Stopping trespassers

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.

For Gods sake, spread the slurry and problem over.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

i dont get it

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

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

Works every time, most of the time.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.