Warning signage

[felixthelogchopper]

I know, well deer poaching round here as we don't, yet, have wild boar.

 

But where do I stand if a poacher hurts himself on a log pile whilst he's trying to conceal himself whilst poaching?

 

Ex turpi causa non oritor actio. Poaching is a criminal offence, unlike trespass which is a civil offence.

[felixthelogchopper]

Occupiers Liability Act Paul, which was why I said invited or uninvited. You have a duty of care to visitors. If someone falls on your uneven garden path delivering menus for the local takeaway (which you didn't request or invite), the fact that you haven't considered their presence and taken reasonable steps to prevent harm to them by maintaining the path and it being fit for purpose, would likely make you negligent and liable.

 

If you left the trees in a position that someone climbing on them could cause them to roll or fall and cause injury or death, the situation would be the same. Yes people are stupid, climbing on stacked timber at the roadside - hence the warning signs to not climb. If these are unheeded and injury occurs, reasonable efforts have been made.

 

Signage denying access would mean anybody on the land would be a trespasser from the off and a lower duty of care would be applicable.

[Wood-be]

From my experience of the public climbing over barrier tape whilst removing a storm damaged branch over a public footpath I can safely say that of the public are doctors they are still f-ing stupid.

I recon private land signs at all points of access and forestry operation signs aswell. If you are feeling trees near paths then you may want to put a barrier up (soothing that they have to physically climb over or remove to get through) saying tree felling. You then have covered your self. Also make sure you have insurance.

 

Sent from my C6903 using Tapatalk

[Gary Prentice]

Signage denying access would mean anybody on the land would be a trespasser from the off and a lower duty of care would be applicable.

 

Is there a lower duty of care for uninvited guests in the Occupiers Liability Acts?

[Beardie]

Occupiers Liability Act Paul, which was why I said invited or uninvited. You have a duty of care to visitors. If someone falls on your uneven garden path delivering menus for the local takeaway (which you didn't request or invite), the fact that you haven't considered their presence and taken reasonable steps to prevent harm to them by maintaining the path and it being fit for purpose, would likely make you negligent and liable.

 

 

I don't see this as a valid comparison. You expect people to comeup the garden path in order to put things through the letter box, within reason. There is no valid excuse for anyone to visit a private woodland with no public right of way without the owner's permission, so there is no extent to which the visit is reasonable.

 

However, no doubt there's a whole bunch of ambulance-chasing lawyers who would disagree.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

As Gary says, its the 1984 amendment that applies to the great uninvited!

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/3

 

 

4)Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned.

 

"Take such care as is reasonable"

 

If the land owner knows of a regularly used - even when unauthorised - footpath/shortcut, then the duty would be the same (or similar) as if it were a PROW.

 

If there is little or no evidence / history of visitors (invited or otherwise) then it might not be unreasonable to assume nobody is being exposed to risk.

 

The smaller the probability of people = the smaller level of reasonableness!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupiers%27_Liability_Act_1984

 

Signs at access points and in work area, keep a good look out, job done!

[Paul in the woods]

On my bit of woodland there's no regular use and the entrance I use is locked. I want to use the signs to stop the odd one off muppet who suddenly thinks it would be good to walk into the woodland, climbing through a hedge rather than over a gate.

 

If I had the signs then I'd obviously put them either side of where I'm working.

 

Having said that, over the last year or so, I've witnessed a large arb company climbing, MEWPing, felling trees onto a country lane for a day and there was no sign of any signs. I've also seen contractors fell, burn, dig, & stump spray a few acres in a publicly accessible nature reserve, again no signs at all.

 

It makes me wander if that many people use them?

[felixthelogchopper]

Is there a lower duty of care for uninvited guests in the Occupiers Liability Acts?

 

Yes, mate. I'd have to dig the books out to give you chapter and verse but I'm pretty sure it was in the second of the Acts. An invited guest can also be considered a trespasser ab initio (from the off) if they do something outside their remit once on the premises.

[felixthelogchopper]

As Gary says, its the 1984 amendment that applies to the great uninvited!

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/3

 

 

4)Where, by virtue of this section, an occupier of premises owes a duty to another in respect of such a risk, the duty is to take such care as is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case to see that he does not suffer injury on the premises by reason of the danger concerned.

 

"Take such care as is reasonable"

 

If the land owner knows of a regularly used - even when unauthorised - footpath/shortcut, then the duty would be the same (or similar) as if it were a PROW.

 

If there is little or no evidence / history of visitors (invited or otherwise) then it might not be unreasonable to assume nobody is being exposed to risk.

 

The smaller the probability of people = the smaller level of reasonableness!

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupiers%27_Liability_Act_1984

 

Signs at access points and in work area, keep a good look out, job done!

 

Probably my favourite definition in Law.

[Mark Bolam]

If I owned a private woodland, and put up signs that couldn't be missed, with Braille and translations and stuff which read -

'Private - I will kill anyone who enters with an axe and sodomise their corpse.'

Could people really still argue if little Dwayne got hit by a falling conker?