Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Lee Ainsworth
Anyone got any advice on the above subject, this hasn't happened yet but I fear that it could before long.
The following information will give a picture of the circumstances and help to give an informed discussion.
The site in question is a working factory with a section that has become dissused, including office blocks. Power has been switched off to all the buildings and they have been boarded up and secured at every entry point, including windows.
Running adjacent to one side of the works, is a public right of way with a continuous 8' iron fence as segregation. To the other side is a train track again with iron fencing and walls with barbed wire at the top.
On a number of occassions intruders have managed to enter the site and set fires in the dissused office block and buildings, these have been dealt with at the time and re-secured on each occasion. Entry to the site has been by damage to walls and even cutting a complete section of the iron fence through, again this has always been repaired, which of course is a cost to the company each time.
Over the last few months things have taken a step further. Due to high scrap prices, intruders are now entering the dissused section of the factory, again by damaging the entry points and stripping heavy duty electrical cable from the buildings. My main concern now is that they have moved to the overhead cranes that are approx. 30'-40' high, all the access points have been secured but again they find their way up through climbing girders. Obviously this dangerous practice will eventually end in an injury and then where will the company stand litigation wise.
On every occassion the police ar called and have even managed to catch and prosecute some of them, 2 weeks later the same face is back. Today we found 4 climbing on crane tracks, when they saw us they calmly climbed down and walked off, even though we were taking photos of their faces.
Any advice that can be given on this subject would be appreciated, if nothing else I'm sure it will create a lively debate.
Thanks
Lee
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Edward Partington
Lee, if you are not going to use the plant again then, why not strip out all of the valueable wire and equipment yourselves. This would create income and remove the inducement for some of your tresspassers.
Regards
David.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Richard Mathews
Lee
I think the case of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council might be relevant.
Here is an extract form an article on the case:
At a local authority-owned country park, an 18-year-old male dived too steeply into a lake, breaking his neck and rendering him a tetraplegic.
The Court of Appeal judged the man to be a trespasser, having ignored clear ‘No Swimming’ signs. Nevertheless, it held that he was owed a duty of care by those in control of the land under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 in respect of any risk arising from the state of the premises, things done or omitted to be done on them. The court went on to find that not enough had been done to obviate that risk, and the duty had been breached. As a result, the Court of Appeal decided in favour of Mr Tomlinson, i.e. the authority was liable for his injuries.
The authority appealed to the House of Lords, which overturned the decision and unanimously decided that there is a balance between care for one’s neighbours and the risks inherent in our world. Having that balance in mind, the authority was not liable for Mr Tomlinson’s injuries, however sympathetic the Court felt towards him.
The House of Lords said clearly that: “It is not and should never be the policy of the law to require the protection of the foolhardy”
It appears that good sense has prevailed, in a world where all too often it seems to be lacking and the ‘nanny state’ has accordingly been dealt a body blow by this judgement. Furthermore, an occupier who takes reasonable steps to prevent an injury to adults from a danger arising from the state of the premises, and puts up proper warning of it, will usually be safe from a claim for damages from an irresponsible trespasser.
Richard
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Lee Ainsworth
Thanks for the input into this thread.
David
We as a company have explored the possibilty of strippping it out ourselves. The factory in question is a disussed steelworks and therefore quite sizeable and would need outside contractors to come in and do it rather than our employees, who could not be released for a project on this scale. A quote that was received for 1 office block alone was estimated at £40k, so as you can imagine, for the size of the works involved the cost would be unrealastic. In addition, the long term plan is to sell this area off, for the short term I'm concerned that we may end up with a fatality.
Kevin
Thanks for the site address, however the site doesn't seem to be working correctly at the moment.
Richard
Thanks for that information,this is the kind of information I was looking for.
If anybody else would like to add to this please do.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.