Police Officer Sues After Tripping On Kerb

[DarloRich]

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

ok - well write to your MP about it.

 

[Ferret]

ok - well write to your MP about it.

One wonders why governments haven't attempted to legislate on this kind of issue already!

 

[DarloRich]

because lots of them are lawyers

(or they have more pressing issues to deal with)

(or both)

 

[Ferret]

because lots of them are lawyers

You are so cynical!

 

[EM2]

Surely the problem here is that there was a gap in the fence?
If there was no gap, it would be an unlikely escape route for the burglars, therefore the PC would not have needed to go as far into that area as she did.
As I previously mentioned, every jet wash area I've seen is enclosed and has a raised kerb around it.

 

[Darandio]

Looks like the Norfolk Chief Constable isn't too amused by it either.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-21994545

A chief constable has said he is disappointed one of his officers is suing a petrol station owner after she tripped on a kerb while attending a suspected break-in.

PC Kelly Jones, 33, says she injured her leg and wrist at the filling station in Thetford, Norfolk, on 25 August last year.

Norfolk Chief Constable Phil Gormley said he did not support his officer's claim.

PC Jones was unavailable for comment.

Mr Gormley said: "This type of claim does not represent the approach and attitude of the overwhelming majority of our staff who understand and accept the risks inherent in policing and which they willingly confront to keep the public they serve safe.

'Tripped and fell'

"It is a disappointment that this is potentially undermined by a private compensation claim."

A letter to the petrol station from solicitor Pattinson Brewer states PC Jones went to the Nunns Bridges garage at 00:20 BST.

It said she went towards a gap in the fencing near a jet wash area in order to access the rear of the premises.

She did not know there was a section of high kerbing and tripped and fell.

PC Jones injured her left leg and right wrist and went to the West Suffolk Hospital, the letter added.

The claim alleges the petrol station was at fault for failing to ensure PC Jones was "reasonably safe", making no attempt to light the area or warn her about the step.

'Fairly visible'

On Sunday petrol station owner Steve Jones told the BBC he did not think he could have done any more to make things safe for the officer.

"I think the kerb was fairly visible - as visible as any kerbs on the road she had already walked over to get here," he said.

"When I got this letter I was anxious and worried."

Paul Ridgway, chairman of the Norfolk Police Federation, said: "It's not common, I appreciate that, but the claim has come in and we've honoured the officer's wishes by putting it through to the solicitor."

 

[Ferret]

You beat me to it Darandio. I trust Bungle will be writing to Chief Constable Gormley to express his displeasure at the words attributed to him by the BBC.

 

[Darandio]

Surely the problem here is that there was a gap in the fence?
If there was no gap, it would be an unlikely escape route for the burglars, therefore the PC would not have needed to go as far into that area as she did.
As I previously mentioned, every jet wash area I've seen is enclosed and has a raised kerb around it.

If you look at the streetview image posted earlier in the thread to depict the lighting around the area, there is indeed a gap in the fence but entirely intentional, it's a pedestrian access point. This wasn't created by vandalism.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Would any of the forum membership have any criticism of the actions taken by the Norfolk Police Federation in this specific incident.

 

[EM2]

If you look at the streetview image posted earlier in the thread to depict the lighting around the area, there is indeed a gap in the fence but entirely intentional, it's a pedestrian access point. This wasn't created by vandalism.

Then that's asking for trouble. Someone will walk through, get soaked by another person washing their car and will want to sue them soon!

 

[Darandio]

You beat me to it Darandio. I trust Bungle will be writing to Chief Constable Gormley to express his displeasure at the words attributed to him by the BBC.

It's not Bungle that I worry about.

Now that the Chief Constable has expressed his displeasure, I fully expect union involvement due to the non support of the PC and a ballot for strike action within days.

 

[455driver]

I fully expect union involvement due to the non support of the PC and a ballot for strike action within days.

Or her work mates will tell her to "foxtrot oscar" and then start "extracting the urine" out of her (deservedly so) and she will realise it was her own fault and drop this stupid case.

 

[michael769]

Would any of the forum membership have any criticism of the actions taken by the Norfolk Police Federation in this specific incident.

They are contractually obliged (like most unions) to provide legal services cover for their members - regardless of their (and their other members) opinions of the case. It's not really a choice they get to make - it is for their underwriters to decide based on the terms of the policy.

I would be surprised if the Federations' insurers will be willing to underwrite the legal costs of such a case if the owner of the premises stands up to her - which he should IMO.

 

[richw]

Last night I seen this feature on a news report on TV, possibly BBC at 10. The area was filmed in the dark and had better lighting on the area than the highway kerb outside of my house.
The kerb in this instance was between a car and a pedestrian area as is the kerb outside of my house where one would expect to find a kerb!

 

[GB]

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

Nobody has claimed the Police should be exempt from H&S legislation "that protects the rest of us".

My opinion on this would be exactly the same had it been an ordinary member of public that tripped over.

This issue seems to have touched a real nerve with you.

 

[Bungle73]

Nobody has claimed the Police should be exempt from H&S legislation "that protects the rest of us".

Um, yes they have. People have specifically stated that she should just live with any injuries she receives on duty because she is "a police officer".

This issue seems to have touched a real nerve with you.

Oh? How has it? You're the second person to try and make something out of this which isn't there. All I have done is try to counter the rather one-sided attitudes prevalent in this thread (which I'm very board with right now). It seems certain people just cannot take having their one-sided arguments challenged with a bit of perspective from a neutral party.

 

[455driver]

Um, yes they have. People have specifically stated that she should just live with any injuries she receives on duty because she is "a police officer".

No they havent!
They have said she should live with the injuries (if any) of tripping up a kerb which is easy to see, not that she should live with injuries where someone has been negligent!

Oh? How has it? You're the second person to try and make this something out this which isn't there. All I have done is try to counter the rather one-sided attitudes prevalent in this thread (which I'm very board with right now). It seems certain people just cannot take having their one-sided arguments challenged with a bit of perspective from a neutral party.

A bit like you then!

 

[Bungle73]

No they havent!

Um, yes they have!!

They have said she should live with the injuries (if any) of tripping up a kerb which is easy to see, not that she should live with injuries where someone has been negligent!

No they did not. They stated that she should just accept any injuries that befall her because she is a "police officer":

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?

A bit like you then!

What the hell do mean "a bit like me"? All I have done is PUT THE OTHER SIDE. FFS.

This is half the trouble with these internet forums: they're full of people who just cannot take someone having a different opinions from their own, and so start flinging baseless accusations about, when any idiot can tell they have no basis in reality whatsoever.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'm rather bored with this thread now. No one here is interested in having a conversation...at least not one where each side's case is treated equally. Everyone is only interested in spinning out their rather limited views, syphoned directly from the Daily Mail.

Good day to you.

 

[GB]

You are twisting things to suit your own argument. At no point did I say that a police officer (not sure why you keep using quote marks) should except "any" injury or that police officers should not be allowed the right to sue.

 

[Ferret]

This is so funny! Even the Chief Constable of her own Police Force has put on the record that he doesn't support this Officer! And yet, still you defend this ridiculous action! It's a good thing to put the other side of the argument, but all you've done is lose your rag and prove that the other side of the argument is somewhat flimsy to say the least. For this, we thank you.

 

[Bungle73]

You are twisting things to suit your own argument. At no point did I say that a police officer (not sure why you keep using quote marks) should except "any" injury or that police officers should not be allowed the right to sue.

Yes you did. Do I need to quote you again? Here you are:

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.

It's quite clear that you feel that a police officer on duty should not expect the same legal protection as the rest of us.

This is so funny! Even the Chief Constable of her own Police Force has put on the record that he doesn't support this Officer! And yet, still you defend this ridiculous action! It's a good thing to put the other side of the argument, but all you've done is lose your rag and prove that the other side of the argument is somewhat flimsy to say the least. For this, we thank you.

I'm only "losing my rag" because people keep accusing me of things I blatantly haven't done.

 

[gswindale]

I feel that Bungle73 may have misinterpreted my earlier post regarding the fact that there are risks involved with the job of being a Police Officer, which the officers should be aware of when they sign up.

One of these is that they may get injured in the course of their job.

That doesn't mean they should "shut up & live with it" though.

If they were injured by a criminal, then fair enough go for some sort of compensation, but tripping over a kerb? Is the officer in question still fit to work? If so, no harm done. If not, then there maybe a case, but it depends on the root cause of the injury.

I can't selectively quote very well here on mobile, but earlier Bungle73 in response to my post about timings of risk assessments, seemed to think that I thought "not bothered" was the case. Rubbish is my response to that. I was pointing out that even with a reasonable process in place that there could still be cases where things weren't quite as they should be.

