The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I own a field, and around it have put an electric fence, with enough power to kill people if they touched it. I have also put signs up everywhere "Danger of death", "High Voltage" "Warning! If you touch this you will die!" etc.
If someone touches it anyway, and dies. Should I be held responsible? Would the current uk law find me to blame? Is this right?
If someone touches it anyway, and dies. Should I be held responsible? Would the current uk law find me to blame? Is this right?
Page:
What if they were blind, then?
you would have to prove that it was impossible not to see the sign's, and also that you had good reason to have them there in the first place and why you have a fence with a voltage that high.
As a law graduate who can't remember that much of the course, I'd say you'd probably be in the clear.
You've given fair warning.
The 'red hand rule' was invented by (I think) the then Judge Denning, the principle being that 'some disclaimers would need to be written in red ink with a big hand pointing to it to be valid'. The need for the disclaimer being related to the nature of what it disclaimed.
Thus having a dangerous faulty wheel on a bike (setting aside potential sale of goods and stuff legislation), would need a bigger, clearer warning than, say, a condition that you wouldn't give a refund if they wanted to return the bike.
If your signs were clear and numerous enough, they should cover you.
Timmargh wrote:
> What if the person who touches the fence, steps on the landmine or
> slips on the floor is illiterate?
Some legal case decided on this specific issue (over a train ticket, I think), ruling that you're entitled to expect normal adult people to speak english and be literate.
If you have something that warns you they might not then this can change.
There was a legal case about a guy with some form of colourblindness buying something in a shop.
There was a sign up, yellow with blue writing (or vice versa), with some diclaimer written on it. The shopper couldn't read it, but it still stood, because it was reasonable to expect that he would be able to.
Again, if you had something to suggest they couldn't understand the warning, you could expect a court to decide that it's not reasonable to assume that they would.
Disclaimer - All of the above may be factually incorrect, I've not done any tort law for ages, and I was never that good at it. Maybe you should ask Light.
Sorry, but the new SR tags don't include a [Red Hand] :^D
You've actually just reminded me that I do enjoy problem solving law-style. If I could afford the LPC and could settle myself with the moral bits (which I probably pretend are too important, so I have an excuse for failing to be a lawyer :^( ), I'd want to have a go at being a solicitor.
Oh well, I'll have to be a lifeguard for now :^S
You've given fair warning.
The 'red hand rule' was invented by (I think) the then Judge Denning, the principle being that 'some disclaimers would need to be written in red ink with a big hand pointing to it to be valid'. The need for the disclaimer being related to the nature of what it disclaimed.
Thus having a dangerous faulty wheel on a bike (setting aside potential sale of goods and stuff legislation), would need a bigger, clearer warning than, say, a condition that you wouldn't give a refund if they wanted to return the bike.
If your signs were clear and numerous enough, they should cover you.
Timmargh wrote:
> What if the person who touches the fence, steps on the landmine or
> slips on the floor is illiterate?
Some legal case decided on this specific issue (over a train ticket, I think), ruling that you're entitled to expect normal adult people to speak english and be literate.
If you have something that warns you they might not then this can change.
There was a legal case about a guy with some form of colourblindness buying something in a shop.
There was a sign up, yellow with blue writing (or vice versa), with some diclaimer written on it. The shopper couldn't read it, but it still stood, because it was reasonable to expect that he would be able to.
Again, if you had something to suggest they couldn't understand the warning, you could expect a court to decide that it's not reasonable to assume that they would.
Disclaimer - All of the above may be factually incorrect, I've not done any tort law for ages, and I was never that good at it. Maybe you should ask Light.
Sorry, but the new SR tags don't include a [Red Hand] :^D
You've actually just reminded me that I do enjoy problem solving law-style. If I could afford the LPC and could settle myself with the moral bits (which I probably pretend are too important, so I have an excuse for failing to be a lawyer :^( ), I'd want to have a go at being a solicitor.
Oh well, I'll have to be a lifeguard for now :^S
Timmargh wrote:
> What if the person who touches the fence, steps on the landmine or
> slips on the floor is illiterate?
Then big signs with skull and crossbones, diagrams of electocution and lots of bold red writing really should give them a hint.
If however they're a complete retard and pay no attention to such things, then they should not be out on their own in the first place.
> What if the person who touches the fence, steps on the landmine or
> slips on the floor is illiterate?
Then big signs with skull and crossbones, diagrams of electocution and lots of bold red writing really should give them a hint.
If however they're a complete retard and pay no attention to such things, then they should not be out on their own in the first place.
then they're dead, and you're on your way to a life of being sodomised in the shower block ....
What if the person who touches the fence, steps on the landmine or slips on the floor is illiterate?
You'd have to convince a court that you had a VERY good reason for having that electric fence, other than for it to serve as a man-trap.
I'm not deliberately being picky, but I don't get this.
In my example, I'm not negligent, I've put up lots of signs saying what will happen should someone touch my electric fence. If someone still does, then surely it's their call.
Like that bloke who got eaten by that German a while being. He knew what was going to happen to him if he went, made his choice, and went for it...
In my example, I'm not negligent, I've put up lots of signs saying what will happen should someone touch my electric fence. If someone still does, then surely it's their call.
Like that bloke who got eaten by that German a while being. He knew what was going to happen to him if he went, made his choice, and went for it...
Your Honour wrote:
> If someone touches it, they are using their choice and their freedom.
> Therefore I am exempt from blame.
No, because every human being has a duty to ensure that others are not put unnecessarily at risk - that's what the charge of manslaughter is all about.
Manslaughter basically is being charged for someone dying through your negligence, or through you not acting to save them.
Basically, if your idiocy causes someone to die, you're in trouble.
> If someone touches it, they are using their choice and their freedom.
> Therefore I am exempt from blame.
No, because every human being has a duty to ensure that others are not put unnecessarily at risk - that's what the charge of manslaughter is all about.
Manslaughter basically is being charged for someone dying through your negligence, or through you not acting to save them.
Basically, if your idiocy causes someone to die, you're in trouble.
ßora† §agdiyeV wrote:
> Of course, this law is being abused in our country these days, with
> the 'I fell over a pebble that shouldn't have been there' claims ....
That's the point I'm trying to get to.
Your wheel falling off the bike example is different from mine. You said "Wheel may fall off" my sign says "If you touch this you will die."
If someone touches it, they are using their choice and their freedom. Therefore I am exempt from blame.
> Of course, this law is being abused in our country these days, with
> the 'I fell over a pebble that shouldn't have been there' claims ....
That's the point I'm trying to get to.
Your wheel falling off the bike example is different from mine. You said "Wheel may fall off" my sign says "If you touch this you will die."
If someone touches it, they are using their choice and their freedom. Therefore I am exempt from blame.
Page: