Seahouses / North Sunderland Harbour

This seems fair enough to me otherwise we'd end up like the USA with, for example, landowners being sued for someone tripping and breaking an ankle whilst crossing their land on a public right of way.
I don't disagree that we have reached a world where people can't use common sense. Certainly in this country, you'd need to prove that the path wasn't maintained suitably to stand any hope of a claim. When you buy a property with a RoW over it you accept a liability to maintain that suitably. I'd expect a path in the countryside that you'd be arguing that means passable wearing walking boots not high heels.

Bizarrely when I'm in the states I often see things that I think are a H&S nightmare! (the fire safety in buildings for a start is way worse than in the UK) - So I'm not actually 100% certain that a "we will sue you culture" does lead to improved standards (at least not universally). Like you say some people decide the cost to fix < cost if sued.
 
Although most of the harbour adjacent to the road is relatively shallow, and part of it dries, I can't see how the risk is negligible and why Argyll & Bute council and the HA would not be liable if there was injury or death. The cynic in me thinks the authorities consider the cost of settling a claim to be lower than the cost of a few hundred yards of barriers and in any case, would argue it was 'just an accident' and as the dangers are self evident, they are not liable.

This seems fair enough to me otherwise we'd end up like the USA with, for example, landowners being sued for someone tripping and breaking an ankle whilst crossing their land on a public right of way.

Maybe the argument is that anyone driving in Kintyre who can't manage to steer the car well enough to stay on the road wouldn't make it as far as Tarbert to drive into the harbour.

There was a woman in Ireland who successfully sued recently because she tripped on a path in the Wicklow Mts, but IIRC it was thrown out by the appeals court.
 
Top