Stopping trespassers

CreadanLady

The General principles of prevention in the Safety legislation basically give you the principles of how to run a safe operation.

The occupiers liability act says that you have a duty of care towards people, including tresspassers.

If you do something reckless that causes a danger to people, well it would run foul of both the principles of prevention, and your duty of care.

So between the two, you are most unlikely to be able to defend yourself successfully.

Again the vast majority of the time, when accidents occur, the person who owns the land or the machine or animal or whatever, it almost always found to be at fault and bear liability in court.

A long time ago, if someone had an accident, they were usually blamed for incompetence or misuse or whatever, but those days a long gone. In the modern era, the person with the responsibility and insurance is almost universally liable, almost by default in practice, unless there is a compelling case to the contrary - an example of a compelling circumstance to absolve you of liability might be a bull in a secure yard with a locked gate, high fencing, and warning signs but someone on a dare breaks the lock, goes in and starts smacking the bull on the nose with a stick. You would probably be seen to have taken all reasonably practicable measures to make the situation safe, but despite that someone made a very concerted effort to defy everything you did and broke in, goaded the bull and got killed.

Basically, you can only get away with something if it is a genuinely freak occurrence that could not have been reasonably foreseen.

If you put a bull in a field that is close to an urban area and known to have tresspassers in it, then it is reasonably foreseeable that someone would be in the field and again and that the bull could harm them. You are just not going to get away with it if that happens. It is not going to wash with a judge.

That is just the reality of it, and there is no point moaning about it because that is the way it is.

And another thing, in the Safety legislation the burden of proof is actually reversed. If the HSA are prosecuting you, the legislation is such that you are pretty much presumed to be at fault and it is up to your to prove your innocence. Section 81 of the Act. That there, is pretty much how tough these laws are when you are faced with them. That is why nearly everyone pleads guilty as pleading not guilty is only going to make things worse for them.

I've had a browse through the HSA case records for recent years. Everyone plead guilty. All the verdicts were guilty. In fact, I cannot see a single case record where someone plead not guilty, let alone a verdict of not guilty.

So the OP needs to have a cool head, and think about it logically. Don't do anything rash or emotional that might increase his exposure to trouble. So stay away from the mad Road Runner & Coyote stuff from Looney Toons and be a bit more mature and grown up in their handling of the situation.

A good mantra is that everything you do , and every decision you make, you need to satisfy yourself that you can stand over it and justify it if you are ever challenged.

funkey_monkey

Is it an isolated field near housing? Maybe the best approach would be to get planning on it for sites and sell it on and use the money to buy a bit of more suitable ground elsewhere in the locality.

Can't see forestry being a runner as they trespassers would trash every slip and cost a fortune.

I'd advise tidying it up and slurrying it or ploughing it. Maybe rent it out to a spud man if it is big enough. If you have more than one field there will you be shifting the problem into your next field though?

keno-daytrader

For Gods sake, spread the slurry and problem over.

CreadanLady

Yeah, for a week or two.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118883990#Comment_118883990

Almost. The duty of care to a trespasser under the 1995 Act is only not to injure intentionally or through reckless disregard. The Act would probably not apply in the case of a bull unless a judge determined that the bull was a feature of the property itself. It also doesn't apply to an activity for example. It only applies to the actual "premises" itself - for example a hole of water in the middle of the land.

If the Act does not apply then you actually have a higher duty of care towards the trespasser. That is when the "reasonably foreseeable" aspect comes into play and you have a duty of "reasonable care" towards the trespasser.

If you have a bull in a field, and the field is secure as regards the bull, and reasonably secure so as to prevent access, and you have plenty of warning signs in place, then you would be pretty well covered unless it could be proven that you placed a wicked bull there intentionally to damage people.

Ultimately, you don't want to injure anyone, regardless of liability.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118879463#Comment_118879463

The Criminal Law (Defence and the Dwelling) Act 2011 disagrees. You can also legally shoot Travellers who encroach on your property..

CreadanLady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884186#Comment_118884186

I think it would be very much an uphill battle to be successful with that, even if you think you are pretty well covered.

I tell you this. I spoke to a guy very high up in councils some time ago about claims and liability and the like. He said that a lot of the time fighting claims is an utterly futile task. He said you know going into court that, regardless of how strong your defence case is, you are going to lose. Almost always. He said even if you did everything 100%, many judges take the view that, "well Johnny did get injured, therefore he deserves something at least. And since there is insurance (in the case of private landowner or a business) or an effectively infinite money pot (in the case of government bodies) therefore judgement will be awarded against them and in favour of Johnny", unless there is a very very compelling case to the contrary.

I was surprised. But it just shows that if there is a claim, the bar for exonerating yourself is exceptionally and practically unreachably high.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884208#Comment_118884208

That only allows for proportionate use of force appropriate to given circumstances. And the bar for that is pretty high in reality. To use force would only really be accepted by a judge if you were genuinely in mortal fear of the intruder killing or seriously injuring you or someone else. And the bar for use of force in defence of property would be even higher, such as you forcibly repelling someone who was intent on something like burning your house down. Someone threatening to steal or burn your car or steal your TV simply would not cut it, let alone a few teenagers on bikes messing around in your field.

"Defence" is the key there, even in the title of the Act. Brandishing a shotgun under your arm to intimidate a few teenagers on bikes is closer to going on the offensive. Plus, if you tried that with the wrong person there is a chance that you'd end up having it taken from you and used against you, or getting stabbed or something. To do so would be very foolish.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884208#Comment_118884208

You can also legally shoot Travellers who encroach on your property.

I don't think the act is quite phrased exactly like that

maestroamado

I am assuming you already have animals... If have not i would rent the field to a local farmer for a fee... this way you will not have responsibility for the animal... Bulls dont work for the whole year ans i expect all their work done in a few months... Lots of farmers have difficulty keeping them away from the work they do as they seem to like their job... I expect having a place like yours would work for both of you... a win-win as it were... you could likely sell tickets... Pampalona...

CreadanLady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884537#Comment_118884537

Ya and reading the act at purely at face value is another thing that and disregarding the nuances that go along with it are a trap people often fall into. For example,

" it shall not be an offence for a person who is in his or her dwelling, or for a person who is a lawful occupant in a dwelling, to use force against another person or the property of another person where—

(a) he or she believes the other person has entered or is entering the dwelling as a trespasser for the purpose of committing a criminal act, and

(b) the force used is only such as is reasonable in the circumstances as he or she believes them to be—

(i) to protect himself or herself or another person present in the dwelling from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act,

(ii) to protect his or her property or the property of another person from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act,

That does not entitle you to shoot someone dead if they come into your house to steal your car and your iphone, even if you in your own head thought that was a reasonable response.

I don't know the law in the USA, but you can legally shoot a person for a lot less there than you'd be allowed to here. There is a much lower value on human life in USA culture. One only has to look at the level of racism and inequality and the fact that healthcare is only accessible if you are of the privileged class to see that.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884593#Comment_118884593

There is a man currently locked up awaiting trial who was refused bail after shooting a trespasser. And that was someone highly educated and trained in law.

maestroamado

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884186#Comment_118884186

I think the responsibility of the land owner to keep animals on their property... if a trespasser goes on a property and gets injured tough... The problem for me is OP decided some people could trespass all be it with permission... I may be wrong but i do not think any need for sign unless there is right of way...

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884682#Comment_118884682

No. You would be far better off with the sign. Duty of care under common law it to take reasonable care that a trespasser is not injured. I think you might need one one H&S regulations anyway.

If it could be shown that that field was being used with the knowledge of the owner, who suddenly decided to place a dangerous animal there, that could constitute reckless disregard. A lot will depend on context.

You are normally allowed, for example, to potentially have spikes or glasses at the of walls along a boundary as a security measure. You obviously just can't have dangerous things at a height that a normal person could become injured. However there was a case where a boy got injured climbing across a wall. I think there was broken glass embedded in the top of it. It was given as evidence that the boys always played football in the area and would frequently have to retrieve their balls from the garden. So the judge found the property owner negligent as they would have been aware

Edit: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/injured-trespasser-wins-6-500-in-damages-1.1061484

maestroamado

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884729#Comment_118884729

you probably right... reminds me of...

young bull says to old bull... lets run down the hill and talk to a couple of these cows.... Auld bull replies... lets walk down and talk to them all...

CreadanLady

i dont get it

maestroamado

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884789#Comment_118884789

If you do don't tell anyone...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884537#Comment_118884537

Of course it isn't, but ask Frog Ward what he thinks about it.

K.G.

Gone a bit ridiculous. For what it's worth you have to reclaim your land first and then make it less appealing to trespassing and what ever activities they are involved. Really you're just trying to get them to move else

Easten

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118884729#Comment_118884729

That's an interesting case. I wonder does the same duty of care apply to Barbed wire on a boundary wall on the edge of a public road

Bass Reeves

First off slurry is only a short term solution it's duration is only 2-3 week at month most. Cost could be horrendous if the draw is long. As well if the land has been neglected it may be hard to carry out that option.

