Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By keith k
B leases land from A and B has full responsibility for this land including security and upkeep. However, B also uses adjoining land for storage purposes which A provides free of charge.
The problem is that the land which is free is quite open and kids regularly come on to play, ride motor bikes etc. B provides security for the leased land and the guy also patrols the storage (free) land and often chases kids away. My question is who would be liable if one of these kids was injured on the free land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
The fact that the land is free is not relevant it's about who controls the land, is there a formal agreement in place or is it just used? If the land owner has given permission for the land to be used then responsibility moves to the user to ensure the property is safe in relation to what it is used for. Storage of something must be as safe as possible in relation to what is stored there. If the items stored resuklt in an accident or injury then the person who stored it there is liable, if its something to do with the land e.g. a well and someone drowns the land owner (well owner) is liable. Storage of something is incidental to the fact that the well was unprotected. Get my drift, relevance comes into play.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By keith k
Thanks Bob, Permission has been granted to use the land although I'm unsure if there is anything documented. At one end of the land there is a 2nd user...but I get you drift.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Phil Grace
Guys,
We should be careful in our use of the word "liable". Liability is for the court to decide, upon the facts of the matter. The previous respondent is correct in saying a lot will depend upon whether an "accident" resulted from some failing or defect or similar in the land OR the use to which it was put.
But we should remember that a child who was injured when they fell off a fire escape was unable to prove that the landowner - a hospital trust - was "liable". The Trust was found not to have been negligent since there was no defect in the escape.
The golden rule is that one can not discuss matters of negilgence or liability in advance of an incident - as the lawyers say "everything will turn on the facts of the particular case".
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Phil is correct in that the courts will decide but, there needs to be an understanding of who is responsible for ensuring the land is safe. Please change the word liable to responsible if that you feel the need. The principle remains it's the controller of the land that is important.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
Bob, I think it is the controller of the aspect of the land/storage/usage/access (delete as appropriate to the case if/when it happens).
One might find more than one defendent.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.