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.

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

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.