Wicklow Way Case

knucklehead6

Is the appeal for this case due today?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that it is.

Alun

I don't recall seeing an exact date, just "some time in the New Year", but I could be wrong. Fingers crossed it's the 'right' result either way.

knucklehead6

Alun wrote: »

Fingers crossed it's the 'right' result either way.

Exactly.

CardinalJ

This day next week.

unkel

That woman who claimed a big compo payout because she fell on the railway sleeper, or are we talking something completely different here?

knucklehead6

unkel wrote: »

That woman who claimed a big compo payout because she fell on the railway sleeper, or are we talking something completely different here?

Yep, that's the on Unkel.

I know we're not allowed discuss active court cases here, i was just wondering when the appeal is up

groovyg

High Court overturns hillwalker's €40k award for Wicklow Way fall

Alun

Great news!

unkel

Hopefully she'll stick to beach walks near Swords from now on. And not claim should she trip over a banana skin :rolleyes:

Red Kev

I'd reserve judgement on this one for a while (no pun intended). It says she was negligent, but it doesn't totally exonerate somebody like the NPWS from being sued sometime in the future. Legislation is still badly needed to sort this out for once and for all and to fully protect landowners who provide access to land, be they state or private landowners.

We badly need a law dealing with personal responsibility for things like this.

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.

After considering all the points raised he was satisfied that the NWPS was not negligent and said he was allowing the NPWS's appeal.

Tigerandahalf

It is an interesting case.

I wouldn't be surprised if she succeeded with a supreme court case.

The fact that she was walking on a man made structure (that should then have been maintained) seems to me to be different to natural terrain that a walker might cross on a farmer's land.

The tourism authorities were promoting this as an attraction to visitors from home and abroad.

I wonder if a young German kid had fell would the outcome be different?

Of course it is great that land is free to walk after the judgement.

Is there any onus on authorities now to maintain greenways etc?

Has the cost of this case for the NPWS been greater than the money required to maintain the boardwalk?

Quackster

An appeal would be to the Court of Appeal. She has no automatic right of appeal to the Supreme Court.

Be she's already facing a potentially significant legal bill. If she doesn't appeal though, she may be let off having to pay NPWS's legal fees.

unkel

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I wonder if a young German kid had fell would the outcome be different?

Yes it would. It wouldn't even have occurred to the young German to blame anyone but himself. Never mind sue somebody over it :rolleyes:

Red Kev

Red Kev wrote: »

I'd reserve judgement on this one for a while (no pun intended). It says she was negligent, but it doesn't totally exonerate somebody like the NPWS from being sued sometime in the future. Legislation is still badly needed to sort this out for once and for all and to fully protect landowners who provide access to land, be they state or private landowners.

We badly need a law dealing with personal responsibility for things like this.

And that is the nail on the head, from what is reported it says there was no finding of negligence on the facts, not that she had no cause of action. So while it's a good decision, it's not going to allay the fears of landowners, and it's not going to stop solicitors giving the same advice, if someone has access to your land you may be placed in an invidious position. Perhaps a change in the law to limit cases to those where the recreational user has paid to use the facility.

loobylou

unkel wrote: »

Yes it would. It wouldn't even have occurred to the young German to blame anyone but himself. Never mind sue somebody over it :rolleyes:

Came across a Dutch walker one evening a few years back at almost that exact place ie near JB Malone plaque. He tripped and fell, breaking a finger. I had to drive him to Loughlinstown hospital for treatment. Doubt he sued anyone though.

ford2600

The grey area that continues to exist comes at a huge cost to the nation and it's visitors.

For an example, as an island nation we have a paltry amount of cliff/shore walks; Kilkee (a couple of km), Ballycotton, bits and pieces on Slea Head, Crosshaven, maybe Ardmore (that I can think of in Munster). The rugged wild mountainous nature of our west coast, in particular, is our greatest natural resource yet it has limited access by foot.

I have the perfect land for a cyclocross race; that won't be happening irrespective of how water tight the indemnity appears to be. Can't see any legal representative leaving the landowner of the Civil Bill.

I have a really lovely ash wood. Recently a university asked me to use it for a forestry walk for students; no problem just drop me a line saying I wouldn't be in any way exposed in event of an accident. Never heard another thing, despite sending a few reminders.

This type of thing is replicated across the country

This grey area is one the primary reason why our woods, a state resource are underused.

Orion

groovyg wrote: »

High Court overturns hillwalker's €40k award for Wicklow Way fall

Was just reading that myself. Absolutely delighted. If she'd won the implications for hiking all over the country could have been disastrous.

CardinalJ

Its to be celebrated but its a bullet dodged.

exaisle

I would have thought that this was good news to those of us who enjoy a ramble in the countryside.....


http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0217/853394-teresa-wall-hillwalker-appeal/

longshanks

Common sense from a judge, there's hope for the country yet.

yosser hughes

longshanks wrote: »

Common sense from a judge, there's hope for the country yet.

