http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=895942007
Were the appeal judges afraid of creating a precedent where local
authorities and landowners would require to fence areas where it is
dangerous for people to walk when encouraged by the owners to do so?
In everyday life the government does not allow even competent people
to take this responsibility. For example, roofers, who are well used
to heights are not allowed to work without roof edge protection and
there is a host of legislation that safeguards the unsuspecting public
from hazards.
So why should everything change the minute one steps outside the built
environment, especially when the area in question could be construed
as a built environment with the provision of a path, seats and the
cutting of grass? This is not a "wild place" like a mountain where
people go for adventure and accept risk in what they do albeit that
when an accident occurs they expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill.
But isn't it surprising that no-one considered that the woman could
have tripped where the cut grass abutted the uncut grass thus creating
a ridge, which might have explained her fall. I think the practice of
leaving clumped/uncut grass near the cliff edge adjacent to cut grass,
is extremely dangerous.
Surely if any landowners encourage the public to enter their ground by
providing pathways and seating facilities, it should be safe for
people of all abilities to use.
I think the court opinion was based more on the consequences to the
landowners than on the plight of the poor woman who fell.
It is noted in the Scotsman Comments that there is not that much
support for the decision.
Angus Macmillan
www.roots-of-blood.org.uk
www.killhunting.org
www.con-servation.org.uk
All truth passes through three stages:
First, it is ridiculed;
Second, it is violently opposed; and
Third, it is accepted as self-evident.
-- Arthur Schopenhauer (1788-1860)