Reclaim may not necessarily stop them entering the land. When reclaimed what agri activity do you carry out. Tillage is not an option as they could leave object's such as bikes that will damage harvesters.

OP you will either have to live with the trespassers and keep informing guards of there presence or carry out an agri activity that will prevent there access.

For the quasi legal people the courts are quite clear you owe no duty if care to a trespassers as long as you do not intentionally attempt to injure them. This allows farmers to carry out agriculture activity without the fear of someone getting injured or even killed during trespassing. This law has been tested in many accidental cases and has never been successfully challenged. It is not just related to agriculture it has been used by Coilte ( a wooden broadwalk where some slipped), also by a Retailer carpark where a customer was taking a regular short cut and fell where there was steps available.

OP is entitled to carry out an agricultural activity on his land. He may change that activity either through economic necessity or in this case bacase he can carry out no other activity like sheep farming because of dog or tillage because of potential machinery damage or crop damage

If it was me I would clean any rubble etc into a corner of the field. Fence the field with electric fence if possible ( but because of potential theft of energiser you would probably have to use barbed wire. 3-4 rows. I have would install a crush and handling faculities( or probably use a portable crush when loading) . Then I would put in the JEx ideally or FRX bulls.

I would put in place appropriate signs at possible entry point beware of Bull or Electric fence. I would also make sure to have appropriate insurance in place.

Other than that it's do a deal.withnsome rough lads with horses and again put appropriate insurance in place.

whisky_galore

"Other than that it's do a deal.withnsome rough lads with horses.."

A neighbour did that once and things started sprouting legs and walking from our place. Do not invite in or engage with this subculture for any reason, they might end up being worse than the teenagers.

Dunedin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887052#Comment_118887052

https://www.independent.ie/business/farming/news/courts/10000-pay-out-for-farmer-injured-by-escaped-one-tonne-bull-at-ennis-mart-court-rules-41520731.html

Liability is far from the black and white you subscribe to.

assuming that the OP does not have any other JEX bulls, then an isolated purchase of same and putting them in that field, irrespective of signs, fencing, etc. would be a dicey prospect to defend in court in the event of serious injury and/or fatality.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887052#Comment_118887052

For the quasi legal people the courts are quite clear you owe no duty if care to a trespassers as long as you do not intentionally attempt to injure them.

Not quite true Bass. The Occupiers Liability Act was introduced to clear up some issues in that regard but it does not apply to every circumstance. Where that Act does not apply, you fall back to the common law. Pages 2 and 3 of the below link make a reference to the ESB case I mentioned plus one or two others. They are not farming related but that doesn't matter. Those are part of the common law and the duty of care is higher under that.

https://www.cpaireland.ie/CPAIreland/media/Education-Training/Study%20Support%20Resources/F1%20Bus%20Laws/Relevant%20Articles/the-duty-of-care-in-irish-tort-law.pdf

Ordinary agricultural activity is fine.

CreadanLady

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887235#Comment_118887235

100% and this the the point I have been trying to make all along. Unless you routinely have bulls on your farm, getting a one off purchase of an aggressive breed of bull (or a few of them) and putting them in a field that you know to be frequented by teenagers, well I would be leaning towards that been seen by a judge as reckless endangerment.

Because

1. you knew that they were a dangerous animal,
2. you knew that this particular field was popular with teenagers hanging around
3. as an experienced farmer you ought to have known that a bull and teenagers on the same turf was a highly risky mix
4. but you knowingly went ahead and did it anyway, knowing the potentially lethal consequences, and a man of your experience on the land ought to have known that teenagers accustomed to roaming that land are unlikely to pay much heed to warnings and signs.

I think at best it would be seen as reckless, and at worst seen as a deliberate act intended to cause harm to a trespasser.

Cluelessly causing a dangerous situation out of thoughtlessness or ignorance is one thing, but to deliberately and knowingly create a dangerous situation is a very different and much more serious affair.

You could rest assured, that the plaintiff's barrister in a civil case would be pounding this line of argument across the bench.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887235#Comment_118887235

Totally unrelated. In the case you quoted the person is treated as an invited guest in what is supposed to be a controlled environment. We have had this debate regarding recreational users and trespassers on agriculture land. The case you quoted would be similar to a person on a building site.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887468#Comment_118887468

I agree. However there has been no case since the act was introduced where a trespasser has successfully sued a farmer. The act has applied elsewhere as I said in the carpark and in the case of the recreational user and Coilte.