It is great news. Had in not been overturned, the consequences could've been disastrous.

thebiglad

Already being discussed

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057556191&page=6

Pat Mustard

The problem that remains is the landowner's duty of care in respect of structures on land, for recreational users.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4

(4) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a structure on premises is or has been provided for use primarily by recreational users, the occupier shall owe a duty towards such users in respect of such a structure to take reasonable care to maintain the structure in a safe condition:
Provided that, where a stile, gate, footbridge or other similar structure on premises is or has been provided not for use primarily by recreational users, the occupier's duty towards a recreational user thereof in respect of such structure shall not be extended by virtue of this subsection.

If the legislation is not amended, what will happen is that stiles, footbridges, paths and other amenities which have been previously been constructed for the benefit of walkers, will become a source of potential liability to bodies such as NPWS.

If nothing is done about this, the logical conclusion would appear to be the removal of those amenities and removal of access to walkers, as self preservation exercises.

Tigerandahalf

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The problem that remains is the landowner's duty of care in respect of structures on land, for recreational users.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1995/act/10/section/4/enacted/en/html#sec4


If the legislation is not amended, what will happen is that stiles, footbridges, paths and other amenities which have been previously been constructed for the benefit of walkers, will become a source of potential liability to bodies such as NPWS.

If nothing is done about this, the logical conclusion would appear to be the removal of those amenities and removal of access to walkers, as self preservation exercises.

To be honest these things need to be maintained.

If you want to draw tourists and provide recreational facilities for people within Ireland you need to put money into these structures and maintain them properly.

The big issue that should get legal clarity is where people pass over land that hasn't been provided for the walker, where it is working land. The owner there should face no liability. You should enter whether child or adult at your own liability.

The bigger issue is why the NPWS isn't adequately funded so basic structures like board walks are maintained. Employing a couple of carpenters wouldn't go amiss.

Pat Mustard

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

The big issue that should get legal clarity is where people pass over land that hasn't been provided for the walker, where it is working land. The owner there should face no liability. You should enter whether child or adult at your own liability.

The bigger issue is why the NPWS isn't adequately funded so basic structures like board walks are maintained. Employing a couple of carpenters wouldn't go amiss.

I don't think that lack of clarity of the law is the problem.

The problem is the existence of the duty of care in relation to structures provided for recreational users.

The duty of care needs to be amended or removed, to take account of voluntary assumption of risk on behalf of the walker. Hillwalking is associated with risks and people should take responsibility for accepting those risks.

It should be borne in mind that it is open to walkers to take out their insurance to cover these risks but very few walkers bother with it.

If you want to ensure that these structures are maintained, a duty of care is not an efficient way to ensure such maintenence, from an economic perspective.

Orion

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The duty of care needs to be amended or removed, to take account of voluntary assumption of risk on behalf of the walker. Hillwalking is associated with risks and people should take responsibility for accepting those risks.

100% agree with this. Personal responsibility is rapidly becoming a thing of the past. Cases like this one are a perfect example. The law does need to be changed to put the onus back on the hillwalker for their own actions.

unkel

Orion wrote: »

Personal responsibility is rapidly becoming a thing of the past.

But why the hell is this the case? In most EU countries you wouldn't have a leg to stand on (pardon the pun ) in these cases

Perhaps if judges just started collectively throwing out "compo claims" based on accidents, the issue would just disappear. Accidents happen, if no one in particular "caused" the accident (i.e. like drove into you with their car), then it's your own risk and if you want cover, you need to insure yourself.

Pat Mustard

unkel wrote: »

Perhaps if judges just started collectively throwing out "compo claims" based on accidents, the issue would just disappear. Accidents happen, if no one in particular "caused" the accident (i.e. like drove into you with their car), then it's your own risk and if you want cover, you need to insure yourself.

The Occupiers Liability Act 1995 is an act of the Oireachtas. This is an issue to be resolved by the Government rather than the courts.

Pat Mustard

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The Occupiers Liability Act 1995 is an act of the Oireachtas. This is an issue to be resolved by the Government rather than the courts.

That's precisely the problem. The Act allows for such claims. In this instance, there was no finding of negligence. But a case involving, for example, a child might have a wholly different outcome. The advice to landowners will not change because of this case, it'll still be "yes, you may be liable if your land contains some structure used by recreational users".

Tigerandahalf

When ye say 'structures for recreational use' I presume ye are talking about stiles, boardwalks, etc.

But who would have put these in place?
Would the landowner have put in stiles so people wouldn't open gates or trample boundary fences?

If that is the case the government should be offering some indemnity. Otherwise as a landowner you would be crazy to leave people onto your land.

I can see why people would want to overturn that.

unkel

Pat Mustard wrote: »

The Occupiers Liability Act 1995 is an act of the Oireachtas. This is an issue to be resolved by the Government rather than the courts.

Well that piece of legislation should be thrown out then. Who came up with this nonsense in the first place? If I go onto someone's private land and get hurt, how is it just / right to blame the owner for it?

I'd say most people sue (for ridiculous sums) because they can. And they want a new kitchen / car :rolleyes: