Trespassers

[roscoe erf]

Are you good at removing dead horses from stables?

or more to the point, have you ever moved a dead horse from a stable?

no but their heads come in handy

 

[milkloss]

I have no idea how this myth generated itself, it is going to get people killed but also puts companies/individuals at risk.

This is from the HSE guidance note

• 20 The Regulations place duties on employers in respect of risks to their employees/non-employees with the principal duty being to ensure that safety signs are in place.

By having signage you do not admit liability but by not having it you are committing a breach.

Specific legislation if anyone is interested is section 3 of the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 and regulation 12 of the Management Regulations regarding the health and safety of non-employees.

We have always been told 'danger bull in field' type signs were opening us up to some form of litigation if something were to happen. Are you telling us this isn't the case? Interested.

 

[Formatted]

We have always been told 'danger bull in field' type signs were opening us up to some form of litigation if something were to happen. Are you telling us this isn't the case? Interested.

That isn't the case. I would ask though, why you would need to put a bull in a field with a footpath or in a place where it might easily come in contact with the general public. If your bull injured someone you would need to show what you had done to prevent that. For example you could put up electric fence around the footpath, in reality it won't stop an angry bull but you'd be able to argue you had done all that was practicable and it is not unreasonable for a farmer to graze cattle in a field.

 

[phillipe]

Ever thought of hiring them out?

Yep

 

[Goweresque]

We have always been told 'danger bull in field' type signs were opening us up to some form of litigation if something were to happen. Are you telling us this isn't the case? Interested.

I assume the difference is that the walker has the legal right to be in the field (if on a footpath), whereas the burglar has no legal right to be on the shed roof. Thus by saying 'This bull might kill you' to someone who has the legal right to be there, you're admitting that it is dangerous, and therefore as the owner of the bull you should prevent it from coming into contact with walkers.
But telling someone that climbing on a roof is dangerous and may kill them is not an admission of liability as the person has no legal right to be on the roof in the first place, and its not designed for that use. Merely informing of the danger absolves you of any liability.

 

[Davey]

We have a sign at the bottom of the drive warning people that there are 'dogs loose' because Dad reckons than warning people not to enter because the dogs bite was leaving us open to someone saying we knew the dogs were dangerous and let them roam anyway?

We had a western power idiot walking the lines reckon the sign didn't apply to him because he had legal right to do so. Would I have been at fault if something happened? As it was I noticed the dogs disappear off the yard and found him cornered at the back of a shed?

 

[milkloss]

That isn't the case. I would ask though, why you would need to put a bull in a field with a footpath or in a place where it might easily come in contact with the general public. If your bull injured someone you would need to show what you had done to prevent that. For example you could put up electric fence around the footpath, in reality it won't stop an angry bull but you'd be able to argue you had done all that was practicable and it is not unreasonable for a farmer to graze cattle in a field.

As it happens our bulls and other cattle don't pay too much attention,if any, to walkers. The way you flippantly suggest the idea that footpaths should be fenced is not an idea I agree with. Unworkable in many fields here and would render well over 50% of the farm not suitable for livestock. I agree it may be different for aggressive breeds but they shouldn't be in fields let alone ones accessible by the public.

 

[Davey]

I should add we have no footpaths and the wayleave agreement says we should be given advance notice unless it an emergency (we weren't and it wasn't)

 

[Brisel]

 

[smcapstick]

See the thread about discouraging trick-or-treaters.

 

[Formatted]

The way you flippantly suggest the idea that footpaths should be fenced is not an idea I agree with

It maybe flippant but it is based in some realms of reality.

This is a recent case (http://www.hse.gov.uk/prosecutions/case/case_details.asp?SF=CN&SV=4443092) where the judge said that the farmer was 'willfully blind' to the risks that his cattle posed to the public. In this particle case walkers had been attacked four times previously and he had been told to take remedial action and did not. If you have cattle that are aggressive and have attacked people in the past then you have a duty to separate them from the public, under Health and Safety At Work Act 1974 section 3 (2). If you haven't then I wouldn't worry.

 

[A1an]

You should all try living North of that great wall and having the lovely SNP in power.

I have a river that runs through my garden, garden is all fenced with gates on driveway, yesterday I found 2 canoeists walking down river side checking out the waterfall.

Me: Excuse me gents, this is private grounds, would you mind checking the river from the other bank?

Them: Why? I cant see a problem, we are allowed to follow the river, the access code says so.

Me: But these are private grounds, its my garden, that's my lawn.

Them: But we aren't doing any harm.

Me: Right lads, I'm not asking I'm telling, now phuck off.

Them: Fair enough.

This is a regular occurrence.

 

[Davey]

But the SNP are so popular how could you say bad things?! I can't help wonder if the whole indyref2 thing will dent their support but that's a whole different thread!