Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby arsie » Wed Jun 11, 2014 1:03 am

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi arsie,

Fences are fit for purpose as boundary markers not as playground facilities.

I have not suggested otherwise...

however, a landowner is legally responsible for ensuring anyone visiting the property comes to no harm as a direct result of visiting the property (think burglar suing homeowner after getting injured when scaling rotten staircase).

so, in this instance a two year old visitor sat on a chain hung two foot off the ground (I think it was probably hung closer to one foot if he sat on it...) and sustained an injury when the fixings snapped.

I am playing devil's advocate (see my post from 1st and 3rd June)

Kind regards, Mac
PS I ain't an Elfan Safety worker


All you do is say it again and not answer directly - as if "playing devil's advocate" lets you off having to engage and debate. You ignore the flaw in your argument - a factor or four at least in the weight that this poor fence is supposed to be able to take, in your view. A little bit of common sense and numbers is not worthy of your response even when I point out by irony that your plucked out of the air 'weight of the average child' has magically come down!

However, I will reply to your latest post fully and point by point. Though not necessarily in the right order ...

1) The "visiting" burglar/rotten staircase is a red herring. That or you've been watching Macaulay Culkin movies again.

2) The child was not an adult visitor invited or otherwise but was allowed by his mother to swing on a lightweight boundary fence never designed or intended as a child's swing, as she would know. She was responsible for the damage.

3) The 'fixings' did not 'snap' but the extra weight of the child and extra force caused by the child using the fence as a swing, pulled strongly on a screw thread causing a wooden post to split along the grain, the OP states. If the wood had been rotten, I suggest, the screw would more likely have pulled out of its thread. The child sustained injury because the fence links retained their structural integrity. The child's finger unfortunately did not, due to the child's weight (whatever that may be.)

(I said) Fences are fit for purpose as boundary markers not as playground facilities.

(and you said) I have not suggested otherwise...
So what exactly are you suggesting?

With no evidence that I can find you are implying the OP's sister's fence was not fit for purpose or maybe rotten like your imaginary "visiting" burglar's staircase - who could successfully sue for injury, whiplash, etc? :roll:
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby COGGY » Wed Jun 11, 2014 3:01 am

Hi All

I think it is true to say we all agree the fence was not designed or intended to be a swing. The neighbour is totally out of order. If my child had broken a neighbour's fence we would have apologised and my husband would have offered to mend the fence. This neighbour however decided to threaten the pond in the back garden !!!!!!!!! Surely we must all agree this is totally unreasonable. The neighbour should be responsible for her child but chooses to believe otherwise, in the process upsetting a responsible lady.

Kind regards
Coggy
COGGY
 
Posts: 1355
Joined: Tue Feb 21, 2012 10:58 pm

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 7:18 am

Hi COGGY,

I think it is true to say...

I think you are right.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby ukmicky » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:27 pm

a landowner is legally responsible for ensuring anyone visiting the property comes to no harm as a direct result of visiting the property


Only to a reasonable degree and the use of everything that person uses whislt visiting must fit within the purpose of its design. We do not haved to ensure our properties are free of all dangers and if someone uses something in a way that its is designed to be used and they are injured then they have no case to sue for damages.

If i have a swimming pool or pond on my land i do not have to surround it with 6 ft fencing to prevent a child who has come onto my land without permision from falling in .

If an univited guest / burgular comes into my house and falls through the stairs as he attempts to make off with my goods he can try to sue but would not win.

If i have something on my property which someone has an implied right to use it its different , it must be safe for that use and to a very small degree it must be safe beyond that use . How far that small degree extends is for a court to decide.

Lean on the fence and it collapses causing injury they may have a small chance of wiining a case ,climb on it and it breaks they have no case.


Lets put it this way . A postman can put his hand in a letter box and have his finger bitten off by a dog and he cant sue the home owner because the implied right for the use of a letter box only implies a right to push mail through it and not his fingers.
Last edited by ukmicky on Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:42 pm

Hi ukmicky,

thanks for humouring me :wink:

Hi arsie,

please refer to my post from 1st and 3rd of June if you want to understand my advice to the OP.

Grateful regards, Mac
Last edited by MacadamB53 on Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby ukmicky » Wed Jun 11, 2014 9:45 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi ukmicky,

thanks for humouring me :wink:

Grateful regards, Mac



A long time ago when i was a postman i nearly had a finger bitten off and was shocked when they said i couldnt sue.
Advice given is not legally qualified and you are advised to gain a professional opinion
ukmicky
 
Posts: 4544
Joined: Sat Sep 27, 2008 10:13 pm
Location: London

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby arsie » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:15 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi arsie,

please refer to my post from 1st and 3rd of June if you want to understand my advice to the OP.

