Walking on your land

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??? 😯

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.

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.

Each to their own, as they say.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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