Police Officer Sues After Tripping On Kerb

[Ivo]

What happened to personal responsibility? Does that end the very moment your on someone else's property?

If this was correct, I could have won several hundred thousand off of my Uni by now - most recently for falling down the stairs*. Yet last I checked all I had claimed off of them was an extension for my dissertation.

*The bit the red tops wouldn't tell you: I merely glided off the bottom stair of a case of four and had pain in my foot for about an hour.

Or I could have sued my mother for kicking her bed in the dark!

Honestly...

 

[Johnuk123]

Sky have shown the highly visible kerb at night, it's very well lit from street lighting and the highly lit underside of the garage roof.

Nobody but some sort of fool could possibly have not seen it but of course this is just about a chance to play the blame game and pocket some cash.

Sometimes I despair at some of my ex colleagues.

 

[Darandio]

Could the owner not just put in a counter claim for stress and anxiety?

I know this is equally as absurd, but it seems anything is fair game judging by this case.

 

[EM2]

I say again, one expects a kerb by the roadside. This was not by a roadside.

Does one not expect a kerb around a jet wash area, then? It's what I expect, I can't recall using, or even seeing, one that didn't have this.

 

[Ferret]

I can't help but wonder if this is a speculative claim, with the claimant hoping that the owner of the garage will be able to settle via his Insurers, and there'd be no need for a Court Case.

 

[jb]

I can't help but wonder if this is a speculative claim

No sh*t, Sherlock

 

[swj99]

........but there was something similar a short while back where a Police Officer was taking action against the owners of a stolen car for injuries sustained in the pursuit.....
....Whatever happened to common sense & people taking responsibility for their actions?

Exactly. And what happened to people watching where they're going, and being more careful ?

As for taking legal action against the owner of a stolen car, the claimant would have to prove that the car owner owed a duty of care and that they breached that duty. I'm sure the second one would be difficult to prove. Surely it would have been easier to establish a cause of action against the driver (ie the person who nicked it) on the basis of their negligent driving, than against an owner who probably wasn't even there and had absolutely no part in the events leading up to the injury.

In another media source there was a picture of the kerb, it was no different to a kerb at the side of the road and pavement

Absolutely.

I don't know if this one will go the full distance. Maybe the garage owner's insurers will cave in and settle out of court. Time will tell I suppose.

....Sounds like a publicly accessible area to me.

In any case there is a duty to keep an area safe.

I'd have said keeping it safe in this context means making sure there wasn't a brick wall with broken glass set into the top of it, or a roll of razor wire, or a 20 foot deep pit with spikes or a lion in it, or an open slurry pit that someone could fall into and drown, but a kerb, just like many on unlit roads around the country ? What next, claiming against the government because they didn't stop that man on the internet from calling your pint a nasty word, oh wait, they're just drafting the legislation now. Anyone want to buy a tinfoil hat ?

Place looks reasonably well lit to me.
At least 2 street lights in the vicinity, plus an illuminated road sign on the pavement across the road, what appears to be a security light at each end of the forecourt, another lamp post out the back (in Kingsway, immediately behind the petrol station building).

Streetview picture of the location - https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=IP...q7lwFJ_CNfrZfWCzELT0dg&cbp=12,244.72,,0,13.91

Why do people keep comparing this to a road-side kerb? This isn't a road-side kerb. You'd know that was there. This is a kerb where, unless it was lit or signed, you wouldn't know was there in the dark.

Maybe people compare it to a roadside kerb because it looks exactly like one, and probably came from the same factory that makes them for councils and other highway authorities. In the dark, you'd need a torch, which I believe police officers carry for use during regular occurrences such as night time. That is, unless the forecourt was reasonably well lit, which it appears it might have been, looking at the pictures of it on streetview.

What happened to personal responsibility?.........

....If I was walking down the street one night and slipped on a drain cover, should I be able to sue or would I rightly be told to **** off and be more careful ?

You would if you asked me for compensation. You'd probably get referred to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram.

