Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Walking on your land

2

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    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.



  • Registered Users Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭Dunedin


    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Dinzee Conlee


    You don’t have public liability insurance?

    That doesn’t seem like a good idea either…



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,964 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves



    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.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,392 ✭✭✭✭Furze99


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,872 ✭✭✭John_Rambo




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,872 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,611 ✭✭✭Mooooo


    Know a man whos house burned down, no insurance. In a tight bind now



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,872 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    Each to their own, as they say.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,356 ✭✭✭green daries




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,356 ✭✭✭green daries


    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



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    i would say nothing but the very next day i would get a large PRIVATE PROPERTY sign...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    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 " !!!!!!!!!!!!!!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    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 .



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,872 ✭✭✭John_Rambo


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    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...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,512 ✭✭✭✭whisky_galore


    About as much legal standing as putting up a plastic Santy.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,209 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    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.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    It takes away the duty of care to trespassars..



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,150 ✭✭✭Dinzee Conlee


    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?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    Nah they wouldn't go near that at all .Remember as a kid heading down with a spade to look for "buried treasure " .

    Still looking .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    Not really as your duty of care to trespassers is as Bass Reeves stated earlier in the thread .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    Never mentioned "your " dog but anyways .

    You graze sheep on leased land and have no insurance ? Smart move .Or perhaps you meant that you just don't bother with house insurance but have public liability etc etc on the farming enterprise ?


    Actually why would you bother with sheep if you have made all that money with bitcoin ? Know they would be gone here in a flash if I ever strike it big with the 6 numbers .



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    I think private property with a gate means no claim will come...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    Not really .Trespassers have a very very limited cover .Really as long as you don't intentionally harm them then its on their own head .Someone mentioned 3 categories earlier .Think thats trespassers ,invited people and then children under (?) .

    A gate will hardly stop a trespasser .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    I am talking about liability for injury... i actually do not know but its my gut feeling...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,964 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    I think it Guests, uninvited guests and recreational users who are treated as uninvited guests. U16's are excluded from the he legislation

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,209 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    Three categories under the statute:

    1) Visitor

    2) Recreational user

    3) Trespasser

    The second category does not strictly have to have owners permission and has a slightly higher duty of care than trespasser. The people coming to visit the monument in your case would most likely be in category 2. Note that, technically speaking, permission can be implied - even for what you might otherwise consider to be a trespasser.

    All the above pertains only to the physical state of the property. The statute replaced old common law for examples where that is the case. If the matter at hand is related to an activity for example, it does not come under the statute and is still under the old common law.


    Edit: Just on Bass's point about age, as far as I am aware age, age has nothing to do with the statute. It may affect how the statute is interpreted or applied but it is not in the statute itself.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    Thought there were 3 different types alright but couldn't remember what they were .

    Wonder if shooters are trespassers or recreational users ?

    Suppose it depends on whether you gave them permission or not .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,964 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    If I was U30 again I would seriously consider putting health insurance into an investment account, especially if your family has a fairly good health history.

    All insurance companies take a margin However in the case of house insurance the financial risk outweighs the premium as a serious incident is a life changing experience. I know of an incident about 20 miles away where a shed of straw in went up in flames, it did serious damage to the house some machinery parked adjacent to it as well as a milking parlour. Total cost will probably be in the 3-500k mark.

    I myself have had a roof go off a round barn hay shed and a garage 40+ years ago. A person that my wife knows had a house go on fire. There was an incident locally where a women who likes her GnT's had a serious house fire but no insurance. There was a fundraiser, I deliberately avoided and I go to most fundraisers. I actually went to the Tractor run that was twenty miles away because even though he had insurance I know well he will struggle to get full costs back from.the insurance company.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,209 ✭✭✭✭Donald Trump



    They could possibly be still classified as recreational users even if you did not explicitly give them permission. I am not aware of any examples.

