Any feel for success rate for claims of this sort? We made all 'reasonable efforts' during incident but one is going to get the odd accident in the 'heat of the moment'. Process backed up by RA. Thought there was some discusion about this before but search hasn't found anything?

SNS is correct about the whole 'duty owed, breach, ensuing loss as a direct result of the breach' stuff but what has become lost in recent times seems to be the clarity surrounding the breach almost as if we jump straight from Duty + Loss = Breach

Didn't it used to be the case that the breach needed occur in a negligent fashion, hence the successful defence of Lattimer v AEC? I think that it is this 'creep' in the civil system more than anything that has led to the gold plating of safety, aiming our efforts more at defence than prevention. It's hugley sweeping statement I realise, but aimed at stimulating debate rather then two opposing camps of right and wrong.

Running an evacuation exercise is a requirement of a modern business and I would personally like to see more realistic scenarios created, but that old chestnut has been around as long as I have been a practitioner. What if someone gets hurt? I experienced this a few years ago with the Police at one of their specialist training schools where they stopped using real petrol bombs because of the safety implications. Personally I'd rather use real ones in a controlled environment so that officers were properly prepared for the day someone throws one. What would be the implications of being hurt (either in this scenario or the evacuation one) if injury were sustained under live conditions. How about failure to provide suitable instruction and information?

Could someone be injured in an evacuation and have a righteous and successful claim - yes of course. But equally could this happen and you be able to provide a suitable and effective defence. Most certainly. But that's what courts are for I guess. Ahh, now I see the problem......

Jericho

Don't you just love them?

I think all the 'standard' tests still apply, but insurers will count the beans and if it is cheaper to bung someone a bit of bunce, rather than spend too much money either considering, administering or defending a case (whether in court or otherwise) they often will, purely as a matter of economics. The irony is that the actions of the insurers themselves does tend to fuel some of the more dubious or spurious claims.

Then your teams should be applauded for managing to pull off something so tricky with less injury than you'd expect in a school yard playtime or your average football match. If similar events have resulted in so little injury, I would be adding those up to add to proof of how well you do it. You probably have a higher incidence of injury for people boarding and disembarking a train from a platform!

We had a small cluster of slips some while ago which 'someone' was trying to make into an issue. When we put the incident into the context of our annual footfall (several millions) over the threshold they really didn't look quite so damning.

Canopener is quite right in my view that that insurance industry has a part to play in this escalation. Note I didn't say blame. That's too easy, but there is a part to play. Having spoken to some of the really big names in insurance recently,it became evident that they are equally concerned about this and were at pains to point out that despite what you might think, the person who usually comes around each year and 'tells' you to do this that and the other, is NOT from the insurer.

Jericho

A lot of insurance bashing here but I suspect an insurance company will not even be involved here since most TOCs self insure some or all of their public liability risk.

Insurers are not stupid - we know the costs of litigation and the likely outcomes and have our own legal teams to advise. The company I work for fights more than most insurers but we are constantly surprised at the perverse decisions handed down by the courts.

It all started with two things:-

- 1) the upping of the County Court limit from £5k to £50k in the early 90's (iirc) meaning more cases were heard in the lower court. Far less consistency at this level.

- 2) The Woolf lists. Intended as an example of the documents to be exchanged, the list has over the last 18 years become a definitive list in the eyes of the legal profession and courts. Lofstedt has recognised this and it is under review but it is a substantial mindset that needs to be challenged. Until then, the feeling is that "no RA, no training record etc = automatic defeat in court".

PS: Sometimes the decision on whether to fight or not is based on the personalities involved.

A cross examination by a plaintiff's barrister is not a nice place to be and few people are well equipped to deal with it. Even so called Expert Witnesses can and do fail to get their point across.

If an insurers has ever taken statements from the various parties involved (safety manager, foreman, witnesses, MD etc) you can rest assured the statement taker will have passed comment as to their likely effectiveness in a witness box.

Right - getting back on topic. OP - what was the nature of the injury? I'd hazard a guess at sprained or broken ankle when stepping down on to the track ballast. Not a lot you can do about that.

Can you provide some more info?

And I most certainly don't see my comments as 'insurance' or more accurately insurer bashing. For the most part the insurer drives the process on the 'defendants' side. Yes of course litigation is expensive, time consuming etc hence Woolf etc, but of course most of these claims don't ever get to court. Surely there is a certain irony in insurers paying rather than 'playing' merely on the basis of the short term economics? I can't help but feel that this is ONE of the drivers for spurious/dubious claims.

But back to the issue at hand which is now somewhat clearer. I would doubt that there is a specific 'caveat' as such, but one would assume that if this ever got near a court both the question of negligence and reasonableness would play their part.

Jericho, if it's not the insurer sending their people, who is it that turns up every year in a rumpled suit with the busines card that says they are from the insurance co? It's not the broker, they have smart suits!

Thank you very much Jericho - I'll try and track that one down - much appreciated..........

thanks all. I've now decided how I'm going to proceed with this rather unusual case.

Good luck OP with fightgin this one, I'd agree that aslong as your risk assessments and procedures are uptio scratch, you've got every chance.



Good luck with this one :) If you can prove the hazard was only there for a short time you're in with a good shout!



I'd be interested in the details of this one, I've had a brief search but no luck as of yet, would you be able to provide a link or point of contact?

My bad, was mixing up posts.

Well at least you are able to make an informed decision.