Personal responsibility ? Wasn't that phased out when they brought in the nanny state (ninny state) or whatever it's called ?

 

[158747]

As she was searching a crime scene in the dark, I would have thought it would have been a good idea to use a torch and look where she was going.

 

[Bungle73]

Of which the exact same thing applies to you does it not?

Um, how does it? I'm just countering a bunch of people who feel compelled to pass judgement on this case when they know only the most basic of facts.

Given it seems that the person involved showed no sign of injury at the time, I would be surprised if they were serious.

Are you not aware that sometimes a person is not aware of the extent of their injuries until much later after the accident? It says she attended hospital.

What happened to personal responsibility? Does that end the very moment your on someone else's property?

That doesn't excuse someone's responsibility to keep an area safe.

Did the police officer use her police issued torch?

Maybe it was not dark enough to need a torch, but too dark to see the kerb properly.

If I was walking down the street one night and slipped on a drain cover, should I be able to sue or would I rightly be told to **** off and be more careful?

Um, yes you could sue if the cover was in a dangerous condition.

If the police officer hadn't tripped but was instead assaulted, would the petrol station owner still be held accountable?

That's an entirely different situation.

The reason the media got hold of it is because she is in a job were the risk to personal injury is high....a job which she chose for herself knowing that. Would you expect a firefighter to sue a member of public for getting injured (either on the way) or at location of a fire?

That has absolutely zero to do with someone's right to claim compensation for an injury. Or are you saying just because someone is a police office they should be fair game for anything to happen to them with no recourse..?

I'd have said keeping it safe in this context means making sure there wasn't a brick wall with broken glass set into the top of it, or a roll of razor wire, or a 20 foot deep pit with spikes or a lion in it, or an open slurry pit that someone could fall into and drown, but a kerb, just like many on unlit roads around the country ? What next, claiming against the government because they didn't stop that man on the internet from calling your pint a nasty word, oh wait, they're just drafting the legislation now. Anyone want to buy a tinfoil hat ?

Um, no it doesn't. It means keeping it free from things like......trip hazards.

Place looks reasonably well lit to me.
At least 2 street lights in the vicinity, plus an illuminated road sign on the pavement across the road, what appears to be a security light at each end of the forecourt, another lamp post out the back (in Kingsway, immediately behind the petrol station building).

Streetview picture of the location - https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=IP...q7lwFJ_CNfrZfWCzELT0dg&cbp=12,244.72,,0,13.91

That doesn't tell you what it was like on this particular night.

Maybe people compare it to a roadside kerb because it looks exactly like one, and probably came from the same factory that makes them for councils and other highway authorities.

Why is that even relevant? It is not.

 

[Ferret]

Speaking of relevance, the amateurish letter from the firm of lawyers informed the owner of the petrol station that he had not performed a risk assessment for the Police officer. Would you care to carry on defending the indefensible?

 

[Bungle73]

She is claiming £50,000

You don't know that all. The DM just picked that figure out of the air because it's the County Court limit, and what is says on the solicitor's website...........

 

[Ferret]

Maybe it was not dark enough to need a torch, but too dark to see the kerb properly.

Either the street lighting was sufficient in which case no torch was required, or it was insufficient and a torch was required. Simple. Now, carry on wriggling for our amusement

 

[Bungle73]

Speaking of relevance, the amateurish letter from the firm of lawyers informed the owner of the petrol station that he had not performed a risk assessment for the Police officer. Would you care to carry on defending the indefensible?

How do you know it was "amateurish"? Have you read it?

They were obviously talking about a general risk assement to make sure the area was free from hazards for everybody.

 

[Ferret]

How do you know it was "amateurish"? Have you read it?

They were obviously talking about a general risk assement to make sure the area was free from hazards for everybody.

It was reproduced by several media outlets. Complete with smelling pistakes. Pure comedy gold!

 

[Bungle73]

Either the street lighting was sufficient in which case no torch was required, or it was insufficient and a torch was required. Simple. Now, carry on wriggling for our amusement

The bottom line is none of us where there on the night, no one is in a position to make a judgement on who should have done what.

