MountainViews
Cookies. This website uses cookies, which are small text files that the website puts on your computer to facilitate operation. Cookies help us provide a better service to you. They are used to track general user traffic information and to help the website function properly.

Click to hide this notice for 30 days.
Welcome to MountainViews
If you want to use the website often please enrol (quick and free) at top right.

General Whatever you want to say that doesn't fit under the comments about places or another forum.
Sort by >

More controls

<< Prev page 1 .. 30 31 32 33 34 35 .. 394 Next page >>
Post details Post   (Contract pics)
In 1977, just afte.. by Colin Murphy   (Show all posts)
Now that weather i.. by brenno   (Show all posts)
Congratulations to.. by mcrtchly   (Show all posts)
Subscribers to the.. by Peter Walker   (Show all posts)
There is a proposa.. by mcrtchly   (Show all posts)
SCAVENGER WALK 12 .. by Peter Walker   (Show all posts)
CaptainVertigo
2016-04-18 19:50:47
The Wall Decision: Let There be No Panic
The legal duty of occupiers of land to “recreational users” is set out in Section 4 of the Occupiers' Liability Act of 1995. It is the same duty that is owed to trespassers:
(a) not to injure the person or damage the property of the person intentionally, and
(b) not to act with reckless disregard for the person or the property of the person.
I would encourage any of you who take an interest in these matters to read Section 4 of the Act below. It will take no more than a few minutes.
The Supreme Court, whose decisions bind the lower courts, interpreted Section 4 in the case of Geraldine Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd in 2005. I have summarised that case below. You may wish to read the full judgment at: http://www.environ.ie/sites/default/files/migrated-files/en/Publications/Community/RuralDevelopment/FileDownLoad,38227,en.pdf
And there is a detailed commentary by Professor William Binchy at: http://www.claruspress.ie/TORT1.pdf
I am not aware if the Circuit Court Judge in the Wall case handed down a written judgment. If she did, I have not seen it. Although the Irish Times and other papers have summarised the judgment, one would prefer to have the benefit of the detailed legal reasoning.
Already the IFA is expressing concerns. According to Journal.ie
“In a statement this morning, IFA Hill Commitee Chairman Pat Dunne has said that although the judgement refers to property owned by the National Parks and Wildlife Service, “farmers will be very wary of the consequences where hill walkers ramble off designated routes”.
He said that the issue was being discussed by the Comhairle na Tuaithe, an organisation within the Department of the Environment made up of farming organisations and other parties with an interest in the countryside.
The aims of these discussions are to give reassurance to farmers that they will not be held culpable if a similar incident were to happen on their land.”

Distinguishing the Wall Judgment
It is far too early to conclude that the Wall judgment represents a new legal threat to the occupiers of land. Crucially, the NPWS constructed a boardwalk with old sleepers which were found by the court to have been in a dangerous state. Walkers were positively encouraged to walk on that boardwalk. Section 4 (4) of the Act says:
“ Notwithstanding subsection (1), where a structure on premises is or has been provided for use primarily by recreational users, the occupier shall owe a duty towards such users in respect of such a structure to take reasonable care to maintain the structure in a safe condition”
And that appears to be what happened in the Wall case. A structure was put in place for use by recreational users and therefore it ought to have been maintained. A completely different regime applies where structures are NOT primarily for the use of recreational users. As the Act says:

“Provided that, where a stile, gate, footbridge or other similar structure on premises is or has been provided not for use primarily by recreational users, the occupier's duty towards a recreational user thereof in respect of such structure shall not be extended by virtue of this subsection”

My current preliminary view is that the Wall decision is not in any sense a dilution of the hillwakers’ principle that you take the mountain as you find it, and accept all the risks involved in a potentially hazardous activity. The Wall decision is about a body creating a structure, directing people to use the structure, and then failing to maintain it. No more than that.

