The compo thread


Maybe I’m misreading you, but it seems like we were all quite happy when we were ignorant of our legal liability! It’s suddenly finding that anyone who happens to take stupid risks while trespassing on our property becomes our problem that has us all riled up.

That football story is another blood boiling one. There is just no way I can accept that the liability should fall on the householder here. I’m not contesting that this is the law, just that it’s utterly out of touch with who is actually (not legally) at fault in this situation. Surely planners shouldn’t allow spiked railings if anyone who chooses to impale themselves on one will be entitled to huge compensation claims??


I don’t have an issue with spiked railings being used because they’re obviously dangerous to climb on when you look at them. As someone said above, it’s hidden hazards that you should be liable for, not bleedin’ obvious ones.


And if your child was impaled on a spike you’d sing a different tune.

It’s simple. Remove the deliberate hazards from your property. Spiked railings, broken glass, barbed wire etc. If you want to avoid this kind of litigation then you need to think of every trespasser not as a criminal and instead consider what would happen if they were a child. If a criminal impaled himself on your fence then it’s unlikely that a judge would find you negligent (subject to a few criteria) but if it happened to a child then you’re in trouble.

This is good advice and it’s a shame you can’t appreciate it.


What’s your idea of an ‘effective’ wall? Does it comply with the planning regulations with regards to height etc?


I don’t have kids of my own, but my brothers and I managed to injure ourselves on an incredible array of objects/terrain owned by others while growing up. It’s what kids do (or did in the 90s - might be less fashionable now?)

It would be embarrassing in the extreme to me if our parents had ever acted as if it was the fault of, for example, the farmer who owned the tree we probably shouldn’t have been climbing in the first place.

Should a 6-year-old really be out playing unsupervised like that in the first place?


Isn’t that another area where things can get ridiculous?


Well, it wouldn’t. Your neighbours would (rightfully) object to it. And anyway, walls don’t deter burglars/rapists/murderers. Most of them will gain entrance through your front door and will then appreciate the privacy afforded by your high wall.

If you want to protect yourself and your family from burglars/rapists/murderers the best thing to get is good neighbours. If you can’t find any good neighbours you could try make your own. All it takes is a bit of friendly banter and some genuine interest in their lives, maybe even a bit of understanding and generosity with your time and effort. Before you know it you will have a secure neighbourhood, no crime, and more importantly, no high walls. If you keep working hard at it you might even be able to create a ‘community’, and then ultimately (heaven forbid!) a ‘SOCIETY’!


I’m not saying “legally ban 6-year-olds playing independently”. I’m saying that if your 6-year-old is left unsupervised and impales themselves an a railing then maybe they weren’t ready for that level of independence?

If it was my kid I’m pretty sure I’d feel responsible. (Obviously would be different if it was a hidden hazard though, especially an intentionally hidden one).


What about 9-year-olds? Or 12-year-olds? I think most of us are attracted to the idea of children being able to play with their friends outside their houses. Of course children will have accidents but as a property owner you shouldn’t create hazards that are deliberately designed to cause harm.


Lot of histrionics in this thread.

The award to the kid was basically “here’s a few quid and fuck off”. The miserable award reflected the pathetic nature of the claim.


No, it reflected the liability of the property owner.


The award was 7k. That’s SFA all in the world of liability.


Right but the solicitors and barristers still got paid, and have an incentive to take more such cases in the future.


My Canadian professional insurance company fights every case it thinks it can win, regardless of the size of the claim or legal costs.

#195 … -1.2967090

7 mm!


I have four kids and we need a new house!


I wonder if ikea sell spikey fencing?


Wow! F-n wow! 230k + legal costs
Yeah, Stokes has not helped himself 1 bit in this case but 230k seems extremely excessive. A new bar has been set for future claims? … 57160.html


I think it’s fair to say that we’re all exasperated.


That’s just nuts.
If my son fell in IKEA and got a 7mm scar, and say the judge then only granted him lesser damages, could I then sue (whoever) for sexual discrimination on his behalf?

Say I fell over in IKEA and got a 7mm scar, and say the judge then only granted me lesser damages, could I then sue (whoever) for sexual discrimination and age discrimination?

I’ve got a family outing planned too. Want to meet up in the café first for some meatballs and cinnamon buns? We can co-witness each other’s family accidents… afterwards.