home insurance either. Think of the Dr who nearly killed himself wirth a shotgun while poaching on my land. What's he going to blame me for? A trespasser goes for a swim in the lake and drowns - not my fault.
You don’t have public liability insurance?
That doesn’t seem like a good idea either…
You are making a huge deal over a single case, which shows how weak it is given there's only the one. How much of the €40K did she get again? I don't have insurance and haven't been concerned.
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.
Regarding the two cases posted earlier, 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, 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.
we had hunters and hounds on our land and one guy took two dogs and and spade and must have dug out a fox on our land and never asked permission, the cheek of some people
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.
You’re some man to twist the argument.
sure why would you need insurance, why would insurers go to court if there’s no liability on any unintentional injury?
won’t a one liner citing the no duty of care against trespassers do the job. Case dismissed. It’s amazing that the circuit court doesn’t know the law and someone like your good self knows it all.
