Complicated question about Public Liability Insurance

I own a small patch of land which is on the other side of my next door neighbour's garden.  We live in a terrace of very old (200 yrs+) cottages, which have encountered problems with sewerage in the past.  This was resolved by us all clubbing together to buy a pumping station, which is now situated on my land.  A limited company was formed to manage the maintenance and upkeep of the pumping station.

However, this is the problem:

We have been having problems with antisocial behaviour in the area.  One of the neighbours thinks that if one of the teenagers causing the problems were to vandalise the pumping station and injure themselves in the process, I would be liable - as the owner of the land on which it is situated.

The pumping station already carries a notice saying 'Danger - Electrical Equipment', but the kids can still be seen climbing on it.

Could anyone shed any light on my legal obligations, if any?

Many thanks in advance!

 

 

 

Under the Occupiers'

Under the Occupiers' Liability Act 1957 you are required to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that a visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purposes for which he is invited or permitted by the occupier to be there.

The Occupiers' Liability Act 1984 extended this duty to cover trespassers.

Three conditions must be satisfied before the duty arises.

1.The occupier, ie you, must be aware of the danger or have reasonable grounds to believe it exists.

2.He must know or have reasonable grounds to believe that a trespasser is in the vicinity of the danger.

3.The risk is one against which in all the circumstances the occupier might reasonably be expected to offer some protection.

Profile: I joined Sarginsons from university as an articled clerk in 1970. I am now the managing partner and have wide experience in all aspects of the law normally dealt with in private practice. I believe that a modern high street practice must adapt to the hefty demands of clients and deliver it's services according to the clients wishes.

Many thanks for that, Ian!

Many thanks for that, Ian!  What happens if injury occurs to the trespasser as the result of their own criminal damage, when warning signs are already in place?

I am not talking here about people who are invited or permitted on to the property, but those who are trespassing.  Any injury would be unlikely to happen without the equipment being interfered with and damaged in the first instance.

 

Sorry I had not finished my

Sorry I had not finished my reply when I got called away.

I wanted to save what I had typed.

So I will continue my answer.

Please regard this as a continuation of my previous post.

As to points 1 and 2 you will be aware of a danger ( I am assuming there is some element of danger in climbing over a pumping station) and you will be aware of the presence of trespassers.

As to point 3 this will depend on whether the risk is obvious or hidden,the identity of the trespassers and whether precautions could minimise the risk.

You may be expected to take greater precautions to protect child trespassers.

Warning signs can help but should draw attention to specific dangers and should be combined with other safety measures especially when dealing with children.

All in all therefore I think you should assume you have a duty to the trespassers in this case.

You should have specific warning notices posted coupled with a secure fence or barrier closing off the plant.

You should also check with your insurance company to see if cover is available in these circumstances.

As to your second post if you have discharged your duty of care as outlined above then you may well be able to avoid liability altogether.

If the duty is not discharged then a trespasser would be able to recover damages but a court is likely to reduce the award to a greater or lesser extent because he contributed to his own loss.

There is a case decided in 2005 where an 11 year old child trespassed onto a fire escape and was injured. There was nothing wrong with state of the fire escape but the child was injured by his use. His case was dismissed because there was nothing inherently wrong with the way the escape had been maintained. Contrast this with a situation where a step on the escape had been allowed to rust away, the child kicked it off and was injured. In this latter situation the child would recover but the award would be reduced.

I am sure your pumping sation is properly maintained but to be on the safe side I would take the precautions outlined above.

Profile: I joined Sarginsons from university as an articled clerk in 1970. I am now the managing partner and have wide experience in all aspects of the law normally dealt with in private practice. I believe that a modern high street practice must adapt to the hefty demands of clients and deliver it's services according to the clients wishes.

Thank you so much for all

Thank you so much for all your trouble!  That's really helpful.

 

Who's online

There are currently 0 users and 4 guests online.

User login

Navigation

twitter link facebook link
netlawman link