 

[Ferret]

The bottom line is none of us where there on the night, no one is in a position to make a judgement on who should have done what.

Yes we are. Any non-disabled person who is dozy enough to trip on a kerb is guilty of not using their eyes, and pays the inevitable price of falling over and possibly injuring themselves. The idea that somebody else could be responsible for that is the very definition of insanity.

What's disturbing is that this woman was accepted into the Police Force, which raises some serious questions about the quality of their selection processes, which clearly failed to sift out somebody who is unsuitable for the job.

 

[gswindale]

How do you know it was "amateurish"? Have you read it?

They were obviously talking about a general risk assement to make sure the area was free from hazards for everybody.

Area looks fine to me.
What if the light had been working the night before? Staff member clocks on for night shift whilst it is still light, it gets dark and when the light judges it is required the bulb dies? You can't then fix it until it is sufficiently light enough to see what you're doing.

Area was therefore fine at the last viable "risk assessment" point, or are you saying that in future if a burglary is taking place; people should say

"excuse me I'm just going to carry out a risk assessment and call the police. Can you give me a few minutes and then carry on robbing me?"

Stupid idea. Not every situation the police or public will come across will be perfectly safe and so caution should be exercised and common sense used.

The Police Officer has a duty of care to protect people. That to me means that I should be able to rely on them not suing me for something that could quite easily be outside of my control when I require their assistance.

 

[Darandio]

Um, how does it? I'm just countering a bunch of people who feel compelled to pass judgement on this case when they know only the most basic of facts.

And you are doing the exact same, just in the opposite direction to most.

It's acceptable to have a differing opinion on a forum isn't it? At least without you striking down with vengeance on anyone that has a different opinion than yours.

 

[Bungle73]

Yes we are.

No you are not. You know sod all about this case beyond what's been reported in the tabloids.

Any non-disabled person who is dozy enough to trip on a kerb is guilty of not using their eyes, and pays the inevitable price of falling over and possibly injuring themselves.

Oh FFS. A business has a duty of care to ensure their premises are free from things like trip hazards. This is designed to protect you and me.

Or you saying owners of premises should be able to get away with not bothering to keep an them safe?

The idea that somebody else could be responsible for that is the very definition of insanity.

Actually the definition if insanity is a bunch of people on an internet forum making judgements about someone's private compensation claim when they know sod all about it, and also claiming that because someone is a "police officer" they should be exempt from the H&S legislation that protects the rst of us.

What's disturbing is that this woman was accepted into the Police Force, which raises some serious questions about the quality of their selection processes, which clearly failed to sift out somebody who is unsuitable for the job.

Oh, so now you making person attacks on this lady......

Area looks fine to me.
What if the light had been working the night before? Staff member clocks on for night shift whilst it is still light, it gets dark and when the light judges it is required the bulb dies? You can't then fix it until it is sufficiently light enough to see what you're doing.

I'm sorry but it doesn't work like that. If an area is unsafe it cannot just be left because whoever is responsibly can't be bothered to do anything about it just that. That's ridiculous.

Stupid idea. Not every situation the police or public will come across will be perfectly safe and so caution should be exercised and common sense used.

And what about the responsibility of a business owner?

The Police Officer has a duty of care to protect people. That to me means that I should be able to rely on them not suing me for something that could quite easily be outside of my control when I require their assistance.

But this wasn't outside of his control. This is a dispute about the layout of a garage forecourt. Something the business has full control over.

And you are doing the exact same, just in the opposite direction to most.

Um, how am I?

It's acceptable to have a differing opinion on a forum isn't it? At least without you striking down with vengeance on anyone that has a different opinion than yours.

"Striking down with vengeance"?? Um, what? All I have done is try to put some perspective onto people who feel they have the right to act as judge and jury based on what they read in the DM.

 

[Mojo]

How does one go about preventing trips on kerbs anyway?

 

[DarloRich]

How does one go about preventing trips on kerbs anyway?

you dont - you go about reducing the risk of the trip occurring. Whilst this is played out by the media as elf n safety gone mad it simply comes down to ensuring you do a sensible risk assessment.

The problem is often that whilst the risk assessment is done sensibly, the response to that risk assessment is not proportionate to the actual risk.

 

[Ferret]

I know sod all about the case, apart from what I've seen with my own eyes on TV and can deduce from the newspaper reports. I'm quite satisfied that the architect of this hopefully soon to be former-WPC's misfortune was herself. If she can't detect a kerb, then she certainly wouldn't be much use in the field of crime detection!

What amazes me Bungle is that you can't see how preposterous your position actually is! It's quite entertaining though, so do please keep it up!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

you dont - you go about reducing the risk of the trip occurring. Whilst this is played out by the media as elf n safety gone mad it simply comes down to ensuring you do a sensible risk assessment.

Either God or evolution already mitigated against the risk of tripping over a kerb - by giving us eyes with which to see!

 

[DarloRich]

Either God or evolution already mitigated against the risk of tripping over a kerb - by giving us eyes with which to see!

I am afraid that isn't enough these days. You are legally entitled to compensation if you are injured due to the negligence of a third party. A simple risk assessment would remove much of the potential liability.

It might seem stupid, and often is, but it needs to be done, if only to keep you out of court.

 

[Ferret]

Not writing a risk assessment regarding a kerb is *NOT* negligence. It is impossible to mitigate against every single risk we face in life.

Nobody in their right mind would possibly predict that a Police officer responding to a 999 call would be dozy enough to fall over a kerb. You could understand somebody who was inebriated doing it maybe, in which case that's their own fault for getting into that state.

At what point do we draw the line?!

 

[FGW_DID]

I am afraid that isn't enough these days. You are legally entitled to compensation if you are injured due to the negligence of a third party. A simple risk assessment would remove much of the potential liability.

It might seem stupid, and often is, but it needs to be done, if only to keep you out of court.

Please explain, in this instance how the Garage Owner was negligent?

Was the kerb stone loose or raised up above the others, in a bad state of repair? Then maybe somebody would have grounds to complain.

Do you expect all kerbstones to be painted with day-glo paint, spotlit and have warning signs every 1ft or less.

I'm sorry but in my opinion this ranks along side suing somebody because you got burnt on a hot cup of coffee, or someone with a nut allergy eating a bag of peanuts then suing because there was no warning on the pack!

 

[DarloRich]

Not writing a risk assessment regarding a kerb is *NOT* negligence. It is impossible to mitigate against every single risk we face in life.

Quite - but not doing an overall risk assessment IS. That is my point. I suspect that, as with many places, one isn't done.

My former employers never bothered until someone fell down the stairs due to a loose carpet.

 

[Ferret]

My former employers never bothered until someone fell down the stairs due to a loose carpet.

That's something that could've been mitigated against though - by fixing the carpet. How do you mitigate against somebody being a clart?!

 

[DarloRich]

That's something that could've been mitigated against though - by fixing the carpet. How do you mitigate against somebody being a clart?!

Yes, but no one did, thus creating a risk where really there shouldn't have been one.

My personal view is that this is all a bit crazy, i am simply trying to point out how these things come about. For the want of a short inspection people leave themselves open to a claim.

Also, thinking it is a bit crazy wont make the problem go away. Surely the sensible thing is to try to protect yourself as much as you can.

 

[Ferret]

Also, thinking it is a bit crazy wont make the problem go away. Surely the sensible thing is to try to protect yourself as much as you can.

Correct - but there's only so much you can do. As you say though, this nonsense won't go away now - it's too entrenched in the law as created by precedent. It's a sorry state of affairs.

RIP personal responsibility!

 

[bronzeonion]

All this ridiculous suing is fuelling the health & safety brigade, some kind of restriction needs to be put on suing before all this 'risk assessment' and health and safety bull**** gets even further out of hand

Rant over