    From the Act:

    “recreational user” means an entrant who, with or without the occupier's permission or at the occupier's implied invitation, is present on premises without a charge (other than a reasonable charge in respect of the cost of providing vehicle parking facilities) being imposed for the purpose of engaging in a recreational activity

    I would think that that would a scenario where having signs up might work in your favour. You can always exclude your duty of care towards the visitor category (but not absolutely - you basically can just downgrade it)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,110 ✭✭✭✭cnocbui


    You misunderstand, I own the property and lease the grazing to someone else. It's up to them to carry insurance to cover their activities. The house on the property was insured for years, but then the insurance broker said the insurers would no longer insure it for 350 punts due to it being unattended most of the time and wanted more than double, so that was the end of the insuring it. 20 uears later and have saved close to €18,000.

    I don't have a mortgage on my house, so if it burnt to the ground I could move to my other property and freeze in winter. A 0.6% risk is one I'll take.

    Not for this reason, but I am planning to sell up and move to NZ, where coincidentally, there is currently no CGT, or several other taxes Ireland has. It's not so much a sell at price as a not while I am living here price.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    But if you are the landowner you also have potential for problems .Easy enough for a tenant to wash his hands of responsibility in certain cases .Relying on the tenant and his insurance to totally absolve you of any liability is not exactly sharp but then again I suppose you must have saved loads of money over the years .

    An unoccupied house is a slightly different proposition as I initially understood you were living in the house .Probably not really worth insuring if idle 20 plus years .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,349 ✭✭✭✭Base price


    My late Mother never had the family home insured. I only found out after she died and her solicitor insisted that we get it insured - something to do with probate until it's sold. I was given the task (by my siblings) of getting insurance quotes which proved to be very difficult as most companies wouldn't quote because the house hadn't been insured in the previous five years. Our own insurance broker eventually got it sorted for €1100.00. The premium came down last year and again this year to around €900. My Sister lives in the house and only for that I doubt we would have got any cover.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    That sounds seriously expensive to be honest .

    Houses here are c. 300/350 a year to insure .

    Is there a no claims bonus to be built up for property same as motor insurance ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,964 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    There is not a NCB related to property it's all totally risk based. It a common mistake made on making a claim. It similar to a mistake made that elder people make about health insurance. In house insurance people think that if you make a claim that your premium will rise after a claim. In the case of HI people think that because of there health risk they will not get similar cover if they change providers.

    In the case above its all risk based, ideally you need a risk analyst to access the risk. In the case of houses this is not always possible.

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,964 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Hmmm, never insured the house and instead spent the money loading up on Bitcoin in 2016? Why 2016? 2017 was when it came to everyones attention, before that it was just a way for geeks to compare horsepower on their pcs or of buying drugs and child porn online.

    EDIT: Actually nevermind putting the insurance money into crypto in 2016, emptying the bank account to do so?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,426 ✭✭✭maestroamado


    I expect there be a liability between the executor of your moms intentions and the solicitor in case anything went wrong to have insurance...



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,779 ✭✭✭paddysdream


    Well knew the bit about claims as have had a few here over the years ,the last one being about 8 years ago for a 5 figure sum (don't ask !) and it never affected my premium in the slightest .Only thing was to declare it when pricing around each year as they usually ask if you had any claims in the previous x years plus any open ones .

    More wondering why the premium above was so high (well in my view ).Its been a while since I took out insurance for the first time .Normal dwelling house cover is 300/500 euro I would think based on what I pay here plus a few other people I know .Its (value for insurance purposes )based on rebuilding costs plus contents as a percentage .



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,964 ✭✭✭✭Bass Reeves


    The reason the premium is do high is that no engineer will give a certificate that there is no risk here. He cannot certify what he cannot see. That adds risk

    Slava Ukrainii



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,337 ✭✭✭Wombatman




  • Registered Users Posts: 2,372 ✭✭✭Dunedin


    This was the point I was making in regard to the Harrow left in the grass. I’ve talked to a friend who is a solicitor and also my insurance rep and they both said there may be liability in such an instance.



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Ordered a few "No Dags allowed" signs in anticipation of the New Year influx of dickheads.



  • Advertisement
Advertisement