Carried Away By A Moonlight Shadow...

[YnysMon]

2 hours ago, Mouldy said:

The quay heading along that stretch has been falling into disrepair for some time and I have heard that someone who had moored there, tripped and fell, then tried to submit a claim for damages to Richardsons, who own the moorings.

You're right about the state of the moorings on that side. Not somewhere I would want to moor anyway given the decrepit state of the quay heading. 

[Meantime]

3 hours ago, Mouldy said:

The quay heading along that stretch has been falling into disrepair for some time and I have heard that someone who had moored there, tripped and fell, then tried to submit a claim for damages to Richardsons, who own the moorings.

I’m guessing that by putting  signs to indicate that mooring is no longer permitted would give the owners grounds to refuse a claim as anyone who now moors there is effectively trespassing.

Simply putting no mooring signs along that stretch would not be enough to prevent any claims, if there were real grounds for a claim. It would have to be proven that the land owner knew about a defect and took no action to keep the public away from the area. No mooring signs alone are unlikely to be sufficient. It is more likely that the mooring has been closed to prevent any further damage to what is already rather fragile quay heading and to discourage the use of rhond anchors where there are missing posts etc.

There is a public right of way all the way along that bank from Acle Bridge up to and along Upton Dyke. Walkers would have as much chance of suing the land owners as someone who had moored there if there are known trip hazards or other things likely to cause injury. 

If it were truly to avoid a public liability claim the owner would need to fence off the mooring leaving a pathway along the bank behind the mooring. Although it might be fairly obvious to most adults where the public footpath along the top of the bank is, it is not marked and even less likely to be adhered to by children who could easily venture onto the mooring and find any hidden dips behind undermined quay heading, or trip over broken mooring posts etc. To the best of my knowledge there are no signs on the landward side warning walkers not to venture onto the mooring or even any signs that say private no trespassing.

Only the land owner will know why they have put up no mooring signs, but if they really want to reduce their risk of a claim, they would need to undertake a regular inspection of their property and identify and take action on any defect likely to cause harm, whether that be by fixing, or fencing off the area. 

[Mouldy]

47 minutes ago, Meantime said:

Simply putting no mooring signs along that stretch would not be enough to prevent any claims, if there were real grounds for a claim. It would have to be proven that the land owner knew about a defect and took no action to keep the public away from the area. No mooring signs alone are unlikely to be sufficient. It is more likely that the mooring has been closed to prevent any further damage to what is already rather fragile quay heading and to discourage the use of rhond anchors where there are missing posts etc.

There is a public right of way all the way along that bank from Acle Bridge up to and along Upton Dyke. Walkers would have as much chance of suing the land owners as someone who had moored there if there are known trip hazards or other things likely to cause injury. 

If it were truly to avoid a public liability claim the owner would need to fence off the mooring leaving a pathway along the bank behind the mooring. Although it might be fairly obvious to most adults where the public footpath along the top of the bank is, it is not marked and even less likely to be adhered to by children who could easily venture onto the mooring and find any hidden dips behind undermined quay heading, or trip over broken mooring posts etc. To the best of my knowledge there are no signs on the landward side warning walkers not to venture onto the mooring or even any signs that say private no trespassing.

Only the land owner will know why they have put up no mooring signs, but if they really want to reduce their risk of a claim, they would need to undertake a regular inspection of their property and identify and take action on any defect likely to cause harm, whether that be by fixing, or fencing off the area. 

Whilst I must bow to your clearly superior knowledge of the law, if erecting signs prevents the vast majority of would be moorers along that stretch of moorings, they will have done their job.

[Tempest]

17 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

Whilst I must bow to your clearly superior knowledge of the law, if erecting signs prevents the vast majority of would be moorers along that stretch of moorings, they will have done their job.

I am with you on this Malcolm and I do have some knowledge of the law.

If someone falls and is injured after ignoring the "No Mooring" signs, a court could find the injured party partially or fully responsible for their own injury, under the principle of contributory negligence.

