TAS Injury or death to trespasser or thief.

Australia's #1 for Law
Join 150,000 Australians every month. Ask a question, respond to a question and better understand the law today!
FREE - Join Now

Tonylagoon

Member
7 April 2017
3
0
1
I am wondering how one stands in my situation where on a remote property (unoccupied) where i have some high voltage solar generating happening along with related equipment (locked away and under cameras). Should a thief or trespasser tamper with said equipment there is a very real risk of injury or death.
Hazzards are identified with sinage and within fences. I have not the slightest concern for the welfare of thieves and the like, just cant be bothered dealing with the inconvience of death and injury to law breakers.
 

Lance

Well-Known Member
31 October 2015
852
123
2,394
Hi,
Trespassers and thieves aside OHS / WHS laws require risk consideration and reasonable mitigations to be in place to prevent accidental injury. If you have the area fenced so as to prevent exposure and signage to warn anyone its most likely reasonable that you have fulfiled any duty owed to a person who happens upon your property. Even if you have done everything in your power and someone hurts themselves they can bring an action against you and the court would need to determine if you owed a duty to the person and if there was reasonable foreseeability of the injury in accordance with the Civil liabilities Act (TAS) 2002
 

Rod

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
27 May 2014
7,726
1,056
2,894
www.hutchinsonlegal.com.au
just cant be bothered dealing with the inconvenience of death and injury to law breakers.

As Lance says you can't get away from dealing with injuries and death on your property.

Which is sort of fair enough as it prevents the other extreme happening where the law aims to prevent people setting up lethal mantraps on their property with the intention of deliberately killing or maiming others.

I understand your frustration of dealing with the consequences lawbreakers bring onto themselves, but there is no avoiding it. The only good thing is that in most cases their own negligence is likely to be assessed at 100% if you have signs and fences up and you can sue them for trespass and damages to your property.
 

Tonylagoon

Member
7 April 2017
3
0
1
As Lance says you can't get away from dealing with injuries and death on your property.

Which is sort of fair enough as it prevents the other extreme happening where the law aims to prevent people setting up lethal mantraps on their property with the intention of deliberately killing or maiming others.

I understand your frustration of dealing with the consequences lawbreakers bring onto themselves, but there is no avoiding it. The only good thing is that in most cases their own negligence is likely to be assessed at 100% if you have signs and fences up and you can sue them for trespass and damages to your property.
Thank-you Rod, your knowledge is valued.
 

Tonylagoon

Member
7 April 2017
3
0
1
Hi,
Trespassers and thieves aside OHS / WHS laws require risk consideration and reasonable mitigations to be in place to prevent accidental injury. If you have the area fenced so as to prevent exposure and signage to warn anyone its most likely reasonable that you have fulfiled any duty owed to a person who happens upon your property. Even if you have done everything in your power and someone hurts themselves they can bring an action against you and the court would need to determine if you owed a duty to the person and if there was reasonable foreseeability of the injury in accordance with the Civil liabilities Act (TAS) 2002
Thank-you Lance, appreciated, I will look at that piece of legislation.
 

Tim W

Lawyer
LawConnect (LawTap) Verified
28 April 2014
4,913
820
2,894
Sydney
I have not the slightest concern for the welfare of thieves and the like, just cant be bothered dealing with the inconvience of death and injury to law breakers.
Sorry, "just can't be bothered" to write a meaningful answer
for somebody who regards the death or serious injury of another person
as an "inconvenience"