This type of risk adversity is bordering on insanity! Children have the right to take age appropriate risks. Its how they learn! How high is the reasonably practicable or reasonably foreseeable bar being set. Cases like this will set in motion a chain reaction of risk avoidance.

I think perhaps you're misconstruing events. Try looking beyond the all-too common alarmist headline.
It is the Council's Barrister who suggests that upholdling the claim "may" lead to such fountains being removed the length and breadth of the country.
A somewhat fanciful notion, unlikely to stand up to scrutiny in court.

The IP sliced his thumb, suggesting there was a sharp edge. There may be issues regarding inspection, maintenance and siting of the fountain.

Ron,
I am not misconstruing events. The siting, installation and maintenance of the fountain had nothing to do with the injury except for the young persons brother hiding underneath it. It was pood decision by the young person to hit out and the consequence of this poor decision was that he hurt his hand. One of lifes little lessons!
Kevin

The Claim has already been awarded. The School/LA have been found negligent. We have NO information about the state or location of the actual fountain involved.
The School/LA would appear to be leading with an appeal on the grounds that upholding the award "might" lead to such fountains being removed across the UK.

It's just a wee story that appeals to journalists because it's about elf'n'safety and they can put an alarmist, inaccurate headline to it. We've no matters of fact to discuss, yet we all react?

The DT report seems to imply that the fountain was a new purchase by school and had only been installed a short time before the incident.

So, I guess we must presume that the photograph is a "library shot"! There is no way that the fountain pictured is new - surely? If it was new I would have expected to have had a press and release tap - otherwise the little darlings would leave it on to see how long it took to flood the toilets, playground etc..! Again journalist's licence.
Phil

Totally Agree KevKel

chas

Thanks for the information. I’ve just managed to find the following 2 media reports about the appeal hearing:

http://m.theargus.co.uk/...in_scuffle_compensation/

http://www.dailymail.co....rss&ns_campaign=1490

It's interesting to skim-read through the comments under both press articles. They generally praise the verdict as a blow for common sense – and one with which I’d certainly agree. The child suffered a damaged tendon through accidentally hitting the water fountain. This needed a surgical operation and left a 1 inch scar on his hand. As one of the reports mentions that the child was unconcerned about the scar, it seems that his mother was intent on “digging for gold” in pursuing the claim for compensation. It’s also sad that the judge in the original court hearing determined that compensation was payable.

Also, the latest Daily Mail article misleadingly includes a photo of a large decorative fountain somewhere which echoes my suggestion at #11 that somebody has simply searched one or more photo libraries for something related to “fountain”! Hopefully other press reports will appear soon and manage to include a photo of the type of water fountain involved.

Another media article is now available at

http://www.telegraph.co....mother-tries-to-sue.html

It includes the following:

Lady Justice Sharp said the relevant question should have been whether the school was reasonably safe bearing in mind that children “are inclined to lark around".

The judge said she had felt the underside edge of the fountain and did not think it could be described as sharp, "let alone extremely sharp". It was not possible to cut a finger by pressing on it.

"But whether it could be described as sharp or not, by no stretch of the imagination could it be said to constitute a danger to children."

The edge could have been padded to prevent any injury but that "missed the point".

The judge said the school was not under a duty to protect children “children in all circumstances", and “no more obliged” to safeguard the water fountain than any other edge or surface against which children could accidentally injure themselves.

"The law would part company with common sense if that were the case, and I do not consider that it does so."

"It is of course unfortunate that this little boy hurt his thumb in what might be described a freak accident, but such things happen,"

It's an excellent judgement in my opinion and one about which I hope UK politicians are made fully aware. Instead of bashing OS&H as some like to do (thus pandering to and reinforcing others with ignorant perceptions of OS&H) I wish they would do much more to tackle the burdensome compensation culture (i.e. "I've suffered minor/transient injury/shock/unpleasantness and therefore have a right to receive lots of money") which has developed in the UK. The original claim in this case provides a classic example of this culture methinks. I guess that quite a number of us had minor accidents while at school, and perhaps some of us still have scars as proof, but generally our parents didn't think to pursue compensation for us.

Among other aspects I was delighted to read the judge's view that the school involved was not under a duty to protect its pupils 'in all circumstances': In my former employment with a local authority one of the points I emphasised to headteachers and school governors, etc., was that school environments were part of everyday life and, despite what the parents of some pupils misbelieved, simply could not be kept 100% safe. This point was a useful cue for discussions about 'reasonable practicability' as enshrined in the HSW Act 1974. Note that people in the education sector including OFSTED tend to use the term "proportionality", but it's effectively the same thing.

The case probably ranks with that of Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council (2003) which reached the House of Lords and is described on at least one website as a "landmark case...regarded as an attempt to stem the development of a "compensation culture" in the UK". Hopefully, it will receive appropriate publicity through various channels including those of the educational sector as well as OS&H professionals.

p.s. Though various photos of school-type drinking fountains with hold-to-run buttons or levers can readily be found on the internet, the Telegraph article today used the same photo of a water fountain with a conventional turn handle tap as the Daily Mail article did earlier this week! :-(

Let me say up front that I'm entirely with those who detest frivolous claims. I would also support the view that parents (and the parent was present at the time) have a primary duty of care to keep their children under control and safe, etc.

I just wish I could be equally convinced as to the merits of this case! I remain doubtful as to whether the fountain inspected by the appeal judge was the one (kindly) brought to the Court by the defendant or the one in question at the locus. If it was the one on the premises, are we naïve enough to expect the LA not to have modified it in the interim?
There is an emotive element here in that the IP was engaged in an aggressive act. Such acts are entirely commonplace in a School setting - an every day occurrence, foreseeable. There are a great many older schools and public buildings with inappropriate glazing at low level. (You'll hopefully see where I'm going with this). Would the same arguments apply?
The law is often an imperfect and subjective ass.
I wonder how much the appeal cost the LA.

The child's mother is expected to pay for all of that? Do you think that remotely likely?