- Excessive Armour!! why why why
Reaching the edge of my legal knowledge now BD
Just had a quick google and it appears the same sort of reasonableness test applies so yes – of course the act applies but so long as the landowner has taken reasonable precautions then they cannot be successfully sued.
Its a basic principle of law and all this talk of landowners being sued because someone is foolhardy on their land is simply twaddle.
When you invite a person into your house to use the staircase, you do not invite him to slide down the banisters …..”
In Tomlinson, Lord Hobhouse said “….. Does the law require that all trees be cut down because some youths may climb them and fall? Does the law require the coastline and other beauty spots to be lined with warning notices? …..” The answer to all these questions, is of course, no.Posted 7 years ago
S2 (2) of the Act is quite clear, it states …… “The common duty of care is a duty to take such care as in all the circumstances of the case is reasonable to see that the visitor will be reasonably safe in using the premises for the purpose for which he is invited or permitted to be there …..”
Ta for the tag.
I issue the same challenge as I have issued before.
if anyone can find a single successful UK case where a land user has won suing a landowner because of an MTB injury without the landowner having done something really really stupid I will eat my hat live on STWPosted 7 years agoBigDummySubscriber
if anyone can find a single successful UK case
I don't know whether there are any (and I'm not going to look), but this is spurious reasoning. A lack of (reported) cases does not indicate that a cause of action is not viable. To demonstrate the correctness of your position (which I agree is certainly arguable) you'd need to show cases where mountainbikers had failed to win when suing a landowner for injury. Otherwise, the absence of decided cases could indicate:
– that landowners are extremely mindful of these risks and have taken entirely effective pains to avoid them;
– that no mountainbiker has ever sued landowner (perhaps it's a matter of honour) or (improbably)
– that no-one has ever hurt themselves in a bicycle accident and thought "where there's blame there's a claim".
Remember also that we don't know an enormous amount even about Pinder v Fox really because there was a settlement not a judgment, and a confidentiality agreement. I hope you're right, of course, but as a lawyer your reasoning on this strikes me as reckless, and if I was advising the Duke of Buccleugh or the FC it's simply not the sort of thing I'd be writing. 🙂Posted 7 years agobirly-shirlyMember
So, so long as the trail is properly and safely designed, and properly and safely maintained – the owner of the land can rest easy knowing that, if they are sued, they'll probably win.
But that's a long way from "no claim is possible". Someone somewhere is probably earning good money advising the FC and others what "properly and safely" means in this context.
As far as TJ's challenge goes, come on. Once upon a time you could have issued a challenge to find a successful claim for asbestosis.Posted 7 years agomidlifecrashesSubscriber
Not reading all that above, but was out for a walk with boy and dog the other day in a local (non gnarly, flattish) wood and saw a bloke in full matching Fox riding gear with Knee, shin, and elbow guards. Odd then that he had chosen a matching Fox cap rather than a helmet to finish off the ensemble.Posted 7 years agojoolsburgerMember
I met a guy in knee pads who said his knobbly knees were easily damaged. I was converted at that point, live and let live and all that although I have and still do laugh at the odd stormtrooper gingerly making their way down Holmbury Hill.
All my injuries this year wouldn't have been changed by pads but the helmet definately helped.Posted 7 years ago
The topic ‘Excessive Armour!! why why why’ is closed to new replies.