# Would-be-burglar injured attempting to break in to house - inform insurer?.



## emeralds (3 Jan 2018)

What is the scenario here insurance wise does anyone know?
Burglar attempts to break in to house through window. Window shatters easily and burglar is badly cut on face. Houseowner in house at the time. Calls ambulance and gardai.
Should insurance company be informed? My feeling is yes but houseowner feels all is in hands of Gardai.
(Edited to say not sure if this would be better in insurance forum!)


----------



## peteb (3 Jan 2018)

I've had a quick scan through a policy wording.  It says you must inform of all incidents that may give rise to a claim.  

The burglar would want to be ballsy to try make a claim here.  And to make a claim that would mean him having to approach the Injuries Board and/or a solicitor which is unlikely to happen.  It would be different if the wall had been covered in razor wire or glass and he injured himself shimying over it as it could be argued it was OTT for the householder.  

But no way there is a claim coming from this.  The burglar smashed the window and its reasonable to expect one would injure themselves doing this.  All that he's getting here is some karma payback!!


----------



## Slim (3 Jan 2018)

Hi Emeralds. If the burglar makes a claim along the lines of you being negligent in some aspect of your home construction or maintenance, it is possible it would be entertained by your insurer and the courts. I would check with the insurance company. Even if the scumbag is convicted/pleads guilty, he may still make a claim.


----------



## LDFerguson (3 Jan 2018)

As has been said above, most insurance policies require you to notify the insurance company of incidents that might give rise to a claim.  So I'd suggest that the insurance company is notified of what happened anyway.  If (as is likely) no claim eventually arises, then it's no big deal.


----------



## DirectDevil (4 Jan 2018)

OP,

Report it to your insurers - it is a contractual obligation and common sense.

You will require your insurers to stand behind you if a claim arises from Raffles.

Even though Raffles is a burglar you might owe a duty of care to the "trespassing" creature in question. As long ago as 1972 the UK House of Lords opined that occupiers owe a duty of care to trespassers to act with due regard to humane consideration. There is absolutely nothing in the information posted to say or suggest that you owe a duty of care or that you have been in breach of any duty of care.

If Raffles was injured as a direct consequence of and in the course of his criminal conduct his claim might well be defeated by a principle known as *ex turpi causa non oritur actio. *This is the principle that an action cannot be founded on illegal or immoral conduct.

BTW the House of Lords case was British Railways Board -v- Herrington (1972). It's facts are not like yours but I am just referencing the principle to make it clear that there is potential for trouble. (Link http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1972/1.html).

To be liable to Raffles you would want to have done something extraordinary like setting a trap with a view to mind to injuring a burglar.

If anything is owed Raffles should be compensating you for the damage that he caused.


----------



## emeralds (4 Jan 2018)

Thank you all. Insurance company have been informed. House owner very annoyed  because the glass was original 1920's...


----------



## KOW (8 Jan 2018)

Living semi rural unfortunately I sleep better with my shot gun close. Years ago my wife gave me a hard time over gun not any more.
Where has it gone wrong that honest people have to worry about been sued by an intruder probably with 20 previous convictions.


----------



## MrEarl (9 Jan 2018)

Hello,

While I fully agree with DCD about the principal of honest people having to worry about being sued by an intruder, and that's something that simply must be changed by our legislators....

I was surprised that the home owner had not contacted their insurance company immediately, even if only to put them on notice that the home owner might be making a claim in respect of the damaged window.

Perhaps the home owner should also consider taking a case against the intruder for damage to their private property ?


----------



## Firefly (9 Jan 2018)

MrEarl said:


> I was surprised that the home owner had not contacted their insurance company immediately, even if only to put them on notice that the home owner might be making a claim in respect of the damaged window.


That was my first thought...don't mind the scumbag, the window!



MrEarl said:


> Perhaps the home owner should also consider taking a case against the intruder for damage to their private property ?



Wrong country. Good luck with that!


