falling through a roof

[nightcrawler13]

read an article in the newspaper yesterday saying a school put up warning signs, as they had the copper stolen from their roof, to warn thieves they may injure themselves...

as apparently they could sue the school if they did

can anyone explain why a judge would side with someone robbing a school in such a case?!

[jump]

read an article in the newspaper yesterday saying a school put up warning signs, as they had the copper stolen from their roof, to warn thieves they may injure themselves...

as apparently they could sue the school if they did

can anyone explain why a judge would side with someone robbing a school in such a case?!

Edited March 11, 2011 by jump

[ampersand]

It's because the robbery & the roof are two differenet matters, the roof is a possible hazard so anyone who climbs on it is at risk regardless of why they may be up there. I don't agree with this btw.

[jump]

is there anything that they could do to nil and void that? like if i was to break into one of those electricity box things and kill myself, would my next of kin be able to sue the council? as entering there is a risk.

Edited March 11, 2011 by jump

[ampersand]

Erm...maybe but don't they have high voltage sings on them anyway?

[jump]

i know. would there not be anything a school could do to absolve themselves from any blame. or is that what that sign will achieve?

bloody stupid either way. you're committing a crime, if you get hurt, tough shit.

[ampersand]

You've just answered your own question.

But you have to seperate the matters, what if it was kid that kicked a ball on the roof and went up there to get it back?

[rabid]

aye that's a different matter, a warning for that is completely understandable.. but the op says that the sign says it's aimed at thieves. which is just disgusting (if it specifically mentions thieves)

[RABun]

Anyone has a duty of care to whoever enters their premises whether invited or not. That duty of care means removing completely any hazards to health and safety or if unable to remove the risk to adequately warn.

Its like if kids break into a building site and fall off a roof its still the builders fault if they haven't placed adequate signage to tell people to stay out.

[eFestivals]

Erm...maybe but don't they have high voltage signs on them anyway?

rather amusingly/ironically, there's lots of electrical installations which have signs on them which say "Danger: low voltage".

It's a technically correct sign to have - "low voltage" has a definition which is applicable to a particular voltage range (which I can't remember what it is, it's 20 years since I worked as a sparky. But the domestic electricity supply of 230v falls within the 'low voltage' range) - but of course because it says "low voltage" it doesn't sound as tho it should be dangerous.

[feral chile]

Anyone has a duty of care to whoever enters their premises whether invited or not. That duty of care means removing completely any hazards to health and safety or if unable to remove the risk to adequately warn.

Its like if kids break into a building site and fall off a roof its still the builders fault if they haven't placed adequate signage to tell people to stay out.

[jump]

yeah, but the whole world's a potential hazard. Where do you draw the line? Is it when something's actually defective so causing unexpected risk?

[RABun]

yeah, but the whole world's a potential hazard. Where do you draw the line? Is it when something's actually defective so causing unexpected risk?

[Katster]

But you have to seperate the matters, what if it was kid that kicked a ball on the roof and went up there to get it back?

[jump]

They shouldn't have. They should report it to a member of staff who could get someone to safely retrive the ball.

[feral chile]

Yes it is but if you think about it there are things in place to stop people hurting themselves. Yellow lines on train platforms/traffic control measures/caution wet floor signs

They are all there because the controller of those areas has a duty of care to users. You can't eliminate all risks obviously but reasonable steps should be taken to protect people from hazards they can't necessarily recognise. That includes people trespassing on school roofs as it also has a bearing on other people who might need access to that roof. The law does not discriminate between someone being there with or without permission in that context.

[RABun]

What about within the home though? I've got visions of us having to put up warning signs in the kitchen and bathroom,in case anyone gets electrocuted or slips.

I can see with the roof, because there's now an added risk, and it's kind of public, but what about inside your own home? Is it just for loose carpets and things that cause extra risk?

[RABun]

they would have to prove you were being willfully negligent too

[Katster]

You'll still need a warning sign for whoever is about to go on the roof.

[ampersand]

Yes, but you said you had to seperate matters. You don't. The only people who SHOULD be on the roof are builders/contractors etc. For anyone else who shouldn't be on the roof, there are signs warning them of the dangers.

I'm not saying it's right or I agree with any of it. That's just the way it is.

[jump]

Yes, but you said you had to seperate matters. You don't. The only people who SHOULD be on the roof are builders/contractors etc. For anyone else who shouldn't be on the roof, there are signs warning them of the dangers.

I'm not saying it's right or I agree with any of it. That's just the way it is.

Edited March 11, 2011 by jump

[Gre]

Shouldn't the 'aurhorised' staff have been told at some point in their training about the danger? Seems like an easy way round it.

We should get rid of all warning signs & let natural selection take it's course