Your Burglars Might Drown

[mushroom25]

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14514544.Family_told_they_must_demolish_garden_ponds_for_safety/

do householders have a legal duty of care towards burglars and other criminally-minded uninvited visitors?

[Jackdaw33]

Yes. Can't remember the Act but it dates from 1983 and imposes a duty of care towards trespassers.

[jourdain2]

I feel tired.....

[frugalfred]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2320468/Dog-owners-forced-tie-pets-case-bite-burglar.html

[Gavmacp]

Should you ensure your ladders safe just in case they use it?

[Jackdaw33]

occupiers liability act 1984

[Peter Pedant]

yes they do

they cant shoot them or lay man-traps for them for example

[ and I cant remember any of the relevant cases... herrington v BRB I think also the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 ] sorry but you did ask

[Peter Pedant]

Jackie is absolutely correct
thre was a common law duty and this was crystallised for some reason ( parliament had nothing to do that week ? ) into a statute

[hc4361]

The landlords of the property haven't confirmed that is the reason he has been asked to remove the fishpond.

[Old_Geezer]

I think the reasons given for concern are foolish. No one should have to curtail normal living simply because of the prospect that some idiot can break in and get hurt as a result. One may as well leave all unlocked in case they hurt their hand trying to break in. But if that photo shows the pond, it looks some kind of commercial project to me. I'm unconvinced about the, "just building it up to keep my daughter safe" justification. I'd have thought there were probably rules about what you can construct at your rented premises.

As for dogs, I recall delivering papers as a youth to one house and it the Alsation was out front then the damned paper got stuck in the gate. No one should be expected to face a guard dog.

[hc4361]

Under the OLA a householder has a duty to protect visitors, invited or not, from unexpected hazards.
That pond is a big structure and nobody is going to accidentally step in to it. Also it has very solid sides, so if anybody did fall in to it, it would be easier to get out than, say, a muddy bank with no hand grabs.

I suspect the real reason he has been asked to remove it is because he didn't ask the permission of the landlord. Possibly a neighbour complained because the top of the structure seems to be higher than the fence. It's certainly taller than the man stood in the pond.
It looks like a big pond - the landlord may be concerned that he is planning to run a koi carp business.

[THECORBYLOON]

Reading that Act, as long as folk are warned about the existence of a hazard, the occupier has discharged his responsibility.

[naomi24]

If a burglar falls into my pond and drowns I wont shed a tear.

[Jackdaw33]

So a sign reading, 'Beware of the Pond' could absolve him, as long as it is clearly visible at all times.

[viv41]

Shouldn't be burgling in the first place. We'll be asked to leave keys out for them next !!!

[mushroom25]

//So a sign reading, 'Beware of the Pond' could absolve him, as long as it is clearly visible at all times.//

how many languages would such a sign need to be rendered in, to comply?

[viv41]

Good point !

[hc4361]

As the pond can't be stepped into (you'd have to climb in) and isn't hidden it doesn't need a sign.

[wolf63]

There is more to this story - we only have this guy's version. There are stories about this in other newspapers but they are obviously from the same interview.

[Jackdaw33]

The legal doctrine, 'Ex turpi causa non oritur actio' (from a dishonorable act no action arises), meaning that one cannot claim if injury is a result of his own illegal act, seems to have been forgotten by the judiciary.

[hc4361]

As for the languages of warning signs - warnings that can literally save lives are only printed in English on the packets of peanuts I buy. 'Contains nuts'.