Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Steve B
Ladies and Gents, I have searched high and low for some case precedence. now pulling my hair out can you help. I have a friend who owns a garage; the garage is situated under some railway arches. Above the garage as you can imagine is a railway track. The problem is, trespassers have on a number of occasions gained access to the track and thrown bricks and other debris down onto the vehicles below causing substantial damage to customer vehicles, the trespassers are gaining access through an inadequate fenced area approximately 500 metres up the track. My friend has reported this problem to the owners of the land on the previous attacks, the owners have said they would do something about it but the damage keeps recurring, last time a couple of weeks ago causing damage to approximately 15 vehicles. I have had a look at occupier’s liability etc but I would like to find some case precedence.....
Thank you in advance
Steve B
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Alex Nasmyth
The only case law I can think of regarding trespass on the railways is British Railways Board V. Herrington.
The Board was held liable for injuries to a six year old child who had been playing on the railway line. The child had got through a gap in the fence near the railway line. The Board, as occupiers, were aware of previous trespasses but had failed to maintain the integrity of the fence. The House of Lords held that the occupier of the railway premises owed a duty of common humanity to the child. Until this case no duty of care was owed to trespassers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By John Watson
There was also the case of English Welsh and Scottish railways who were held liable for fencing that was incomplete, and a child gained access to the running lines and was tragically killed. Cost them about ¼ million I think. I think an alternative form of attack would be to contact Network Rail who have a vested interest in this area, as they are likely to bring more pressure to bear, than the man under the Arches. (Its not Phil Mitchell by any chance is it!)
Regards
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Peter Longworth
What angle are you looking at this from? It seems to me that you are talking about damage to vehicles caused by trespassers which is a criminal matter and so case law doesn't really apply. The OLAs are concerned with the occupier's duty towards visitors (either invited or uninvited). If the trespassers were throwing bricks at visitors or employees then the garage owners in conjunction with the owners of the land above would have to do something about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bill Parkinson
There are two issues. The trespass onto the railway which is something Network Rail should be tackling. The other is criminal damage to the vehicles which is committed.
Have you spoken to the police about the problem ? In anticipation of the response you could/did get have you asked them what their target for reduction of car crime is and how are they performing to it ? This target has been set by the Home Office and if they are not going to achieve it then they are more likely to take action. You could tell them that you need to report each car as a separate crime for insurance purposes (especially if owned by other people) that will bump up their figures !!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Knight
I was taught on my environmental management course that Trespass as a tort is the interference with one's personl or property rights without good cause. Trespass requires intent and directness. It seems to me that the vandals may be trespassing by throwing stuff at your mate's lock-up,
John
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David Bannister
Take a look at the thread on "Not your everyday RA Permit..."
Just kidding - it is Friday PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve B
Thanks for the info guys, its not an easy one I know... the thing is why should my friends insurance premiums keep going up and up because the landowner cant be bothered to ensure the security of his premises, if it was a one off I could probably understand it but it is the third time and still nothing happens.... I have found a case where a council neglected to evict travellers off their land and a farmer managed to sue for damages on his adjacent land caused by these trespassers.... again thanks for the input.
regards
Steve B
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.