if kids get hurt with fence

blastit

If someone has a fence around their property. Kids use it to balance while learning to roller skate. If they fall and hit off fence on way down is the owner responsible?

What would absolve the responsibility? A sign to say Keep off? If so should it just say keep off or mention anything else such as "no responsibility for ..."etc

Bepolite

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/

blastit

Bepolite wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/

would that be recreational users or trespassers

I do not understand that legalese. If anyone would like to comment in English

Is this reckless or what ever it is called

Bepolite

blastit wrote: »

would that be recreational users or trespassers

Why would it matter?

blastit wrote: »

I do not understand that legalese. If anyone would like to comment in English

You mean provide you with a definitive answer of preferably two or less syllables? The charter is even clearer than the OLA

blastit wrote: »

Is this reckless or what ever it is called

Might be, might not. Let us know how you get on in court, because whether it is or isn't that's where you're likely to end up if a child is injured by it. Make sure you have legal coverage on you household insurance and you may or may not be covered depending on the T&Cs of your insurance. More reading I'm afraid.

blastit

Bepolite wrote: »

Why would it matter?

i think the statut book makes a distinction

You mean provide you with a definitive answer of preferably two or less syllables? The charter is even clearer than the OLA

no im mean discuss in English

Might be, might not. Let us know how you get on in court, because whether it is or isn't that's where you're likely to end up if a child is injured by it. Make sure you have legal coverage on you household insurance and you may or may not be covered depending on the T&Cs of your insurance. More reading I'm afraid.

i do not have and am not in court. be smart with someone else. you are not the comedian you seem to think from your posts. if you are not interested in discussing then don't bother

Bepolite

My posts may have been flippant, for which I apologise, however they are not without some understanding of the area.

Firstly the statue book makes no distinction so that's taken care of, there are some issues if the person is on the property committing a crime but that is not at issue here.

Secondly, although flippantly put, you will almost certainly end up in court if a child is injured. My point ref your insurance was a serious one.

Again I apologise for being flippant but you're not looking for a legal discussion, you're looking for definitive legal advice, which the charter precludes. It gets my goat when people roll up here, don;t read the charter and then won't engage in even the most basic exercise of reading a clearly worded statute. That said no excuse for being a knob I grant you.

blastit

Bepolite wrote: »

My posts may have been flippant, for which I apologise, however they are not without some understanding of the area.

Firstly the statue book makes no distinction so that's taken care of, there are some issues if the person is on the property committing a crime but that is not at issue here.

Secondly, although flippantly put, you will almost certainly end up in court if a child is injured. My point ref your insurance was a serious one.

Again I apologise for being flippant but you're not looking for a legal discussion, you're looking for definitive legal advice, which the charter precludes. It gets my goat when people roll up here, don;t read the charter and then won't engage in even the most basic exercise of reading a clearly worded statute. That said no excuse for being a knob I grant you.

assumption. if i am then everyone who is not linked to a statue book is seeking definite legal advice
apology accepted.

Bepolite

blastit wrote: »

assumption. if i am then everyone who is not linked to a statue book is seeking definite legal advice
apology accepted.

No, some areas might not be defined under legislation. Your question is answered by the statue book in this instance. Regardless perhaps someone else has a take on it.

An excellent article on recklessness can be found here, again I'm not going to presume to interpret William Binchy. www.claruspress.ie/TORT1.pdf‎

you may need to type in that link.

blastit

Bepolite wrote: »

No, some areas might not be defined under legislation. Your question is answered by the statue book in this instance. Regardless perhaps someone else has a take on it.

An excellent article on recklessness can be found here, again I'm not going to presume to interpret William Binchy. www.claruspress.ie/TORT1.pdf‎

you may need to type in that link.

well, you do not know i wanted legal advice you assumeed it

Bepolite

blastit wrote: »

well, you do not know i wanted legal advice you assumeed it

Well let me know what you think of Prof. Binchy's take on the subject and I'll gladly debate you. I personally find his points on McNamara interesting and pertinent to your hypothetical scenario.

Cody Pomeray

Bepolite wrote: »

Well let me know what you think of Prof. Binchy's take on the subject and I'll gladly debate you. I personally find his points on McNamara interesting and pertinent to your hypothetical scenario.

I love how Binchy quotes Geoghegan J quoting Binchy.
He's so meta.

NoQuarter

Well the legislation does distinguish between recreational users and trespassers. There is no distinction between the duty of care to be afforded to each though. See the interpretation of the Act for the distinction.

The duty is not to intentionally damage the person or not to act with reckless disregard. Spikey strips.... really?