4 ms·

"The personal injury team at Penningtons Manches LLP has successfully negotiated a settlement of over £10,000 for a client who was injured during a wedding at a

"The personal injury team at Penningtons Manches LLP has successfully negotiated a settlement of over £10,000 for a client who was injured during a wedding at a prestigious county manor house. The claimant attended the wedding with her partner in September 2014. They decided to leave the celebrations at around 11:30pm and make their way back to their on-site accommodation. The claimant was required to walk across the manor garden in order to reach her room. Unfortunately, there was inadequate lighting along the route and they found the lawn to be in darkness, with only a small light in the far distance to guide them. Due to the poorly lit area, the claimant walked from the lawn and over the top of a brick wall, falling 3 feet downwards into the grass area of a 'ha-ha'."

OJFord 7y ago
In a similar case: > The presiding QC judge, Alastair Campbell, deemed a ha-ha wall to be outside the scope of the law regarding obvious dangers, such as cliffs or canals, where an occupier is not required to take precautions against a person being injured. This was due to it being an unusual man-made feature that the public would be very much unaware of, especially across a wide lawn. which I find an odd decision. I didn't know what they were called (so I followed the link curiously) but certainly I'd expect one at a house such as that. Unusual for the average dwelling, sure, but not 'across a wide lawn' or at a property with a wide lawn for it to be across.