There is also the right of an individual to use there property to make a living through carrying out agriculture activity. Remember cows kill and injure more every year than bulls. A judge would have to make a definitive decision limiting an individual's use of his property, and limiting his ability to earn a living.

A landmark judgement like this would have massive implications and I cannot see a judge making such a decision lightly. There are some posters giving the impression that such a judgement is an open and shut case. I be of the opinion that the law would be very reluctant to pass such a judgement.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887600#Comment_118887600

There was outrage (for want of a better word) by farming groups when the ESB case was decided as it did have massive implications for farmers. People did not expect it at the time. It was part of the reason why the 1995 Act was brought in. For most land related issues, the Act will cover it and risk of a surprise is not there to the same extent.

Dunedin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887600#Comment_118887600

‘This law has been tested in many accidental cases and has never been successfully challenged. It is not just related to agriculture it has been used by Coilte ( a wooden broadwalk where some slipped), also by a Retailer carpark where a customer was taking a regular short cut and fell where there was steps available.’

Is a customer in a retail car park not an invited guest?

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887704#Comment_118887704

The customer is an invited guest into the carpark and the shopping area. This was a retailer ( supermarket not a retail park) who provide a safe parking area and an exit via steps ( and I presume wheelchairs) to access and egress to the street footpaths alongside. The was a rat run via a grass bank used by some shoppers. The case involved a shopper using this grassy bank who slipped and broke a bone. The court held that when the went onto the grassy area they were trespassers. As long as they were in the car park area, the steps to the footpath and the shopping area they were invited guest.

As I said the law is clear and has NEVER being successfully challenged.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887552#Comment_118887552

Yo are making assumptions that would put limits on property right, limits on the ability if a farmer to make a living and you are making assumptions based on a complete lack of farming knowledge.

As I said more people are killed and injured by cows than bulls. Your assumptions would mean the farmer could not place cows in the field either. I have been attacked by a ram and the except that I managed to pick up a Brussels sprout root I would have been seriously hurt by him.

You are implying chances of liability where they may not exist. Barristers and solicitors make any case they wish. The trespassers and recreation users act has NEVER been successfully challenged.

As I said you are making assumptions where a judge would be limiting the commercial choice of a farmer, his property right ( to earn a living from his land). To add to this his rights are already impinged because of the field being access by dogs and trespessers

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118887745#Comment_118887745

Bass, if you are referring to this case

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/5da0488f4653d07b2518fde0

I think it was more that the appeal judge said that the owner actually satisfied their duty of care rather to visitors rather than be considering the claimant to be a trespasser and that they basically weren't responsible for fencing off everything when they had clearly provided safe routes

maestroamado

I was just reading this morning that a man was accidentally shot 3 times a farmer a few weeks ago... interesting read...

iColdFusion

Just sell the land to some property developer for 27 million euro and retire 😄

Seriously I think slurry would do the job, even if you only do it two or three times over a few weeks its enough to change their behavior and get them to find somewhere else, no-one wants to fall off a bike into a pile of shite or have to wash their dog covered in it.

patsy_mccabe

Look, just take the Texas approach - Shoot, Shovel and Shut Up.

Works every time, most of the time.

Base price

I remember reading about a court case in the IFJ in the late 80's/early 90's. My memory of the details are hazy but a judge ordered a dairy farmer to remove a bull (that was running with cows) from his lands that was beside a recently built housing estate. The farmer claimed that he had the right to farm it and had sinage in place to warn that a bull was present. The judge took the view that minors may not be able to read/understand the signage. The judge made the comment that the farmer had recourse to using AI and running a bull wasn't necessary. I think the case was on the outskirts of Mullingar but stand corrected.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118888156#Comment_118888156

Ya I say that is the case. I think the 1995 act came into play as the plaintiff was a trespasser in that they did not park there to go shopping.

The appeal judge actually set the bar fairly high for any similar cases if you read the judgement. He mentioned that a golfer would be similar and that even in such a situation a child could have a weak case if he was playing on such a grassy bank.

There is similar case law building about recreational areas where the law seem to taking a lead on people personnel decision to do something and that it is reasonable to assume that they should have taken more care.

rs8

I got the biggest laugh out of alot of legal tripe talked here.

Regards the land .. as one poster suggested.. if its beside houses its probably zoned and worth a bit in the current climate. Probably selling it and getting a more suitable parcel of land would solve alot of problems.

