Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Pete Stewart
At long last we seem to have a senior member of the judiciary with a modicum of common sense.
Lord Justice Brooke has dismissed an application for appeal against a judgement for damages, stating 'How boring things would be if there were no risk'.
Obviously not a green light to injure people, but a much needed realisation the there is risk in life and we must all accept that we can get it wrong and must accept the consequences on occasions.
What are the chances of a judgement where the outcome is 'Yes, the risk assessment is lacking, however, had you followed what it says you would not have been injured, therefore you are responsible for your own injuries'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Merv Newman
Pete,
I agree with you, but I would rather say that "no accidents" is a victory worth celebrating !
How long have you gone without an LTI ? Celebrate it.
What is your current objective ? "Let's go twice as long", then "twice as long again" ....
We can all do better. We need objectives that are achievable. We need rewards and we need new objectives
And so on
Talk to me by e-mail if you need any more advice.
Merv Newman
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Steve Holliday
Pete,
I think the ruling you are hoping for has already been made in the House of Lords in the case of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003)
The injured party dived into a shallow lake despite notices, leaflets and park rangers warning against.
The ruling included a statement to the effect that there was no duty to prevent people from taking risks which are inherent in the activities they freely choose to take.
Not much of a success for the poor guy who was left paralysed, but an important ruling against the claims culture.
Steve
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
Interesting article that Pete, thanks.
I think what we are probably seeing here is the pendulum effect as the law reacts to the plethora of recent cases brought under the no win - no fee system.
Ultimately a consensus will be achieved somewhere in the middle of the two extremes and life will go on.
I think this tends to be how case law develops following changes in legislation or (in this case) the legal process.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nigel Hammond
I work in an organisations that supports people with learning disabilities. I would agree that a life without risk would be borring. We use a matrix for making health & safety decisions about the people we provide support for. I can't get the formatting right so I'll have to present it as a list:
Low risk + Low Happiness = Not much benefit
Low risk + High Happiness = Great place to be
High risk + Low Happiness = never go here
High risk + High Happiness = Only go here if you have thought about this carefully, are convinced it is the right thing to do and have involved all interested parties.
This does not work so well for the duty of care with staff. We don't employee people to make them happy. We want them to be happy working in our organisation but we employ them to help the business (or in our case charity). Maybe the matrix should involve a combination of risk and business benefits. Maybe most people would find this too cold hearted to consider?
I'd be interested to know whether anyone uses anything like this for considering staff risks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By David A Jones
I agree that you can't make things risk free, but in this case I'm not sure the decision was correct - at least based on the report in the link.
When using gym apparatus it would seem a logical and sensible precaution to have mats to at least cushion a fall. In this case the schoolgirl is reported as falling onto the wooden flooring (were there any mats?, if so were they placed correctly?).
I'm not saying don't do the activity, but surely such a fall was reasonably foreseeable and the use of mats would be a sensible measure to reduce risk. After all they use this in the Olympics where the height you could fall on some apparatus is less than in this case and the persons involved are likely to be 'trained' in how to land from such falls to help reduce risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Mark B
just a thought, what effect if any could this have on those who work in student activities,outdoor education, adventure activities, education, swimming pools and sports centres etc etc.
your comments please!
regards
Mark
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jonathan Breeze
David,
I must admit that was my thought as well.
I recall when I used to do gym, we had at least one spotter and sometimes two to hand when spring boards were used.
Correctly placed mats were also a feature as I recall.
I think the problem is that the fine details of the case are not available off the BBC website.
Mark,
It may be premature to comment on this particular case because as David suggests, the full details are not yet clear.
However the other cases I mentioned would suggest that providing reasonably practicable measures have already been taken, then there is little to answer.
If in doubt, please note that you should take professional legal advice.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.