For instance, I'm working a 6pm to 6am shift. I check when it gets dark that a motion detecting security light is working. It is. At 3am in the dark, I discover it is no longer working. I make arrangements for it to be fixed once it is light and I can get hold of someone suitably trained to deal with the equipment to reach the light. Should I close? If I do so, somebody trying to use my store may well still trip on their way to find the store closed. Is that my fault for closing?

I'm all for H&S requirements, but not for them to override common sense & personal responsibilities.

 

[gswindale]

Yes you did. Do I need to quote you again? Here you are:


It's quite clear that you feel that a police officer on duty should not expect the same legal protection as the rest of us.

That is a misinterpretation again.

There is a known risk of injuey in that job. That doesn't mean you have no right to compensation. It would depend on the circumstances.

Here it seems that "clumsiness" is the cause. Therefore no compensation. If she had been pushed over the kerb by a suspect and fallen awkwardly making then compensation could be due depending on the severity of the injuries.

Not a difficult concept to grasp.

 

[DarloRich]

That is a misinterpretation again.

There is a known risk of injuey in that job. That doesn't mean you have no right to compensation. It would depend on the circumstances.

Here it seems that "clumsiness" is the cause. Therefore no compensation. If she had been pushed over the kerb by a suspect and fallen awkwardly making then compensation could be due depending on the severity of the injuries.

Not a difficult concept to grasp.

Nor is it a difficult concept to grasp that the law says you are entitled to make a claim for compensation in these circumstances. As the person in question is legally entitled to make a claim there is no wrong doing if such a claim being made. The law is blind with regard to peoples jobs.

It might be wrong as far as you or I are concerned but there we are. As i said, if you feel strongly enough write to your MP about it.

As an aside the level of ignorance with regards to the law is frankly shocking.

 

[Ferret]

DarloRich - in which case - enlighten us. Reproduce the statute, or case law that states that somebody who fell over a kerb, arguably through her own negligence is entitled to claim compensation.

 

[EM2]

DarloRich - in which case - enlighten us. Reproduce the statute, or case law that states that somebody who fell over a kerb, arguably through her own negligence is entitled to claim compensation.

To be fair to DarloRich, 'arguably' is the relevant issue here. Her lawyers will argue it is the station owner's fault. His lawyers will argue otherwise.

 

[Ferret]

To be fair to DarloRich, 'arguably' is the relevant issue here. Her lawyers will argue it is the station owner's fault. His lawyers will argue otherwise.

Will they get the opportunity?

 

[anthony263]

I do hope the owner of the petrol station doesnt just roll over and it does go in front of a judge who I am sure will most likely be one of the best people to decide on this case.

According to the new I heard on the local radio station this afternoon while out driving my van doing home deliveries It said this incident happened back last summer. What I will like to know is why has it taken this long to bring this case.

One problem I think with the compensation culture in this country is that a lot of business will just put their hands up and settle out of court even though they could win their case against the person claiming simply because of cost.

 

[455driver]

According to the new I heard <snipped> It said this incident happened back last summer. What I will like to know is why has it taken this long to bring this case.

So that she could (possibly) claim that the kerb was broken (or some such) and the owner would not be able to counter it.
No doubt there will be a "twist" in the claim!

aside-
A number of years ago (and having moved over 300 miles) I had an insurance bod knock on my front door wanting a statement because a bloke was claiming that I had driven my bus onto the pavement and knocked him over 34 months previously, yep he was claiming 34 months after being knocked over most people wouldnt wait 34 minutes if the claim was genuine!
Now I will admit knocking him over but he stepped into the road (with his back to me) and I caught him a glancing blow knocking the can of (proper) coke out of his hand, I stopped and he refused to give me his name or address (but did manage a load of verbal abuse) and he then just walked off.
I always used to make loads of notes (still do and I have still got the booklet I used upstairs) and he got the square root of eff ay for his troubles.
No doubt he was trying it on so he could get some easy money hoping that they wouldnt be able to find me (or I had forgotten about it).

Its just a pity I couldnt put in a counter claim for the emotional distress he had caused me but it was over the 3 year claim period so I couldnt.

 

[swj99]

One problem I think with the compensation culture in this country is that a lot of business will just put their hands up and settle out of court even though they could win their case against the person claiming simply because of cost.

Yes, sad but true.
To put some perspective on this, it does seem a bit ironic that she's claiming because she tripped over a kerb, considering the court case is still ongoing against someone charged with murdering two police officers in Manchester. If all she's got to worry about is a sore ankle and leg, she's onto a winner compared to some.