That might be possible, although a quick search hasn’t revealed any case law that says the occupiers liability act applies, it could, it certainly applies on board vessels.
This is often misrepresented. Trespassers do have some protection from occupier liability but not simply because they broke in and it is not well maintained. If you put a load of nails or fish hooks into your pickup line so that an unsuspecting user gets torn to shreds you likely would have a liability. If it’s chaffed most of the way through so it’s obviously weak much less likely. Given case law says a quarry putting up “no diving” signs was sufficient to absolve it of liability from someone who came to grief whilst diving and a swimming pool also were found not to be liable to a trespasser when closed, I think “private” or “no mooring” would likely do the same. That might not even be necessary as owners of a pond were found not liable when someone went swimming there when there were no signs - because the judges said it was common sense that this was a risky activity.
Albeit this and the other situation will be to the person and not 'possessions'. And it would be a long stretch to imagine the occupiers liability acts has any bearing on a mooring because that as far as I am aware is about responsibilities attaching to 'premises'.
section 1(3)(a) might have a broader interpretation than you, although the court may have to decide if it goes as far as a mooring.
I dont have a copy of the act to hand.
I am pretty sure that's urban myth territory!
All UK legislation is readily available online: Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957
So wonkywinch can you tell us the circumstances here ? Was the boat on an official visitor mooring or one they just picked up on spec? What size of boat was the mooring designed for?
Do you have experience of people doing this? I would have thought that it's very rare.
He's made a couple of videos about the issues, they are well worth watching. He was on a "Boatyball" in the BVI, a bookable paid for mooring that dragged. The boat was salvaged and the salvage co had their insurers overvalue the boat so they % of value fee was higher and he basically had to hand the wreck over to the salvage company losing c $1m in the process. His insurers won't cover him as, from watching his videos, I think the proper process wasn't followed.
In contrast, a friend of mine worked at a place where there were large underground tanks, which were often empty. He had to make his way across this area one evening when the lights weren't working. Seeing that the first manhole had been closed by another staff member, he assumed that the next one would also have been closed, and began to walk a bit faster. He then fell down the next one, breaking his ankle. Not only was he unsuccessful in sueing his employer, he was then 'let go' because with a broken ankle he was unable to do his job.
Thanks! I just spent 20 minutes watching his video expecting to learn something about mooring liability and in fact discovered that if you have a big cat and it breaks its mooring and comes ashore then it will be badly damaged... I was expecting to have to view it through a Caribean / US filter to know if what he learned would apply in the UK.
He described it as a free visitor ball for customers of the bar they were going to. No mention of booking or paying. Implication was the mooring broke rather than dragged too.
I've hunted around a few of his videos - and he does seem to think he got robbed by the salvors. The amount charged does sound ridiculous, but he seems to have been a bit niave - there was time for him to agree terms or at least discuss them first. He decided not to pursue the salvage cost to arbitration, so it doesn't really tell the rest of us what a reasonable outcome might have been.
I haven't managed to find the video where he explains that part. Did you determine if the process that wasn't followed was leaving it unattended on the bouy in the first place, the salvage initiation or the claim submission? In one of the earlier videos he says there was a conversation with the bar owner and he would leave that to the insurers to sort out. Presumably he was advised not to bother suing them directly either because he wouldn't win, or becuase the bar owner wouldn't have the $2.2M USD he believe his boat was worth.
Oh yes!