----------



## KOW (9 Jan 2018)

Elderly gentleman (at the time 81 yrs young) next door to me had intruders of an ethnic minority sit him and his wife down while they ransacked his house. They got 2000 euro. Five months later Dermot passed. He lived in total fear the last five months of his life. His wife remains in the house and sadly there is a high probability she will be getting a return visit.


----------



## DirectDevil (10 Jan 2018)

There is absolutely no legal impediment to OP suing the burglar.
Practically, the exercise would be pointless if the offender has no means.
However, if the offender is a frequent flyer he might be facing a jail term if this matter is prosecuted. What are the odds that he might turn up in court with money to compensate OP if that might save him some porridge ? Reasonable, I would suggest. 

If OP's insurers are paying for the replacement of that glass they can finance a District Court action against the burglar by way of exercising subrogation rights. In the real world that will not happen if Raffles has no funds.


----------



## Jazz01 (10 Jan 2018)

http://www.irishexaminer.com/irelan...after-tearing-scrotum-in-burglary-465482.html

Can't say much more but it's a pity he didn't rip it off... he has some "liathróidí" to go ahead with this..


----------



## MrEarl (10 Jan 2018)

DirectDevil said:


> There is absolutely no legal impediment to OP suing the burglar.
> Practically, the exercise would be pointless if the offender has no means.
> However, if the offender is a frequent flyer he might be facing a jail term if this matter is prosecuted. What are the odds that he might turn up in court with money to compensate OP if that might save him some porridge ? Reasonable, I would suggest.
> 
> If OP's insurers are paying for the replacement of that glass they can finance a District Court action against the burglar by way of exercising subrogation rights. In the real world that will not happen if Raffles has no funds.



Hello,

Another thing I like about taking the intruder to court, is that it facilitates the naming of the defendant and with a bit of luck, the story will get some coverage - so by extension, the scumbag's name is up in lights !



.


----------



## Leper (10 Jan 2018)

. . . . but weren't you sitting down watching television's Dancing with the Stars when the intruder came in through the window and you felt obliged to defend yourself, suffered trauma and shock, unable to make friends since, lost irreplaceable 1920's glass, your kids living in fear of further break-ins and unable to concentrate even in school, wife terrified even to answer the phone now, you panic at loud bangs suffering a kind of shell-shock, your friends won't visit you for fear of reprisal, you've now turned to drink and throw in one or two other things . . . . I'd say the burglar will get about 20 years up the river, but he had a disadvantaged childhood and was breaking in only looking for food  for his starving kids. OK! He'll get the Probation Act.


----------



## DirectDevil (12 Jan 2018)

DCD said:


> Living semi rural unfortunately I sleep better with my shot gun close. Years ago my wife gave me a hard time over gun not any more.
> Where has it gone wrong that honest people have to worry about been sued by an intruder probably with 20 previous convictions.



A question occurs to me. Are you required to keep a shotgun in a locked cabinet or some such safe place in your house when not in use ?

What is the position with your household liability insurance in case you happened to shoot someone by accident ?

I thought that a lot of household insurers were now tending to exclude public liability cover for claims arising from use of firearms (in the proper legal sense of that terms).That said, someone must be underwriting the risk as ownership of a shotgun would not be unusual on a farm. FBD's house insurance seems to exclude liability in connection with firearms other than licensed sporting guns. I suppose that their farm insurance might cover the firearms risk but it might be worth checking as the point arises.


----------



## KOW (12 Jan 2018)

Direct Devil. Weapons are required to be stored in a safe. So here is one for you. When i leave my home I secure my weapon. How mad is that.
 At night I protect myself and my family. After what happend next door other issues really do not concern me.
As one neighbour said to me with a double barrel one shot into the intruder and then fire one into the ceiling so you can say you fired a warning shot.
I do not agree wasting anything to the ceiling. Seriously if someone breaks into my house I certainly will take no chances. 
Organised gangs and unfortunately young druggies certainly will not offer me any warning. Anyone breaking into a house will be armed a knife a screwdriver etc.


----------

