Landowners may be cautious to give permission to walk lands

J.R.

Landowners may be cautious to give permission to walk lands when reading this article for fear of being sued / held responsible for obstacles / gates / walkways on their lands.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/hill-walker-injured-on-rotting-boardwalk-on-wicklow-way-awarded-40000-damages-34631076.html

Cass

Was that public land?

No farmer would allow walkers on their land. Well none that i know for this, and many other reasons. Also the majority of hunters have their own insurance. No walkers have that.

cookimonster

This happened on 'state owned' land therefore the state was deemed liable.....

Although the law is an ass and technically trespassers can and have sued landowners (many a burglar has done this) Cass is right that walkers would not be allowed on private land.

There was an issue with right a ways and the OPW clashed with private land owners in the late 1990s

Cass

Here is a solution. BAN THEM ALL.

You cannot sue if you are not allowed on the land. Better again make each one of them get insurance same as hunters do. Make them pay into a fund for the upkeep of the lands, walkways, bridges, etc. Make them register online, and before they can walk any lands they must book their day, time and route. You know the same as the stalkers on Coilte have to.

Plus i don't believe for a second that an "experienced" hill walker would not test the integrity of any crossing. I have a few similar ones on land i have permission on and they have been there as long. Even though it held me one week doesn't mean it will the following.

Its going to have repercussion for everyone, and rightly so. Why would the National parks allow anyone else to walk the land if they may sue.

dodderangler

Cass wrote: »

Was that public land?

No farmer would allow walkers on their land. Well none that i know for this, and many other reasons. Also the majority of hunters have their own insurance. No walkers have that.

Unfortunately the one such land I hunt has a ridiculous amount of people just strolling around it. Not very safe especially with people out shooting. Not only that but the rubbish they leave around is a joke aswell. Unfortunately the land owner doesn't seem bothered by them

Cass

Unless they have permission to be on his land they're not just "out for a stroll" they're trespassing. Maybe this farce will convince the landowners to stop them.

dodderangler

Cass wrote: »

Unless they have permission to be on his land they're not just "out for a stroll" they're trespassing. Maybe this farce will convince the landowners to stop them.

Well that's what I had said about it but he doesn't give a toss tbh.sad times

VBull

Heard on the news earlier that the case is going to be appealed in the High court

BannerBarry

Ignoring the Appeal there has been an award made against a landowner, in this case the National Parks and Wildlife.
This could be you or me just as easily.
I frequently have walkers going through my land. I need to check what the cover is by my public liability.
Is putting a sign up asking for no trespassing any benefit in case of being sued?

Grizzly 45

It helps alright.But it ,like everything"depends" on the circumstances.. Is there an established "public right of way" on the land.IE somthing that the public have been using for over ten years. Because I belive that is changing too,we have a local problem with a cemetary that is surrounded by private property and there is a PROW to it for centuries over this now private property.The owner refuses to let relatives down to the cemetary unless they arewilling to collect keys,etc off him at certain hours.Reason is this public liability as well.[But in this case more ego than anytring on the landowners part].Its a very complex field[no pun intended] and you are better off getting pro legal advice on this one.

idnkph

The claim culture in Ireland has hit mental levels. So do we blame the people who claim or should we be looking at the judges who are awarding these ridiculous amounts of money.
Solicitors also have their hand in it too as the higher the claim the more money they get.
I wouldn't walk on anyone's land without asking permission. Even if I was given permission I wouldn't claiming of I had a fall or cut myself climbing over a fence or through a ditch.
People feel like someone else is responsible for them these days everywhere they go.
I can't see it ever changing tbh.

Birdnuts

BannerBarry wrote: »

Ignoring the Appeal there has been an award made against a landowner, in this case the National Parks and Wildlife.
This could be you or me just as easily.
I frequently have walkers going through my land. I need to check what the cover is by my public liability.
Is putting a sign up asking for no trespassing any benefit in case of being sued?

According to a legal chap on the radio last week, the issue was that the NPWS provided a wooden walkway that was specifically built for public use. The issue was that they didn't maintain it. In the case of ordinary Farmland, no such duty of care arises, so a member of the public injuring themselves for whatever reason on private farmland would have no claim. Eithier way I hope the appeal in this case is succesfull

Esel

'Old' sign:

Trespassers will be shot.
Survivors will be shot again.

:eek:

Grizzly 45

Prefer this sign seen in Kerry.


Make sure you can cross this field in eight seconds.
The Bull can do it in five!

breakemall

Is not the insurance or compensation fund cover most of us have as hunters primarily for damage we might do rather than injury we receive? I know some cover might extend to farmers who give permission for you to shoot but what about someone hunting where they have no formal permission? Or if you are injured by someone who either should not be there or who has no insurance themselves? Then the landowner is left holding the can.

