There have been many reports along the lines of 'if you clear a path and someone falls on it, they'll sue'. Well I clear my path and if you fall on it and threaten to sue, I'll hit you with a shovel. And I don't have a plastic one.
It's nice to see a whole street come together and say 'Sod off' to the Safety Elf. It works because there's no record of who cleared which bit so if some compensation monkey takes a Fifa tumble, who will they sue?
We need more of this. Councils can refund the council tax to those who do the job they're paid to do, as well.
10 comments:
They have shown us what community spirit and defiance of the 'authorities' can achieve.
Now let's all go and make similar history where we can.
Great flag, Leg-Iron.
Greetings from balmy NZ. Nice new lay out.
I can't believe things in the UK are quite as bad as you and your fellow anarcho-libertarians suggest so I'm packing my thermal undies and coming over on a fact finding tour.
Nip in, look around, nick some silverware in the great All Black tradition then home.
Try and arrange some political stunts for late February please. Or a snap election.
Perhaps the worm is, finally, turning?
Lord Adonis was instructing us over the weekend to ignore 'health & Safety' to help get the schools open.
Ayrdale, might I suggest that you visit that street, fall over and sue Wing Commander Paddy O'Kennedy who "works for the Marines" which is in the Navy.
Good on the lot of them!
Wonder what the council would say if those residents did ask for their CT to be rebated...?
Ayrdake, it's madder than even I can believe and I live here.
It's nice to see that some people are starting to just say 'no' at last.
Kynon - I think we all know what the council would say. The flow of money is strictly one way with that lot.
Loved the following comment to the Mail's story:
"Would you mind answering some questions for an American who doesn't understand all this? I keep reading stories like this about local councils in the UK who behave like complete idiots and seem to have no interest at all in the welfare of the people they supposedly serve. Are these people elected? If so, why on earth are they still in office. If they behaved like that here, they would be out of office so fast, they wouldn't know what happened. If they aren't elected, I presume they are appointed, but by whom? Somewhere up the chain, there has to be someone who is elected. So why do you put up with this kind of idiocy?"
- Kat, Virginia, USA, 11/1/2010
Well? Kat has a point, we do sow the seeds of our own misfortune don't we?
I say we take off and nuke the entire Government from orbit... It's the only way to be sure.
A lot of this “don’t clear the path or someone might sue” is way off the mark and is a sadly typical reaction of people who read too much of, and take too much notice of, rags like the Daily Mail. In fact, there are very few lawyers who would even consider taking on a case like that, even if there were some punters out there who wanted to pursue it. To sue successfully, a plaintiff has to prove “wilful negligence” which would be almost impossible to do if all someone’s done is cleared the snow away and maybe put a bit of salt or grit or sand down over that area, even if someone happens to fall over on that precise spot some moments later. Of course, if you’d packed the snow down to a smooth, icy surface to make it a better run for your kids on their sledges, then they’d probably have a case. The real keyword which makes or breaks a case is “reasonable.” Is it reasonable to expect Joe Soap to know if it’s going to be cold enough to freeze further later in the day or if the amount of water remaining will create ice thick enough to be dangerous? No. Is it reasonable to expect Joe Soap to be out there night and day making sure that his bit of path stays clear and dry and safe? No. Is it reasonable for someone to sue someone else for trying to make life easier for everyone else? No. Is someone clearing the path deliberately and wilfully trying to make life more dangerous for other people? No. Questions like this make for a very, very weak case indeed, and that’s not even including the consideration of “contributory negligence” on behalf of the plaintiff – did the fact that the path was clear mean that you could run down the road in a pair of slingback stilettos? No. But the Daily Mail and their ilk don’t like to include those parts – don’t make for such hysteria-invoking stories, do they?
Yet the professional body that represents health and safety experts has issued a warning to businesses not to grit public paths
--
Councils, who have a responsibility for public highways, say they have no legal obligation to clear pavements.
--
But the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, the professional body representing 36,000 health and safety experts, gave warning that this could lead to legal action.
In guidance to its members, who advise businesses throughout the country, it said: “When clearing snow and ice, it is probably worth stopping at the boundaries of the property under your control.”
Clearing a public path “can lead to an action for damages against the company, e.g. if members of the public, assuming that the area is still clear of ice and thus safe to walk on, slip and injure themselves”.
--
<A HREF="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/6958131/Health-and-safety-experts-warn-dont-clear-icy-pavements-you-could-get-sued.html>Not the Daily Mail</A>.
Aha, I missed one quote nark in that link.
Not the Daily Mail.
Post a Comment