The concerns of the farming community are real, and need to be assuaged. There is NOTHING in the Wall judgment that exposes farm families to extra risk. Farm families are not building special structures for hillwalkers unless they are participating in special schemes where they are fully indemnified. Where hillwalkers cross farm land with or without permission they proceed at their peril. Hillwalkers are generally happy with that arrangement. As a group we take responsibility for our actions. We cannot walk on the land of another citizen and expect compensation if we injure ourselves. That is our "way". Counsel for the NPWS confirmed that this was the first claim against the service. That in itself speaks volumes. The mere fact that the claim has succeeded need not cause dismay. The decision was based on the particular facts of the case. Close scrutiny of those facts, and the reasoning behind the decision, reveals no escalation of liability for landowners/occupiers. Therefore we ought to be indifferent to the outcome of the Appeal. The award may be upheld. So be it. To date there is nothing to suggest that any new principle has been established. Section 4 of the Occupiers' Liability Act continues to protect farmers as it always did. The Supreme Court judgment in Weir-Rodgers v SF Trust Ltd remains fully intact and will bind all lower courts. Nothing has changed.
The Irish Times Re.. by CaptainVertigo   (Show all posts)
Geraldine Weir-Rod.. by CaptainVertigo   (Show all posts)
4.—(1) In respect .. by CaptainVertigo   (Show all posts)


RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS 1 2 3 .. 18 Next page >>
Forum: General
Tough Soles complete a WayWalkers Challenge.
simon3 16 hours ago.
Tough Soles a couple of determined walkers who chose to walk all the waymarked ways in Ireland will be finally finishing on Sunday the 28th of July when they reach the end of the Wicklow Way in Du...

  
Summit Comment
Curracahill: Not great
chelman7 a day ago.
Curracahill is the 633rd highest spot in Ireland. It would be about 633rd on my list of good walks.

  
Summit Comment
Cuilcagh: A classy mountain
hazyview 5 days ago.
I followed the directions (per scarecrow & others) to the second carpark & we commenced the awesome long boardwalk across the bog & up the mountain. A good challenging climb of stairs to the summi...

Summit Comment
Hill of Allen: Pleasant and easy stroll
TommyMc a week ago.
A pleasant and easy stroll from the lay-by on the Allen-Miltown road as referenced by Dessie1. Frustratingly a spacious car parking area at this spot is padlocked, meaning visitors must park in a ...

  
Summit Comment
Largan Hill: Having it Largan
madfrankie a week ago.
In an effort to avoid the unpleasant tree-stuff described previously, I decided to make an alternative approach. At the western end of Lough Talt I took a minor road at G38776815942 that skirts th...

  
Track
Thor's Cave and the Manifold Valley
Peter Walker a week ago.
walk, Len: 17.5km, Climb: 445m, Area: Lancashire, Cheshire & the Southern Penni...

Summit Comment
Inishturk: A quiet place
TommyV a week ago.
Similar to Inis Mean, the middle Aran island, Inis Turk is in the middle of Clare Island and Inis Bofin and is much less visited than it's neighbours. The island itself is very small and can be hi...

  
Track
Buachaille Etive Mor (mostly)
Peter Walker a week ago.
Being sick on your holidays is a classic example of a First World Problem, but it's still pretty annoying. After ... walk, Len: 12.9km, Climb: 972m, Area: Stob Coire Altruim, Loch Linnhe to Loch |...

  
Summit Comment
Knockastia: Most central hill in Ireland??
TommyV a week ago.
Heading North from the little village of Rosemount will bring you near this hill. I found parking beside an old abandoned house at N24222 42974 and proceeded to walk up a road which leads to a hou...

Track
Soum de l'Arraït, Montagne de Lège and Sommet de l'Oudérou from Binos
David-Guenot 4 days ago.
walk, Len: 16.8km, Climb: 1272m, Area: France, Occitanie () ||

  
Track
Meall Fuar-mhonaidh
Peter Walker a week ago.
walk, Len: 9.5km, Climb: 520m, Area: Meall Fuar-mhonaidh, Glen Affric to Glen M...

  
Summit Comment
Cupidstown Hill: One for the County High Pointers only!
TommyV a week ago.
The start point as mentioned by others leads to an easy walk along a forest road for about 500m before reaching the trig point. behind the mast marking the Kildare CHP. The forest trail had lots o...


RECENT CONTRIBUTIONS 1 2 3 .. 18 Next page >>