being sued by someone who tripped on the footpath outside my house

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

local

Registered User
Messages
12
Recently I received a letter from a solicitor representing a member of the public who tripped on the kerb or a damaged piece of tarmac in the on-street parking space outside my house and caused himself some injury. He wants to sue me, and also the local council, for negligence because the surface wasn't as good as new.
The council built the public road and footpaths outside my house. It's in the middle of an old village, and there's no question about 'taking in charge'. It's my understanding that the maintenance of the road and footpath are the responsibility of the council. Does anyone know what law governs this? Is the responsibility of the local authority clear here?
I have never carried out any work on the road or footpath outside my property.
I could involve a solicitor, but would rather not spend money on what seems like a frivolous lawsuit.
Any advice would be much appreciated.
 
Important word in bold.
He wants to sue me, and also the local council
Click to expand...
Its a fishing expedition of sorts I suspect.

People like suing the state as they have money to payout if they win.
Same holds true of insurance companied.
If claim value is sufficiently low it can make sense for a settlement as a PFO.

on-street parking space outside my house
Click to expand...
Do you have a driveway of any sort?

I'd return to sender
Click to expand...
Is there a FLAC office near you?
Otherwise spend a few € and speak to your own solicitor.

If you have house insurance you may need to advise them of a possible claim against your policy.

While I suspect you may have no actual involvement or liability it could be time or money well spent.
 
I wouldn't even "Return to Sender" - I'd ignore it fully and look forward to a potential conversation with the solicitor if he rang. I had this a few years ago almost as written by the OP. It was the solicitor's clerk who rang me with more legal jargon than a Supreme Court Judge. I sent him packing, of course. That was the last I heard of it.
 
Assuming there is nothing that you did that could have caused the trip ( a tree root from your garden under the path causing it to jut upwards as an example) then as the other posters said, tell them politely to Foxtrot Oscar.
 
This is skirting close to professional malpractice by the solicitor. Threatening unconnected parties on the small chance that they will settle is really unethical. There are many naive people who would engage and potentially even settle.

Was the letter addressed to you personally or just “the occupant”?

I would call up the solicitor and tell them that this is nothing to do with this and this smells like a shakedown. Threaten them with a report to the complaints body which is Legal Services Regulatory Authority.
 
Last edited:
My advice is to ignore completely. Do not engage! In Ireland insurance operates under No Claim not No Blame. As a matter of interest is the letter addressed personally to you? My house (on the deeds) owns out to the centre of the road. A quick look on land direct will clarify this for you.
 
It's a fishing exercise by the solicitor to find someone to sue. So the letter is sent to all possible liable persons. No need to hire a solicitor.

If you know you don't own the property in question you can inform the solicitor's office of that. In writing. If that doesn't end the matter you can inform your house insurance who will deal with it for you.
 
I'd suggest that you would notify your house insurer in case the matter goes further and you are seeking indemnity from them. Not suggesting that you have a liability.
 
If it were me I'd put the letter in a drawer and forget about it. If I got a second letter I'd ring the solicitor to tell them there is no money, good luck with the Council and that I wouldn't be having any further interaction with them. Then I'd put the letter in a drawer and forget about it.
 
+1 advice about insurers.

A few observations ;

1. OP should notify the claim to the household insurers - this is a public liability claim.
2. Send the original solicitor's letter to the insurance company with the notification.
3. DO NOT engage in any correspondence or other communications with the solicitors.
4. If claimant's solicitors contact you demanding details of your insurance do not admit that you have any.
5. OP is under no legal obligation to disclose details of their household insurance to the claimant's solicitors.
6. It will be a policy condition to notify any claim - as has happened here.
7. It will also be a policy condition not to deal / negotiate / communicate with the claimant's solicitors.

In short, hand it over to the household insurers now.
 
Last edited:
On other matters arising generally ;

1. Much as one might be tempted to castigate the claimant and their solicitor the fact is that they are entitled to bring a claim.
2. The plaintiff carries the burden of proof.
3. The required standard of proof is the balance of probabilities i.e. at least 50% more likely than not to be correct/true.
4. Silversurfer [post #7 above] refers I believe to the principle of ad medium filum i.e. he owns out to the middle of the road.
5. On the evidence of practice, custom, maintenance and so on the ad medium filum argument may be rebuttable.
6. To sue successfully in the tort of negligence the plaintiff must establish 4 proofs to the required standard.
7. The first proof required is that the occupier / owner [OP ] owes a duty of care. This is a matter of law based on the case facts.
8. If there is no duty of care - on the evidence - the case dies a death at the first hurdle.
9. If there is a duty of care established the claimant must prove that the defendant breached the required standard of care.
10. Tests 3 and 4 relate to proximate cause and proof of loss / injury.

BTW it is entirely possible to owe no duty of care but to then actually create one by acting where you had no obligation to do so.
The classic situation on which I have occasional controversy with my good lady is about clearing snow from the public footpath outside the boundaries of our property. I say no. She says yes.

If OP has no duty of care he could create one by doing repairs or other work to the area of road in question when he has no obligation to do so.
On the information posted OP has done none of this so I find it hard to see how the claimant has a case.
 
MrEarl said:
I'd make a complaint about the solicitor, to the law society, with copy to the relevant solicitor !
Click to expand...
There is nothing to complain about. This is standard procedure. Indeed the solicitor would be negligent if the letter was not sent to all potential owners.
 
If they don't own the property where the claim occurred than the house insurance have nothing to do with it.
 
Bronte said:
There is nothing to complain about. This is standard procedure. Indeed the solicitor would be negligent if the letter was not sent to all potential owners.
Click to expand...
But this isn't a potential owner - unless you want to work off the logic that every Irish citizen owns part of the puluc infrastructure
 
MrEarl said:
But this isn't a potential owner - unless you want to work off the logic that every Irish citizen owns part of the puluc infrastructure
Click to expand...
The solicitor has to send the letter to anyone who might be an owner. The solicitor does not know who owns the ground in question. You haven't said what a complaint to the Law society would be to complain about?
 
I'd simply ignore it.

I would not pass it on to your insurer as it will be recorded as a potential claim and sit on your record and possibly prevent you moving to another insurer.

Thankfully the courts are throwing out many of these malicious claims.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Menu
Log in
Register