I have re-read all your posts.

(I said) Fences are fit for purpose as boundary markers not as playground facilities.
(you said) I have not suggested otherwise...
(then I said) So what exactly are you suggesting?

Subsequently you implicitly agreed with me and said in answer to Coggy's summary I think you are right.

For the sake of the thread would you mind spelling out what you wish to be remembered for as 'my advice to the OP'. I thought you were talking sense agreeing with Coggy's summary without caveat. But now I find re-reading your posts it is not clear which side of the fence (sic) you have come down upon, from your cryptic 'please refer'? Are you still playing devil's advocate and sitting on the fence?
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby MacadamB53 » Wed Jun 11, 2014 10:53 pm

Hi arsie,

For the sake of the thread would you mind spelling out what you wish to be remembered for as 'my advice to the OP'.

postings addressed directly to the OP (pretty obvious... :roll:)

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby arsie » Wed Jun 11, 2014 11:53 pm

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi arsie,

For the sake of the thread would you mind spelling out what you wish to be remembered for as 'my advice to the OP'.

postings addressed directly to the OP (pretty obvious... :roll:)

Kind regards, Mac

Mac, you are almost like a politician, unable or unwilling to answer directly?
You might be good at asking questions but ...

not so good at answering questions.

Ho hum.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:45 am

Hi arsie,

Q what questions have I asked you?
A none

Q what questions have I not answered?
A none

Q is that clear enough?
A yes but you'll probably think otherwise

if my contributions to this thread are so confusing you'd think others would also be asking for clarification...

Perplexed regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby JohnP1950 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 1:23 am

ukmicky, Thanks for your advice. That's very reassuring - I will pass it on to my sister.

Arsie and MacadamB53, sorry if my enquiry has engendered any discord. I do appreciate all points of view, but I don't mean to be the cause of any bad feelings here.

A quick update: My sister is still waiting for the solicitor's letter. She hasn't fixed the fence yet but is planning to get it done next week. Her neighbour seems to be keeping a low profile, so maybe she has had second thoughts about it, or perhaps her solicitor has told her she doesn't have a case. Let's hope so anyway.

Thanks again for all your advice.
JohnP1950
 
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Feb 11, 2008 7:17 pm
Location: Coventry

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby MacadamB53 » Thu Jun 12, 2014 7:09 am

Hi John,

perhaps her solicitor has told her she doesn't have a case.

one would hope so.

Kind regards, Mac
MacadamB53
 
Posts: 6028
Joined: Mon Dec 10, 2012 12:13 am

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby arsie » Thu Jun 12, 2014 10:35 am

John, here's hoping this will subside then. I think we all agree on the situation. As to discord, no, I think it is just that Mac - while being a determined questioner himself - doesn't want to answer my questions for some reason. Most of the time he is a positive force but, like most of us and more so, he doesn't like to admit if he is wrong. Not that I am saying he is wrong, Mac said he wanted to play devil's advocate by supposing that your (sister's) fence wasn't legally safe/fit for purpose. He has backed off that now and is stonewalling, avoiding answering my questioning of this advocacy. I shall cease doing so!

MacadamB53 wrote:Hi COGGY,

I think it is true to say...

I think you are right.

Kind regards, Mac
COGGY wrote:Hi All

I think it is true to say we all agree the fence was not designed or intended to be a swing. The neighbour is totally out of order. If my child had broken a neighbour's fence we would have apologised and my husband would have offered to mend the fence. This neighbour however decided to threaten the pond in the back garden !!!!!!!!! Surely we must all agree this is totally unreasonable. The neighbour should be responsible for her child but chooses to believe otherwise, in the process upsetting a responsible lady.

Kind regards
Coggy



I think the best now is to repair the fence yourselves. Make sure you have lots of before/after pics, just in case.
arsie
 
Posts: 1955
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2010 9:13 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Fence "injured" neighbour's child

Postby Roblewis » Thu Jun 12, 2014 12:38 pm

Talking of responsibility for one's children me thinks this neighbour has been reading some US cases such as the child slipping on coffee spilt on the floor in a Mcdonalds. The case was won even though it was the mother who spilled the coffee!!! Just be pleased we are in the UK. :)
Roblewis
 
Posts: 1764
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2011 12:41 pm

Ads are not endorsed by www.gardenlaw.co.uk or the staff thereof and visitors should perform their own due diligence on the product or service offered.
 
Previous

Return to Fences

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests