Posted By Raymond Rapp Mitch In the absence of any response I will try to provide you with an answer. First, the scenario you have described is too difficult to fully comprehend. Therefore, the liability, assuming an accident occurs, depends on the level of negligence, if that is proven. For instance, just because someone erects a fence and another person clatters it, does not in itself give rise to liability. What would have happened if the person had not been restrained by the fence? In other words, what is beyond the fence? Was the problem the gradient or the surface of the path? All these scenarios and more would have to be examined before any liability could be established. Hope this helps - and ask a simpler question next time! Ray

Posted By Phil Grace I agree with Raymond... too difficult to both understand exactly the situation and comment on possible outcomes. But: 1) Erection of fence, in itself, does not generate a liability 2) Modification of the slope would not, in itself, give rise to a liability For example, consider a cyclist riding at speed on a path/track that was icy and forced to take avoiding action because a dog moved suddenly to one side. How, under those circumstances could either the erection of the fence or changing of the slope give rise to a liability? But, if the fence had been erected badly, with sharp projections facing towards the path the cyclist could claim that his injuries had been made worse. It could be decided that there was liability. It is generally very difficult to determine in advance whether a liability will incurred - with the possible exception of where something "bad" is done i.e. where an obviously unsafe condition is created or generated Hope this helps.