legal aspects of protecting a fence

fencedin

What would be the situation re putting these on top of a 4 foot fence around front of house to stop kids from interfering with it. Suppose the kids cannot read and get hurt? I don't think serious hurt is possible but.....

Part of it borders the public path so that woul be no no woul d it?

Also what about the messy non drying anti burgular paint

Ken.

A friend of mine got them spikes to keep cats out and was told by a guy in the builders providers that "they cannot be placed on top of any fence less than 6 foot high" Now he just took the guys word for it and never checked it any further.As it was the fence was 7 and a half foot high but the guy in the shop made sure to mention the 6 foot thing.

slimjimmc

This might help...
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/sec0004.html

kippy

fencedin wrote: »

What would be the situation re putting these on top of a 4 foot fence around front of house to stop kids from interfering with it. Suppose the kids cannot read and get hurt? I don't think serious hurt is possible but.....

Part of it borders the public path so that woul be no no woul d it?

Also what about the messy non drying anti burgular paint

I would think kids would be able to get over a four foot fence if they wanted to, with this on top or not.

crazyderk

slimjimmc wrote: »

This might help...
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/sec0004.html

So I read and re-read this act a couple of times,
At first I thought no, the OP can NOT put them up due to this

4.—(1) In respect of a danger existing on premises, an occupier owes towards a recreational user of the premises or a trespasser thereon (“the person”) a duty—

(a) not to injure the person or damage the property of the person intentionally, and

(b) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person,


Sounds very straight forward doesn't it?

However

except in so far as the occupier extends the duty in accordance with section 5 .


Section 5 shows

5.—(1) An occupier may by express agreement or notice extend his or her duty towards entrants under sections 3 and 4 .

(2) (a) Subject to this section and to section 8 , an occupier may by express agreement or notice restrict, modify or exclude his or her duty towards visitors under section 3 .

(b) Such a restriction, modification or exclusion shall not bind a visitor unless—

(i) it is reasonable in all the circumstances, and

(ii) in case the occupier purports by notice to so restrict, modify or exclude that duty, the occupier has taken reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the visitor.

(c) For the purposes of paragraph (b) (ii) an occupier shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have taken reasonable steps to bring a notice to the attention of a visitor if it is prominently displayed at the normal means of access to the premises.

Does this not mean that if theOP puts up a notice about the spikes (even if they are only atop of a 4 foot high fence) then he should be covered to put up the spikes?

littlemac1980

No, I don't think so. The restriction of duty that Section 6(2) allows is only toward visitors. Though it is possible to extend the duty owed to recreational users and trespassers, it isn't possible to restrict it further than as defined in the act. That's my understanding of it anyway.

I don't think the the op considers the children as visitors, though that wouldn't make any difference given that we're clearly not discussing negligence.

Victor

fencedin wrote: »

Also what about the messy non drying anti burgular paint

Putting it somewhere that someone could readily and accidentally get it on their clothes might consititute something in the region of criminal damage.

fencedin

crazyderk wrote: »

So I read and re-read this act a couple of times,
At first I thought no, the OP can NOT put them up due to this

4.—(1) In respect of a danger existing on premises, an occupier owes towards a recreational user of the premises or a trespasser thereon (“the person”) a duty—

(a) not to injure the person or damage the property of the person intentionally, and

(b) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person,


Sounds very straight forward doesn't it?

However

except in so far as the occupier extends the duty in accordance with section 5 .


Section 5 shows

5.—(1) An occupier may by express agreement or notice extend his or her duty towards entrants under sections 3 and 4 .

(2) (a) Subject to this section and to section 8 , an occupier may by express agreement or notice restrict, modify or exclude his or her duty towards visitors under section 3 .

(b) Such a restriction, modification or exclusion shall not bind a visitor unless—

(i) it is reasonable in all the circumstances, and

(ii) in case the occupier purports by notice to so restrict, modify or exclude that duty, the occupier has taken reasonable steps to bring the notice to the attention of the visitor.

(c) For the purposes of paragraph (b) (ii) an occupier shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, to have taken reasonable steps to bring a notice to the attention of a visitor if it is prominently displayed at the normal means of access to the premises.

Does this not mean that if theOP puts up a notice about the spikes (even if they are only atop of a 4 foot high fence) then he should be covered to put up the spikes?

but the kids being not able to read?

smurnoff1486

Right getting away from the legal aspects of spikes, we apply tar or grease to tops of Walls and gates etc to keep people away, not dangerous but generally if you put your hands in it once you wont do it again!