Donated bench for residents use only - how to limit liability?

Leo said:

But mentioning it doesn't resolve the immediate liability question which was asked here.

Click to expand...

But there is no suggestion of any immediate liability question.

tedmundo said:

The neighbour did place the bench on the green area themselves but it is solid and fit for purpose.

Click to expand...

T McGibney said:

SNIP . Is someone really going to sue if they end up with a splinter in their bum? SNIP.

Click to expand...

Quite possibly yes. Don't laugh !!

I once dealt with a case some years ago where a splinter from a wooden pallet penetrated a person's thigh. They already had some form of cellulitis type complication and the end clinical position was a surgical amputation. People have died of pricks from the thorns on rose bushes.

In a position like the one you posit the defendant is not an insurer for every event but would be required to act reasonably i.e. the duty to exercise reasonable care.

tedmundo said:

My elderly neighbour donated a picnic bench to our shared green area of our estate so neighbours can sit and chat while the young kids play together, everyone is happy that the bench was added and it is used by all neighbors.

Someone suggested to my neighbor that he could be sued if someone into the bench or jumps off it and hurts themselves.

Can we add a sign "For Residents Use Only" to try and limit his liability or what should the sign say?

Thanks

Click to expand...

IANAL

If I was gifting a bench to the neighbourhood then I'd buy one from an established supplier who sells them - even better if they sell them to councils. I don't think they are CE marked or anything like that but maybe some are.

I'd keep the receipt, brochure, website, catalogue or whatever so you'd have backup on what was originally provided. I'd take a photo of the bench every now and then so theres some sort of record of its condition.

I definetly wouldn't buy a cheapie bench from done deal or Acme inc because thats likely to be made for simple domestic use only.

DirectDevil said:

Quite possibly yes. Don't laugh !!

I once dealt with a case some years ago where a splinter from a wooden pallet penetrated a person's thigh. They already had some form of cellulitis type complication and the end clinical position was a surgical amputation. People have died of pricks from the thorns on rose bushes.

Click to expand...

Come on, it's a bench. Not a wooden pallet.

DirectDevil said:

In a position like the one you posit the defendant is not an insurer for every event but would be required to act reasonably i.e. the duty to exercise reasonable care.

Click to expand...

Exactly.

Citing as precedent a prior case regarding a pallet is not reasonable here.

T McGibney said:

Come on, it's a bench. Not a wooden pallet.

Exactly.

Citing as precedent a prior case regarding a pallet is not reasonable here.

Click to expand...

It is what we know as argument by analogy.

Telling me to "come on" does not actually defeat or deal with the principle that I am trying to explain to you politely.

DirectDevil said:

It is what we know as argument by analogy.

Telling me to "come on" does not actually defeat or deal with the principle that I am trying to explain to you politely.

Click to expand...

It's a really poor analogy though. As is the rose bush thorn one. Hence my impatience for which I apologise.

T McGibney said:

It's a really poor analogy though. As is the rose bush thorn one. Hence my impatience for which I apologise.

Click to expand...

No apology necessary IMHO.

It is very exasperating these days that you cannot try to do something with a social and civic minded purpose without having to stop and consider the potential for civil litigation. Because some people have become almost American in their sometimes irrational litigiousness and capricious sense of entitlement it makes people very wary of doing anything for fear of adverse consequences.

This is probably why liability insurance underwriters will not even quote for certain risks which means that events will not proceed. Put another way, if courts are generous and expansive in their approach the point will be reached whereby insurers will not underwrite risks anymore and there will no longer be any funding to make litigation worthwhile.

This whole thread reads like an April fool's joke.

If there is really any worry..
Take the bench away, wait a while, then put it back anonymously (at night, no witnesses, no CCTV, disguised, whatever) and everybody will be happy out.

The way things are going I think that I should've sued somebody for emotional trauma for being forced to participate in Corpus Christi processions around our estate in the 70s!