Welcome Guest! The IOSH forums are a free resource to both members and non-members. Login or register to use them

Postings made by forum users are personal opinions. IOSH is not responsible for the content or accuracy of any of the information contained in forum postings. Please carefully consider any advice you receive.

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
Admin  
#1 Posted : 24 June 2009 22:29:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karl M Does anyone have any idea of the validity/worth of 'enter at own risk' type notices, or any idea where information may be found? This would be in relation to limited public access being permitted into a privately owned property.
Admin  
#2 Posted : 25 June 2009 07:36:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Youel usually such notices are not worth the paper that they are written on
Admin  
#3 Posted : 25 June 2009 07:46:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Paul Leadbetter Karl I agree with Bob, given the Occupier's Liability legislation. Paul
Admin  
#4 Posted : 25 June 2009 08:12:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By bereznikov Hi Karl, An occupier may seek to discharge his duty by displaying a warning notice. Section 2(4)(a) of the OL Act states: - Where damage is caused to a visitor by a danger of which he has been warned by the occupier, the warning is not to be treated without more as absolving the occupier from liability, unless in all the circumstances it was enough to enable the visitor to be reasonably safe. The legal effect of a sufficient warning under this section is to discharge any duty of care that might have been owed by the occupier. The mere fact that a warning has been given will not be sufficient to absolve the occupier. The warning must enable the visitor to take reasonable care for his own safety. Each visitor must be given the opportunity of avoiding the danger. A notice can be used along with other methods of protecting the visitor. An unsuitable sign might read: “Warning, dangerous premises”. An appropriate notice might read: “Warning to all entrants on these premises. Take care." OR Entry to this room is expressly forbidden. The floor is liable to give way without any warning.” It is the effect on the individual visitor that counts. Obviously though, a visual warning will be useless in protecting a visually impaired visitor.
Admin  
#5 Posted : 25 June 2009 08:58:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Coshh Assessor "Enter at your own risk" sounds like an invitation to enter! A sign in a car park "Vehicles are parked here at your own risk" isn't meant to prohibit the parking of cars, so I don't see how this wording can read as a prohibition or a warning, it's just a useless attempt to wriggle out of liability.
Admin  
#6 Posted : 25 June 2009 09:06:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Shillabeer Signs in car parks about parking at the owners risk is nothing to do with safety. They related specifically to the possibility of thieft etc and passes the responsibility to the owner of the vehicle to ensure that al valuables tec are protected from such theft. The requirement to provide a SAFE environment i.e. preventing trips and ehsurine pedestrian walkways remains the responsibility of the car park provider.
Admin  
#7 Posted : 25 June 2009 09:20:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Bob Y Such a warning would have little effect. Under OLA 57 occupiers have a duty to erect warning notices however, these notices do not absolve the occupier from all responsibility unless in all circumstances it was sufficient to keep the person safe. Duties under OLA 84 can be discharged by the issuing of an 'explicit' warning, although merely issuing the warning without it being actively enforced would have little effect, hence the old maxim "A notice without more is no defence in law". There is more! Under the Unfair Contract Terms Act 77 it is not permissible to (attempt) to exclude liability for death or injury due to negligence by such a notice as described above.
Admin  
#8 Posted : 25 June 2009 09:24:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By CFT Karl As already said - it basically means diddly-squat. It might have worked once, but then man used to live in a cave and have twenty wives:-) Hmmmm. CFT
Admin  
#9 Posted : 25 June 2009 10:05:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Coshh Assessor I didn't mean to imply that "vehicles are parked at your own risk" is anything to do with safety, I was using this as an example to show that saying something is at your own risk doesn't amount to a prohibition or warning, just a denial of responsibility.
Admin  
#10 Posted : 25 June 2009 10:21:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Swis Cossh Assessor made a soem quite fair and logical points. Mere displaying signs do not discharge public liability.
Admin  
#11 Posted : 25 June 2009 16:34:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By AHS An example of this maybe Beware of the Dog on your side gate.
Admin  
#12 Posted : 25 June 2009 20:15:00(UTC)
Rank: Guest
Admin

Posted By Karl M many thanks for all responses.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.