Had my shed broken into last night!

[dyna-ti]

It wouldn't be your fault if they accidentally landed on the garden fork!

Actually,it would
Same applies to barbed wire :shock:

 

[Neil]

It wouldn't be your fault if they accidentally landed on the garden fork!

Actually,it would
Same applies to barbed wire :shock:

Surely that's two different scenarios?

The barbed wire / things stuck to barriers to deter, but potentially harm on walls and fences, have a rationale as to why they could get you in trouble.

But things like a garden fork in a shed are perfectly reasonable - by that I mean, if you'd arranged it to deliberately injure - and that could be proven, you might be liable - but surely if you're just untidy, there's no legislating or liability to ne'er-do-wells for that.

What I mean is I can get that provable deliberate traps potentially make you liable - but surely the law can't make you liable for simply being untidy or disorganised inside your own property. The key would be appearances, there.

 

[stedlocks]

Please don't let this thread go the way that it is heading...........i.e., that a burglar can sue for injuries ect......lets leave it with the happy thoughts of them being maimed by randon garden implements

 

[sic_nick]

Thieves have, in the not too distant past, sued the homeowner (for damages under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 if a burglar is injured whilst on their property) after tripping over something in someone's house because it was too dark for them to see the table or whatever it was that caused the accident. I don't know how successful these claims were but it is absolutely absurd that they have that right in the first place.

 

[Neil]

Thieves have, in the not too distant past, sued the homeowner (for damages under the Occupier’s Liability Act 1984 if a burglar is injured whilst on their property) after tripping over something in someone's house because it was too dark for them to see the table or whatever it was that caused the accident. I don't know how successful these claims were but it is absolutely absurd that they have that right in the first place.

Liability is normally clearly defined - 3 tests that are applied, that all must have been broken / not met:-

1. There was a duty of care
2. That duty of care was not met / failed
3. Demonstrable loss occurred as a result of BOTH of the previous 2 tests

I'm struggling with the concept that a home or property owner, owes burglars a duty of care to ensure that either their property is well lit, or that no furniture or belongings present an obstacle when not lit. After all, there could be circumstances beyond the owners control - power failure...

That said, though, deliberate constructs designed to injure or harm intruders (assuming it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt, or pass lower degrees of scrutiny, in terms of probability in civil cases) may well expose property or home owners, if what they've really tried to achieve is a cleverly disguised trap.

Also on the outside of your house / property (ie still perhaps your land, but not inside buildings) there's potential liability, too - because other parties (eg fire service, police, ambulance staff, utilities workers etc) have valid reasons to potentially need access.