For trespassers, the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1984 applies. Even though the duty of care is reduced, the landowner still owes a limited duty of care to trespassers. Specifically, if:

1. The landowner knows there is a danger,
2. They know trespassers may come into the vicinity of the danger, and
3. The risk is one against which they can reasonably be expected to provide protection

In Summary:

• No Mooring signs would help but might not be sufficient alone to prevent liability.
• Landowners owe some duty of care to both lawful visitors and trespassers.
• The nature of the hazard and the foreseeability of injury will play a role in determining liability.
• Additional steps like warning about specific dangers (e.g., uneven ground) could further protect the landowner.

My view is (opinion only!!) it would be extremely difficult and costly for a member of the public who ignored such signage to successfully make a claim against a land owner if they hurt themselves in an area in which signage stated that mooring was not allowed, but adding the dangers on that signage may assist the land owner even further. 

[Meantime]

13 minutes ago, Mouldy said:

Whilst I must bow to your clearly superior knowledge of the law, if erecting signs prevents the vast majority of would be moorers along that stretch of moorings, they will have done their job.

They may reduce, but will not eliminate the chance of a claim, if indeed that is the true reason why the signs went up. This same story is often trotted out when previously open moorings are suddenly closed. Land owner threatened with being sued when someone trips or falls, so they have closed the mooring. 

The simple fact is that occupiers of land are responsible for ensuring safety on their property, not only to employees, but also to visitors and strangely enough, trespassers, under the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984.

Sometimes signs alone can be counter productive. A pub near me has put up signs warning that the outside decking area can be slippery when wet, you might think they have absolved themselves of any claim or responsibility. In actual fact, what they have done is admit they know there is a problem and done nothing about it, such as close the decking area when it is wet, or clean the algae of it, or apply non slip paint etc.

[Mouldy]

3 minutes ago, Meantime said:

They may reduce, but will not eliminate the chance of a claim, if indeed that is the true reason why the signs went up. This same story is often trotted out when previously open moorings are suddenly closed. Land owner threatened with being sued when someone trips or falls, so they have closed the mooring. 

The simple fact is that occupiers of land are responsible for ensuring safety on their property, not only to employees, but also to visitors and strangely enough, trespassers, under the Occupiers Liability Acts of 1957 and 1984.

Sometimes signs alone can be counter productive. A pub near me has put up signs warning that the outside decking area can be slippery when wet, you might think they have absolved themselves of any claim or responsibility. In actual fact, what they have done is admit they know there is a problem and done nothing about it, such as close the decking area when it is wet, or clean the algae of it, or apply non slip paint etc.

As I said earlier, I must bow to your infinitely superior knowledge and must humbly request that you accept my apology for even thinking that signage may even deter folk from mooring there.

On that note, perhaps it is time for me to take a holiday from posting.

[Meantime]

1 minute ago, Mouldy said:

As I said earlier, I must bow to your infinitely superior knowledge and must humbly request that you accept my apology for even thinking that signage may even deter folk from mooring there.

On that note, perhaps it is time for me to take a holiday from posting.

There's no need for sarcasm, or to take a holiday from posting. This is just a discussion. Apologies if I've offended you in some way.

I didn't say the no mooring signs wouldn't deter people mooring there, but I do wonder about the validity of them being put there to stop the land owner being sued. Only the land owner will know the real reason why he doesn't want people mooring there at the moment. 

It is also a popular walking route, so if the land owner is worried about being sued, then they should undertake a proper H+S assessment and take care of any foreseeable risks to safety. Those same potential risks apply to both boaters and walkers.

[Norfolkangler]

I do find life extremely sad nowadays when the term "Common sense" has gone out the window. I do feel sorry for the poor old land owners who have to think of every eventuality that could happen on their land and put up signs like No Mooring because of blah blah blah etc. Being an old fart, No Mooring means just that to me and not lets Moor and sue some one. In years gone by if I put a sign up on my gate saying Beware of the Dogs, apparently I was admitting I had  dangerous dogs, where as If I put a sign up saying Dogs roaming free that is acceptable. The world has gone MAD. As mentioned before COVID has had a lot to do with it as people got so fed up they made their own rules up to suit. 

Rant over. This is just purley my take on things.