Where Theres Blame Theres A Claim etc

Eyup guys / Gurls, I was just wondering (for a pointless reason) that lets say you tripped over a paving stone or fell off an uneven curb etc would you be one to claim or just think 'what a plonker' and get up, dust yourself off and walk on.. just a pointless question really, read something earlier about the whole blame and claim thing so brought it to mi mind.

Danny

No, it's a big part of what's making this country such a bureaucratic nightmare.

Like packets of peanuts containing the warning "may contain nuts".

This country is turning into a place where nothing can happen without somebody looking for somebody to blame, and for somebody to pay, be that through financial penalty or prosecution and punishment.

Our son has come home from nursery injured twice. First time he was fighting with another child over an easel, child pushed him away from it, he held on to the easel and fell over backwards pulling it top of him and smacking him in the mouth, lips bleeding and swollen, his front tooth is still black. Nursery was petrified we would sue them for having a heavy easel in the nursery that could topple onto a child. Went to great lengths to show us that the easel had been disposed of and it couldn't happen again, even though were were telling them not to worry about it. Second time was this week he has come home with some pretty smart finger nail gouges out of his face from another kids fingernails, again fighting over a toy and he gave as good as he got apparently (good boy!). Again the nursery was petrified that we would claim he wasn't being supervised properly if a fight could be allowed to break out. On both occasions my wife and I took the approach that either incident could just have easily occurred at home, all kids fight over toys, and s**t happens.

[Jayneflakes]

Making a claim is never as easy as they make out on the adverts. I got hurt in an industrial accident in 2009 and was advised to contact a solicitor because my absence from work due to illness was then used as a reason to make me redundant. The accident has left me with a permanent injury to my shoulder that still causes me pain.

The cause of the accident was that another colleague had not followed company procedure and had stacked up a pile of heavy boxes that then collapsed on me as I entered a confined work area, putting me in hospital. A simple enough case you would think?

Trying to prove that a company was negligent of a situation that was actually reported to them by the company health and safety officer and the assistant store manager is actually quite hard and takes time as the company tries to blame the now removed managerial team!

no would not claim for things like tripping over paving stones and such.

It can be done, if the council have been told about it and failed to fix it within an acceptable time frame then yes they are liable.
Difficult now though as they have a section 58 defence that states if they inspect a road, path etc and the defect is not there, but appears after the inspection but before it is reported then they are not liable.
The defect also has to be a certain dimension, ie you can't claim if the path is only raised by 1 inch but you can if 3 etc. Complicated but it is possible depending on the circumstances.

[Bri w]

If the accident led to a long term injury/pain/loss of earnings/job/costs for medical treatment I'd just take it on the chin.............................................. ....not.

What's the difference between a dodgy driver causing an accident, and the local Council not maintaining the road/pavement leading to an accident?

[Luckypants]

Bit like Brian really, if I was injured (e.g. broken wrist) due to tripping over a paving broken / crooked paving slab I'd make a claim. Same fall with grazed knee or something similar I'd just report it to the council so they fix it before some old lady falls over it and breaks her hip.

I think your view on claiming is also affected by circumstance. Someone I know fell over a crooked slab and was not badly hurt, but broke her new £300 specs, which were not insured and she could not afford to replace. She claimed and had new glasses paid for - seems fair enough to me.

Originally Posted by Bri w

What's the difference between a dodgy driver causing an accident, and the local Council not maintaining the road/pavement leading to an accident?

Just the fact that nobody picked up the paving stone and threw it at you. Nobody else "caused" the accident, yet we seem to have to find somebody else to blame.

You weren't looking where you were going and you tripped over it.

When you were a kid if you stood in a dog turd, your mother hit you round the ear and told you to watch here you were going. Now she stomps off to the park warden, insists they clean up the dog poo, writes a letter to have dog owners clamped down on with bigger fines, and insists the council buy her son a new pair of shoes. I'm exaggerating of course but you get the picture about the way in which thinking has shifted towards a culture of blaming others for your own mistakes.

30 years ago people wouldn't have even thought about suing the council if they tripped on a paving stone, it was just one of those things that happen and it got chalked down to experience. What makes the council more to blame today, than they were 30 years ago?

So long as they have done their duty and kept the pavement in good general condition and it's not neglected and fallen apart, I wouldn't blame the council because some icy weather conditions, or a lorry driver parking on the pavement, loosened a slab or two. The council are not psychic.

I think such claims should be responded to with, we inspected it within the last 3 months and it was fine, we will fix the problem now you have reported it, and it'll be inspected again in another six months. Take your compensation claim and stick it, and watch where you are putting your feet in future.

How many people slipped and fell in the recent snow and ice? I know I did. How long is it before people start claiming because the council hasn't gritted the pavement?

The law is supposed to revolve around what is "reasonable".

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

You weren't looking where you were going and you tripped over it.

In general agree with that.

Originally Posted by -Ralph-

So long as they have done their duty and kept the pavement in good general condition and it's not neglected <snip>

The crux of it! There is defined values for a 'poor state of repair' of pavements. a height difference of 20mm or more at the edges of paving is considered a trip hazard. If you fall and injure yourself and the paving is outside the 20mm tolerance then the council may be liable. They are well versed in defending such claims and do play the game of 'is it cheaper to fix it or pay the odd claim' in respect of paving defects.

WRT to your slipping on ice analogy, it is not comparable to question in the OP, as obviously people cannot control the weather. I think the recent government clarification about being sued if someone falls on an area you have cleared of snow may be relevant in this case where they state that folks have a responsibility to themselves to take due care in such conditions etc.