Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Diane Thomason
The above is a newspaper headline today.
The case is of a young man who was paralysed after diving into a council-owned lake. The Lords said he had taken a premeditated risk because he ignored "no swimming" signs. They overturned the appeal court's ruling that the council bore a third of the responsibility.
Lord Hoffman said the authorities had no duty to take steps to prevent the man from diving or warn him against "perfectly obvious" dangers - he said "I think there is an important question of freedom at stake. The fact that people take no notice of warnings cannot create a duty to take other steps to protect them".
He also said "There is a risk of accidents arising out of the joy of the young. But that is no reason for imposing a grey and dull safety regime on everyone."
This seems to be a very sensible judgement and could be an important precedent.
What do others think?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Dave Wilson
Couldnt agree more, why should employers be held liable for the stupid and sometimes deliberate acts of others or their employees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Adrian Watson
Just for interest the case is Tomlinson (FC) (Original Respondent and Cross-appellant) v. Congleton Borough Council and others (Original Appellants and Cross-respondents) House of Lords [2003] UKHL 47.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Raymond Rapp
Diane,
For once it seems 'common sense' has prevailed in a sometimes absurd world. I have often wondered why those who do reckless or illegal acts have the right to claim when their action causes them injury etc.
The same principle could apply to trespassers, why on earth should a company include controls such as 'risk assessments' for those who should not be there in the first place. Exception young children who may know no better.
Ray
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Hilary Charlton
Very glad to hear the voice of reason eventually - I wonder if this could apply to a recent thread on people jumping off the top of council owned buildings? Interesting precedent and very welcome I should say.
Hilary
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Paul Craythorne
Blimey, a judge with a sense of reality 'Wake me up I'm dreaming'.
Seriously though, I think this is a very sensible judgement and hopefully will be the first of many to come. Something needs to be done to reverse the trend of society's kretins and accident prone making a mint out of compensation claims.
Paul Craythorne
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jason Gould
A break for employers and local authorities at last.
I do feel sorry for anyone who injures themselves but not to the extent that they are always owed compensation.
Yes young children are entitled to extra care. One has to consider what is classed as a young children.
The plantiff was 18 at the time and the judge stated youthul exuberance had led to the tragedy. It would be interesting to know what the starting age of youthul exuberance was. Take the following comments and confessions to mind.
I remember when I was 10 -12 and sneaking through the local papermill factory with some freinds was a frill, pure adventure etc.
never recalled any safety signs at that age even though they were surely there.
I also shamesly remember sneaking through the papermill with the same freinds at 14-16 trying to steel things setting off fire extinguisheres etc. We understood the Warnings hell we even took notice of a few before using them as tagets for air pistols etc.
And again at the age of 18 we would target the papermill to taunt the security guard steel tools with the intenion of gaining profit. we would steel pieces of certain machinery to fix our motorbikes or buggys.
I know the plaintiff was just diving but if I were injured at the same age i think we would still be using the same case (occupiers liabilty duty of care etc) not sure.
So Lets look deepr if this is going to be some presedent case.
Would the same apply if for example.
I was 15
I was 10
I was 7
I personally think we still have a long way to go before we get there. Theres some relief but I dont think its the end in fact i would go as far a saying this is going to bite some in the as* later on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Nick Higginson
Ray
With regard to Trespassers, the Occupiers Liability Act 1984 specifically applies.
The duty to trespassers is much lower than the duty to lawful visitors (a duty of "common humanity") and the duty is normally discharged by the placing of warning signs (except in the case of children, as you rightly said). I guess this is why I see so many Insurance reports insisting on "fragile roof" signs.
I don't know the exact details of this case, but the council appears to have fulfilled their duty of common humanity by placing warning signs and they have been ignored.
It may have been a different story if a child had fell in or the diver was blind???
Regards
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Robert Paterson
Can anyone put some light on the question with regard to Scotland. Would the same ruling apply up here? What would be the interpretation of this judgement under our laws?
Kind Regards
Robert Paterson
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jim Sweetman
I can go along with everyone else who is welcoming a 'practical' legal position. Like all of you, I hope it takes precedent, but that may be wishful thinking as precedent also includes a number of somewhat bizarre rulings.
The one caveat I would raise is the danger of using signs alone, where other actions may be necessary. My own organisation is particularly bad at that. I frequently get requests for 'suitable' signs in circumstances where considerably more action is required.
Jim
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.