From past experiance a neighbour of mine had a similar problem and bought weanlings not pinched for this certain field .. as they came on and got big for the summer months they spent alot if time in that field. He had all his fences right and gates lock etc. Never had a problem after that.. he got hard to go into the field himself. Your a farmer .. you have the right to put what ever animal you want into the field .. your intensions are hear say

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118888425#Comment_118888425

The judge only referred to the claimant as a "visitor" and assessed only the duty of care to visitors. The word "trespass" (or "trespasser") does not appear in the judgment.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118888430#Comment_118888430

Well you can laugh at the legal "tripe" all you wish. As they say - ignorance is bliss, but if you find yourself suddenly on the wrong side of the system, ignorance of the law will not be taken as an excuse.

Your story about your buddy is irrelevant as nobody was injured. What the OP was concerned about was liability if someone did get injured. It didn't arise for your buddy. It won't arise in most cases. If it does arise, then you might find out that the law is "unfair". At that stage it is too late to go back to leave yourself in a better position

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118888430#Comment_118888430

There is factors aside from the legal tripe as you put it. Selling may seem an easy out. But at present with inflation having money in the bank is leaving it at the mercy of inflation.

Buying again. OP may feel this piece of land has good investment potential and may not have maximised yet. Trying to buy land instead of it will have costs in the 10%+ region. Looking at other property house prices dictate against a rental investment. Renovation costs dictate against buying property to do up. I would not have ever had commercial property so I will not venture a guess as to its suitability.

After that pension/stock market investment have there downsides as well.

damn neighbours

The land is rural. 4km from a village 6km from a town. There is one house next to the field where the kid will kick the ball over the wall and retrieve, no problem with that.

The people on bikes aren't kids, maybe leaving cert or earlier 20's and they park their cars down the road. I have two number plates taken note off.

Yesterday, I brought the digger in and drove over ramps, dug some holes and pushed some stones into the holes. It started raining so I ended up just making a mess for a finish. I a have wrapped bull wire tightly around the top of the gate, covered the gate with chicken coup wire and added another looser fitting strand of bull wire. The walls themselves are fine and behind a ditch.

If some clown somehow gets hurt on the gate will there be a problem for me? It's locked and there is a private property sign attached.

Thanks for all the comments.

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118888916#Comment_118888916

No there should not be. Just keep your insurance paid.

Dunedin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118889082#Comment_118889082

Why does he need to pay his insurance if no possibility of liability?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118888802#Comment_118888802

Just on the 10%. The only way to beat that hurdle would be to get Stamp Duty relief for consolidation. It would still probably have you near 5% though.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118889361#Comment_118889361

Nothing would be ever 100% guaranteed.

Dunedin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118889780#Comment_118889780

I understand that but Bass is saying on one hand no liability with no such case ever successful whilst also advising insurance 🤔🤔🤔

My neighbour has a 20 year old scrap car out the back. He has the wheels off it and it has only one door. Unlikely to ever see the road again - should he insure it?

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118890051#Comment_118890051

Well he said "there should not be". i.e that the other poster had likely done enough. You would still want to insure it given the potential payout should something go against you, even if it is highly unlikely to happen

The better analogy would be whether you would insure your house for fire even after you remove the hearth and put in some automatic sprinklers and fire suppression devices so that it would be unlikely to ever go on fire.

Dunedin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118890077#Comment_118890077

Actually a better analogy would be that if there was no such thing as a fire, would you insure your house against it…

Don’t disagree that the risk is lesser for trespassers but it’s not completely removed.

Bass and I have discussed this at length on another similar thread and we didn’t agree them and unlikely to here either!!

I’m basing my point on a conversation i had with a solicitor friend where they said to me that regardless of trespassing or not, if the landowner is found to be negligent, it is highly likely that there will some award against them.

Dr Karl

Keep the insurance. Remember the hillwalker who sue the NPWS. She ultimately lost on appeal and each side paid their own costs, the taxpayer in NPWS case, but think of all the stress for an individual landowner especially without insurance. Slurry as mentioned is probably the best solution.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/hill-walker-who-fell-in-wicklow-awarded-40-000-damages-1.2612125

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/hill-walker-stripped-of-40-000-award-faces-legal-bill-1.3005300

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/landowners-could-still-be-liable-for-accidents-involving-hillwalkers-1.2979725

Dunedin

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/118890397#Comment_118890397

Definitely keep the insurance.

maestroamado

toro toro...