Rank: Forum user 
|
Evening all, was hoping someone could point me in the right direction about occupiers liability and duty of care.
A property I work on is adjacent to land and a retaining wall owned by United Utilities. The wall is approx 2 above our car park with no edge protection. Recently kids have started play on the UU land and have climbed down in our car park. Sooner or later someone is going to fall, land in our car park and have a serious injury.
So do we have a duty of care towards the trespassers on UU land, bearing in mind that the injury would occur as they hit our car park? To me it clearly needs fall protection, just not sure if we are responsible for preventing that fall under Occ Lia. 1984.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user 
|
Hi Eddie
2 inches/feet/metres? This is a boundary issue which you need to discuss directly with UU given trespassers are using their land to access yours.
Control of the actual boundary between you properties may be written in to the property deeds and not as you anticipate (back when water was a true public utility the actual duty may have been placed upon the adjacent neighbour to conserve public funds by making them responsible for installing suitable protective fencing along the boundary). Unfortunately it is unlikely you will find the answer on these forums. Edited by user 25 November 2020 20:49:49(UTC)
| Reason: FFS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Hi Eddie
2 inches/feet/metres? This is a boundary issue which you need to discuss directly with UU given trespassers are using their land to access yours.
Control of the actual boundary between you properties may be written in to the property deeds and not as you anticipate (back when water was a true public utility the actual duty may have been placed upon the adjacent neighbour to conserve public funds by making them responsible for installing suitable protective fencing along the boundary). Unfortunately it is unlikely you will find the answer on these forums. Edited by user 25 November 2020 20:49:49(UTC)
| Reason: FFS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Forum user
|
Hi Roundtuit, thanks for that, it's a 2m drop. I'm waiting for the registry to send me the deeds to find out more.
Would I be right in saying that whoever was responsible for controlling the boundary would be the party who was negligent under the OLA? Originally Posted by: Roundtuit 
Hi Eddie
2 inches/feet/metres? This is a boundary issue which you need to discuss directly with UU given trespassers are using their land to access yours.
Control of the actual boundary between you properties may be written in to the property deeds and not as you anticipate (back when water was a true public utility the actual duty may have been placed upon the adjacent neighbour to conserve public funds by making them responsible for installing suitable protective fencing along the boundary). Unfortunately it is unlikely you will find the answer on these forums.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
 2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
|
2 users thanked Roundtuit for this useful post.
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
the part wall act has nothing to do with ...the liability is under the OLA 84 section 1(3) ...which in the main looks at trespassers on your property but one of the key parts in it is that you know/ have knoweldge of the risk regardless of the boundary issue...the trespass and injury will happen on your property so the strict liability question would be what have you done about it?.. Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council and Young v Kent County Council...at best any claim would be 50/50 you and claimant not CC...but the associated press could be a crisis on its own...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
From my reading of the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 the duty of care is “in respect of any risk of their suffering injury on the premises by reason of any danger due to the state of the premises or to things done or omitted to be done on them;”(Section 1 (1)(a)) The premises being those controlled by the occupier. The poster can’t be held liable for some that their neighbour is doing or not doing, just because a person might land in their premises, anymore than they would be liable if some fell from airplane and landed on their premises. In the case of Jolley v Sutton London Borough Council, a boat is abandoned on a Beach owned by the council and the council fail to either remove it or make it safe( they are waiting for the owner to turn up and claim it) . Some kids get into the boat and suffer injuries. The council argued its not their boat, but the court ruled it was on their land, so they are liable. In Young v Kent County Council, a school was running a youth group on council property and some kids got onto the roof and fell through a skylight. The council (it was their property) and the school (they were running the youth group) were jointly responsible and each had to pay 50% of the damages. In the case of the original poster if they have done everything reasonably practicable to prevent access from their side , preventing a fall from the United Utilities side is surely, solely their responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
and when the child falls onto the OP property they are trespassing...knowledge of the risk done nothing = liability...the injury to split hairs doesn't happen on the others property...they may be complicit but until somone gives them a legal note to say it.... the liability can be argued away - no knowledge (might be foreseeable but no knowledge) Relevance of the case - But in the words of Lord Hoffman “it has been repeatedly said in cases about children that their ingenuity in finding unexpected ways of doing mischief to themselves and others should never be underestimated” [Jolley v. Sutton London Borough Council [2000] UKHL 31].
The second case was to say that at best 50/50 but the press interest alone would be a major crisis which has been known to put companies under...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Steve It's not strict liability Occupiers’ Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984 (OLA) - The acts place a duty on the occupier to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable, to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe when using the premises or asset for the purposes for which they are invited or permitted by the occupier to be there (1957 Act). A slightly lesser duty exists on the occupier for trespassers (1984 Act). So, we haven't one but two qualifications inserting the word reasonable. The occupier is entitled to assume a degree of understanding of risk (except up to a point with smaller children) If this was a construction site then usually HSE guidance (HSG150) would assume that a 2m high barrier was most of what was needed to exclude trespassers. In this case, unless there are easy ways of climbing onto the wall from the utility company’s premises then climbing onto a 2m wall presents an obvious risk of falling on the other side. Which, perhaps, is why most 2m high walls in the UK do NOT have warning signs on either side.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Super forum user
|
Peter I know thanks for the reminder wrong word...but would be liability was the point..
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.