Recently I have been considering putting barbed wire at the top of our boundary fence (between our front garden and waste land, away from the public highway) in order to prevent the local kids climbing over it continuously and causing damage to the already old fragile frame. Then I sat back and considered, what if some stupid kid injures themselves?! I would be liable! Where did the law go wrong? Under the Occupier's Liability Act we are liable for anyone who enters our property whether they are invited or trespassers! So basically a burglar can come in and if he injures himself whilst in the property can sue the property owner for personal injury! How does that work then? He shouldn't be there in the first place, he is a trespasser! If in the middle of the night you met face to face with an intruder would you think twice about knocking him out? You aren't even entitled to protect your property unless you use "reasonable" force, how are we supposed to know if they have a gun/knife on them? Should we just let them take our stuff? And what is the definition of reasonable? - The answer to this is that there isn't one within the law, everything is reasonable this and reasonable that, but just what is reasonable? To different people it may be different things in different circumstances! The law is in much need of change, but with "reasonable" being used throughout the legal system nobody can be bothered or just don't want to.
Glad I got that off my chest it has been bothering me for a while now!
Anne
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Shooting someone in the back is of course not self-defence, but what if you are a woman living alone, met with a large man in your house at night? Is it wrong for her to strike in anticipation of violence? Some may so no, others yes. The trouble is there is no standard, nobody knows what constitutes reasonable force, leading to sloppy case-law and precedents.
Fair enough an exhaustive definition is not what is needed, individual cases should be tried on their merits. However, currently the word "reasonable" is just too extensive and in need of some explanation. There should be a set of rules and parameters stating what is and what is not reasonable. This way there is no ambiguity and the Courts have guidelines to work with, not necessarily fixed rules to adhere to.
Regarding the barbed wire, we were going to put up a warning sign as you can't be too careful these days, especially with things like anti-vandal paint, barbed wire and other dangers around the home. Unsurprisingly many persons are appalled when I mention Occupier's Liability and the fact that we owe a duty to look after trespassers on our private land.
Fair enough if it is a public place where there is a right to be on the property, but on private property! Could you extend this to a situation involving a pond in your private back garden that a trespasser falls into, whilst it was dark, after hopping over your fence? Is that reasonable? The answer is; we don't know! It can be argued both ways.
Ambiguity is I think law's greatest failure, and the reason why many wars rage, e.g The India Pakistan conflicts over who owns Kashmir was down to ambiguous terms about the land, what is terrorism (i.e. are the US and Israel also guilty of it because its not defined? I bet they'll never define it...). While you cannot tie down a law precisely you can specify ranges for it, something which I believe should be done.
I want to set up home made electric stun devices (for lack of a better term) to guard property (lamps) which keeps getting stolen. These stun devices would be attached to the metal work on the lamps and would give a VERY VERY nasty jolt if the two foot lamps are pulled out of the ground. The lamps are not a danger unless pulled out and they are well inside private property so can I do this? I'm getting sick of thieves pulling them out and my having to replace them while the police just throw their hands in the air.
Post a Comment