Force pilot, left partially paralysed after an accident near a local guest house, was "the architect of his own misfortune''.

Niels Peter Allerup Sr. last year tried to sue the operators of Clearview Cottages, Mr. and Mrs. Gerald Paynter, on behalf of his son, Niels, after the aspiring airline pilot "stepped off'' a wall bordering the Hamilton Parish property on June 21, 1985, and fell some 25 feet onto a railway cut.

Allerup, who was 27 at the time, had consumed several beers and was trying to walk along the wall to prove to his friends he was not drunk.

Allerup is a quadriplegic as a result of the accident, lawyer Mr. Jai Pachai told the appeals tribunal.

"He has limited use of his hands. And his parents, who are in their late 60s, look after him,'' he added.

The Allerups were appealing against the decision of Puisne Judge the Hon. Mr.

Justice Ward who, in December, dismissed the Allerups' claim for personal injuries, loss, and damages with costs.

Mr. Pachai noted that when Allerup checked into the guest house he received no verbal warning from Mrs. Ruth Paynter about the steep slope beyond the wall which led to the railway cut.

He also noted there were no signs warning first-time visitors such as Allerup about the slope.

And Mr. Pachai argued the depth of the slope was barely noticeable at day time, much less at night.

But Mr. Ward in his ruling said: "In determinedly going over the wall into the rough ground, the plaintiff was not taking reasonable care for his own safety.

"The embankment was unlit in the darkness of the night, and it was unreasonable of the plaintiff to run the risk of injuries under these conditions.'' Mr. Ward said the Paynters had to guard against dangers which might "reasonably be anticipated'', but "one must always distinguish between a reasonable probability and a fantastic probability''.

The wall Allerup stepped from "clearly marked the outer limit of the tended part of the premises'', he added, and "it was not foreseeable that the plaintiff would jump from the wall into the rough ground''.

Mr. Ward said while he commiserated with Allerup, the blame could not be cast on someone else.

Given the large number of cliffs, slopes, and precipices about Bermuda, he said: "It would indeed be a novel proposition that all landowners with lands adjacent to the railway cut had a duty to fence, lest visitors to their properties should either deliberately or inadvertently fall into the railway cut.

"Visitors are expected to behave reasonably when approaching slopes, precipices, and cliffs.'' Mr. Pachai agreed visitors were expected to act reasonably when approaching slopes, cliffs or drops.

But, he said, if visitors did not know about such places, owners of the property adjacent to the dangerous areas had a responsibility to warn them.

Mr. Pachai pointed out that Mr. Paynter admitted during the trial that the side of the wall where Allerup climbed up was fairly easy to climb upon and had been built for safety reasons.

And he said at no time was evidence produced to prove that the boundary line was not part of the Clearview property.

In fact, he said, Mr. Paynter testified "the railway cut runs through the length of the property''.

Mr. Pachai also argued that Mr. Ward cited two cases, from 1886 and 1936, which were decided before the law of occupier's liability came into effect in the UK.

The tribunal, headed by acting president the Hon. Mr. Justice Henry, dismissed the appeal and promised to give its reasons later.

Mr. and Mrs. Paynter were represented by Mr. Arthur Hodgson.