I have public liability on my few acres just in case someone does trespass so I would imagine most landowners do the same. It is a few hundred €uros I have to hand out every year that I would rather spend on something else but better safe than sorry?

In this case we are all footing the bill because it was public land, no more than the trips and falls on the footpaths in the towns. The difference is if you hill walk, climb mountains etc. there is an added risk but nowadays everyone has rights but no one wants responsibilities?

Cass

Seems others are as worried about this disgrace.

Cass

VBull wrote: »

Heard on the news earlier that the case is going to be appealed in the High court

It is happening as we speak.

Cass

The high court upheld the NPWS' appeal and the damages awarded have been overturned.

Full article here.

Uriel.

I'm not surprised at all

John_Rambo

Excellent stuff. Can't believe she was awarded in the first place. I'd be a millionaire if I sued every beach, mountain, cliff, forest that gave me stitches and injuries.

Birdnuts

Cass wrote: »

The high court upheld the NPWS' appeal and the damages awarded have been overturned.

Full article here.

Nice to see a bit of commonsense in the courts for once

sniperman

true,the courts got it right for once

barnaman

Like to see the full judgment.

Speaking as a land owner not draw too much comfort from that report esp this

Mr Justice White said Ms Wall was "a genuine person" who had suffered injuries that had greatly affected her "active lifestyle".

However, he said when considering "the mechanism of her fall" the judge found there was "high degree of negligence” on her part in that “she was not looking at the surface of the boardwalk when she fell".

Mr Justice White added the case raised a number of complex legal issues.

sounds like was a narrow enough win and prob go to the Supreme Court.

Esel

barnaman wrote: »

Like to see the full judgment.

Speaking as a land owner not draw too much comfort from that report esp this

Mr Justice White said Ms Wall was "a genuine person" who had suffered injuries that had greatly affected her "active lifestyle".

However, he said when considering "the mechanism of her fall" the judge found there was "high degree of negligence” on her part in that “she was not looking at the surface of the boardwalk when she fell".

Mr Justice White added the case raised a number of complex legal issues.

sounds like was a narrow enough win and prob go to the Supreme Court.

Can't see her going to the Supreme Court over €40k, tbh.

barnaman

Not about €40k Esel she lost so what are the costs of both sides in a Circuit and High Court action that she may have to pay... will be in the €100,000s She will more likely than not appeal on costs alone its in her interest I assume

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/high-court-judge-hits-out-at-enormous-fees-being-charged-by-legal-teams-34956370.html

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/high-court-costs-ruling-wait-like-a-sword-over-my-head-355992.html

blackpearl

Cass wrote: »

The high court upheld the NPWS' appeal and the damages awarded have been overturned.

Full article here.

Good stuff,starting to worry their for a bit,involved in dog trialing on the mountains up their pointer and setter men will happy about it.

PL05

Cass wrote: »

The high court upheld the NPWS' appeal and the damages awarded have been overturned.

Full article here.

Great news. I firmly believe that if someone enters land's with or without permission they should not be able to hold land owners responsible for any loss or injury. Anyone that takes the decission to go hill walking should be made to do so accepting that there is obvious risks associated with doing so. Hills, farmland etc are not made of cotton wool. Inclement weather can change things in a heartbeat, even on the Best of maintained land's. The laws associated with certain claims are full of s**t, meaning that for land owners to protect themselves against claims would have to patrol they're land 24 hours a day, f**k**g impossible. It always makes my blood boil when I hear on news that during heavy snow some idiots decide to venture by car to areas such as the Wicklow gap/ Sally gap which at the Best of times is tricky driving conditions especially Sally gap and end up having to be rescued with rescuers risking themselves for a situation that shouldn't have happened in first place.

Cass

I'm glad it was overturned, but still a little angry it was even considered a worthwhile case.

Tort law in this country can be a joke at times especially when these cases can be brought. They need to be stopped before they ruin all our sports.

Nekarsulm

Did I read somewhere that her husband is a Solicitor?

ezra_

barnaman wrote: »

Like to see the full judgment.

Speaking as a land owner not draw too much comfort from that report esp this

Mr Justice White said Ms Wall was "a genuine person" who had suffered injuries that had greatly affected her "active lifestyle".

However, he said when considering "the mechanism of her fall" the judge found there was "high degree of negligence” on her part in that “she was not looking at the surface of the boardwalk when she fell".

Mr Justice White added the case raised a number of complex legal issues.

sounds like was a narrow enough win and prob go to the Supreme Court.

Full judgment will be interesting but the higher courts aren't going to make a statement along the lines of 'what they hell was the original justice thinking?'.

Although 'complex issues have been raised' there doesn't seem to be any change in orthodoxy when it comes to liability, so plus ca change.

Cass

Seems she is being told to pay her own legal costs.