Message Forums

Hacksaw Bob

Thanks for linking to my comparison page.

What you can't put on a web page is the taste. Someone on this thread described the woody nightshade berries as bitter. That really is an understatement. They are very bitter indeed. I know, I tried one.

So, if the berries are red, it is woody nightshade and very unlikely to appeal to a child.

There are very few serious cases of poisoning due to plants in the UK. That is largely because of the taste of the majority of poisonous berries.

Deadly nightshade berries are slightly sweet but, folklore says, the devil owns the plant and, if you pick the berries, he'll come and ask what you are doing.

There are indeed dangers in the countryside with wild plants but in all fairness more people get killed on our roads than from plants but it is possible that a small child could pick something that has bright colours thinking it is safe to eat, this is natures way to say i am poison but small kids do not understand this, even adults in some cases as people have been poisoned picking wild fungi because they do not know which ones are poison and some deadly species look edible.

If i had noticed such a plant growing in large numbers i would have said something but would the site owner do something because where do they stand on this with the law because it is a legal plant but that said with all this health and safety we have where do they stand with regard to this because if it was chemical drums that were dumped near by something would have to be done but this is just a natural plant but still a poison if eaten.

Parents have responsibility. Site owners have responsibility and each has to discharge that duty according to the law as it applies to them.

The owner of the site is regulated by the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He is required to undertake risk assessments from time to time. This should include identifying what may cause harm to those using a site; consideration of the risk that someone may be harmed and whether that is a high or low chance of risk. Next, to consider what, if any, precautions need to be taken. This should then, include consideration of poisonous plants, of which there are so many naturally ocurring on land. Deadly Nightshade or Woody Nighshade are both harmful if eaten. What is the chance of anyone actually eating the plant? Minimal according to the statistics of folk poisoned by wild plants

Having identified a risk the law then requires the site owner to take such steps as are reasonably practicable to prevent that risk from arising. The CC identified poisonous fungi at Sandringham and drew everyones attention to the plants and warned of the consequences of being in contact, especially for dogs. That deals with legal complaince.

Of course, the plants could be removed. In the CC case the plants were on land not owned or managed by the CC so they could not remove the plants. Thus the "reasonable practicality" test was met by drawing the issue to campers attention.

In the case from the OP the site owner could remove the plants and that would discharge his duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. He could also discharge that duty by providing an information sheet for every camper, with pictures of the plants, placing the obligation to watch the kids squarely on the shoulders of the parents. After all, telling the parents should result in the identified risk not arising. That is reasonably practicable. If the Parents then fail to watch their kids they would have quite some difficulty in putting the blame on the camp site. Health and Safety aside, a person is, generally, not responsible for things naturally ocurring on their land.   

Phil