Posted By Peter F. William, I am one of the people who will look at solicitors etc and blame them and the courts for a lot of claims that should never get there. I am also an advocate for kids being kids and being allowed to play with some degree of risk. Is it not a catch 22 situation that has been created, the insurance/solicitors look for perceived breaches and interpret the laws to suit what has happened the courts rule. Then H&S put something in place, again an accident happens and again a case is taken up and the courts rule, so something further is put in place and so on and so forth. 'In connection with work' playing bulldog on the play ground and falling over should not be interpreted as being in connection with the schools work. I think it is far removed from what was originally intended 'those who create the risk should manage the risk'

Posted By Raymond Rapp William Whilst I agree in principle with your assertion there are nonetheless many contributing factors which you have overlooked. For example, the news article which you have highlighted covers the whole country and most claims are relatively small and no doubt the Council or their insurers have decided not worth contesting in court. Hence the amount of payouts but in reality trivial sums for a Council and insurers. We cannot prevent all risks and as such there will always be the potential for a claim of negligence/breach of statutory duty. The cost of defending a claim is so prohibitive that most do not go to court, mores the pity, as I believe many would be dismissed for what they are - spurious claims. There is a dire need for low cost arbitration which would by-pass the current legal system. Finally, we need the regulators and other respected bodies such as IOSH, RoSPA, IIRSM etc to fight for 'elf and safety corner. We cannot do it alone. At present no one is doing enough to tackle these chronic issues. The regulators have to some degree contributed to the problem, they may advocate sensible safety, but in practice they fall woefully short of applying it. Ray

Posted By William O'Donnell Hi Peter, I am sure that everyone who accesses this forum will agree with your sentiments, however the point that I was making is that cases which we may consider unjustified do go to Court and substantial compensation is often payed out as a result. Everyone, not just children, cannot be allowed to take risks for fear of prosecution/litigation. You say that each Court ruling leads to further H&S measures, indicating that no matter what you do there will always be something else you could have done. How is this to be interpreted by non-health & safety persons. Do we not then find ourselves trying to control every perceivable risk, not because of duties under H&S Legislation but because of the threat of Civil action. Can we truly separate the two when looking at 'sensible risk management'? If not, then were does that leave the H&S Practitioners? How can we advocate 'sensible risk management' when the reality faced by our employers is contrary to that .

Posted By Ron Hunter £21,500 per LEA responding is noise level stuff William. Further, we cannot "trivialise" these pay-outs without the details. Sometimes, compensation is appropriate. People get it wrong, people get hurt. A broken ankle (one of the injuries mentioned) is not a trivial injury. Across the Country, PE Teachers are still organising gym games involving a figure-of-eight where collision is inevitable. It isn't all comkers-bomkers, and I suggest a balanced viewpoint is required.

Posted By Peter F. I have been contacted by the moderator and would like to explain that it was nothing derogatory towards anyone on thread I had used what they consider language not suitable for the site.

Posted By Phil Rose Trying to unravel the various bits and pieces to this thread. I think it is fair to say that many of us are frustrated at the number of what we consider to be largely frivolous and spurious claims being made under conditional fee arrangements. I think that this has come about for a number of reasons such as conditional fee/no win no fee solicitors, people's 'greed' and often unrealistic expectations on health and safety' and perhaps certain newspaper reports. But perhaps the 2 most important factors are/were the Woolf reforms and partially as a result of this the strategy of many insurers to settle out of court on a no liability basis because it is or at least was seen to be the most economic course of action. Ray, I would say that the Woolf reforms were intended to be the "..low cost arbitration.." system that you have alluded to. I would say that this has caused the problems highlighted above, i.e. insurers less willing to go to court for most minor cases (because that is what Woolf was seeking to avoid) and subsequently settling out of court. Ron, agree that a broken ankle isn't a trivial injury, but the seriousness of the injury cannot be looked at in isolation. Establishing a case is dependant on there being a failure of some kind by someone. People do sustain terrible injuries, but sometimes it isn't due to the negligence of others. I for one wish that my insurer would 'fight' more cases, but the bean counter does the sums and decides on what is likely to be the cheapest option, which is often to offer the claimant some money to 'go away' rather than pay the costs involved of defending the claim through the Court system. As I say this is what was at the heart of Woolfs, thoughts, to free up court time and settle cases outside of the court system. In saying that we have gone to court a number of times and won. The judge was excellent and was very sympathetic towards the claimant, saying that he accepted that she had sustained a very nasty injury that had significantly affected her life but that it wasn't our fault.