Jump to content


Interesting court case re liability


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2513 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Council refuses to pay gran after breaking her windscreen

 

http://dailym.ai/2qomwbu

 

A council lawnmower propelled a stone into a car owners back windscreen smashing it. The car owner issued a court claim and the council are defending it next week, saying their employee was not negligent.

 

You can understand why the council are defending the claim, as a lawnmower operator in this situation would not be negligent, if they were operating the lawnmower in accordance with its operating manual. It is not possible to check every little bit of grass to see whether there might be a stone.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the council on this one as not negligent

 

In my own opinion force majeure

 

Perhaps it should have been a joint claim against council and lawnmower manufacturer. Given that lawnmower might be used by commercial users near third party property, perhaps there were insufficient shields fitted to stop stones being propelled, which might cause a third party to suffer a loss.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

A claim should be made against the council public liability insurance which is compulsory and is there exactly for accidents like this.

The worker was not negligent, fair enough, but the windscreen still got chipped.

It's an accident and pli should pay out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ahhh the Daily Fail... I'm not surprised the Council are defending this, seeing as realistically, they're not liable.

 

In my experience representing Councils (mostly in pothole damage claims), the worry they have is 'the floodgate'. I have a pro-forma witness statement which can run to 100 odd pages including exhibits, which need to cover the legal and factual issues from the Council's obligations under the highways act, to the reporting of the claim, inspection timetables of the roads and the classification of the road for inspection purposes etc etc. A claim for a few hundred pounds can be costly to defend.

 

Re PL insurance, the Council insurance will (in all likelihood) tend to run a high deductible, so as to keep the premiums down. So the Council will deal with anything high volume and low to medium value internally, and then refer all high value or non-routine stuff to the insurer.

 

Regarding this lady's situation I'd be very surprised if the Council don't draw the Judge's attention to the report to the newspaper. If the Council's witness statement has been sent or seen by the newspaper, then there could be data protection implications. Small claims hearings in the County Court tend not to be public so there is also CPR31.22 to consider... The Judge could possibly come down on her quite hard for that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is the crazy media nuts world we live in.

 

The case has already been and gone (the same day as the fail's story) - surprise surprise she lost it.

 

The local rags now go on about how the council wasted money to defend the claim !!!!

 

Now I get that everyone has a right in law to make a challenge, and where possible, I'll assist them, but don't go to the papers when a defence is made saying it's a waste of public money, when you are claiming for a slice of the public money !!

 

Now, considered a VW UP! has only been out since 2011 there is a really little chance of it being covered by anything else than Comp,which means an excess of around £75.00, so how this cost her that much I don't know, unless of course they decided that again they knew better and though not to involve their insurers.

 

rant rant rantity rant.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shortly to be discussed on the Jeremy Vine Show BBC Radio 2 in the next hour or so.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shortly to be discussed on the Jeremy Vine Show BBC Radio 2 in the next hour or so.

 

Will see if i can listen.

 

Many people won't understand how the lawnmower operator can't be liable.

 

I just wonder whether you would have more chance against the lawnmower manufacturer for their product design in not unsuring it stops stones being propelled when used in accordance with manufacturers instruction manual ? Or are they too remote ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Listened to the lady on Radio 2. They just thought issuing the claim might lead to the council paying. The lawnmower operator stated they did carry out visual check for stones and there does not seem to have been proof to the contrary.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

Still a Gesture of Goodwill would have saved everyone grief and expense...but common sense did not prevail

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

If you want advice on your Topic please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

you could argue that Rylands v Fletcher and common law tort of nuisance caused by the egress of material from the council land. Liability by negligence doesnt have to be proved, it is the loss of enjoyment ( ie car cant be used with bust windscreen) is enough.

Claimant didnt mention this so undoubtedly it wasnt considered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think Rylands would work.

 

"the person who for his own purposes brings on his lands and collects and keeps there anything likely to do mischief if it escapes, must keep it in at his peril, and, if he does not do so, is prima facie answerable for all the damage which is the natural consequence of its escape"

 

It's a stretch to argue that a stone on a piece of grass was brought and kept there by the Council for their own purposes...

 

I had a listen to the lady and her son in law on the radio though.

 

Firstly, from what they say, their case seemed to center on the apparent admission of liability by the Council employee, rather than the legal merits of the negligence claim (which really they should have looked into further after the denial of liability). Probably wasn't the best move to rely on an oral admission (if it even was that!) from an employee who clearly had no authority to bind the Council to an obligation to pay damages.

 

Secondly, I think not keeping the stone or at least taking a picture hurt their case. If it was a big stone, I think she could have won.

 

As it stands, what Jeremy Vine did not emphasise enough in my view is that both parties had opportunity to submit evidence, the matter went to trial, and the Judge deemed the Council weren't negligent. It's not as if they spent thousands of pounds fighting this case only to lose at trial.

 

If I was the Council's barrister I'd have made a request for costs under CPR27.14(g). Try and recoup some of that public money...

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...