compensation...
- Thread starter penski
- Start date
- Status
if it's wet and I'm running or walking quick, I'd avoid every single piece of metal on the ground.
To be honest, you've made a mistake and you're paying dearly for it. But it's your mistake, not anyone else's - accidents happen.
To be honest, you've made a mistake and you're paying dearly for it. But it's your mistake, not anyone else's - accidents happen.
In evaluating whether you'd be likely to recieve compensation, the factors to consider are:
1) Did the council owe you a duty of care?
a) i) It was foreseeable that some harm might come about from there being a smooth peice of metal on a slope
ii) It was also foreseeable that someone walking on the path in the natural course of things could be injured.
b) There is sufficient proximity between the council, who maintains the highway, and you, a person who uses the highway in the natural course of things.
c) Would it be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the council? Probably - they have a duty to maintain the highways. It could have been an elderly person who slipped, and they might have died.
- So YES, they do owe you a duty of care
2) Were the council in breach of their duty?
i) How foreseeable was the harm suffered? Its well known smooth metal things become slippery when wet. Its therefore very likely that in a country where it rains a lot, such a thing might happen.
ii) How severe might the injury be? Serious - it could be a head injury, a broken hip, or a spinal injury. Given the ease with which the council could have iii) taken precautions by simply using a different cover, it seems very likely that overall, in installing such a manhole cover, so likely to cause harm, that they were in breach of their duty of care to you.
- So YES, they were in breach of their duty by installing such a dangerous cover.
3) Was the council's breach a sufficient cause of your injury?
i) But-for the installation of such a manhole cover, your injuries would not have happened. The council is the clear cause of the injury.
ii) The injury you suffered is clearly a foreseeable consequence of the council's actions, and so is therefore not too remote.
- So YES, they were a sufficient cause
4) Were you contributorily negligent?
i) It would be reasonable for you to take extra care when walking in the wet. However, simply by stepping on a manhole cover, which you could quite reasonably presume to be safe, is unlikely to reduce the damages you would receive very much.
- So NO, you probably weren't very negligent, probably no more than 10-15% in any case.
5) You've obviously suffered personal injury and loss of earnings
So, overall, I'd say you have a fairly strong chance of success.
1) Did the council owe you a duty of care?
a) i) It was foreseeable that some harm might come about from there being a smooth peice of metal on a slope
ii) It was also foreseeable that someone walking on the path in the natural course of things could be injured.
b) There is sufficient proximity between the council, who maintains the highway, and you, a person who uses the highway in the natural course of things.
c) Would it be fair, just and reasonable to impose liability on the council? Probably - they have a duty to maintain the highways. It could have been an elderly person who slipped, and they might have died.
- So YES, they do owe you a duty of care
2) Were the council in breach of their duty?
i) How foreseeable was the harm suffered? Its well known smooth metal things become slippery when wet. Its therefore very likely that in a country where it rains a lot, such a thing might happen.
ii) How severe might the injury be? Serious - it could be a head injury, a broken hip, or a spinal injury. Given the ease with which the council could have iii) taken precautions by simply using a different cover, it seems very likely that overall, in installing such a manhole cover, so likely to cause harm, that they were in breach of their duty of care to you.
- So YES, they were in breach of their duty by installing such a dangerous cover.
3) Was the council's breach a sufficient cause of your injury?
i) But-for the installation of such a manhole cover, your injuries would not have happened. The council is the clear cause of the injury.
ii) The injury you suffered is clearly a foreseeable consequence of the council's actions, and so is therefore not too remote.
- So YES, they were a sufficient cause
4) Were you contributorily negligent?
i) It would be reasonable for you to take extra care when walking in the wet. However, simply by stepping on a manhole cover, which you could quite reasonably presume to be safe, is unlikely to reduce the damages you would receive very much.
- So NO, you probably weren't very negligent, probably no more than 10-15% in any case.
5) You've obviously suffered personal injury and loss of earnings
So, overall, I'd say you have a fairly strong chance of success.
Go for it - you won't need to pay a penny of Solicitors fees anyway (either by them charging the other side if successful and waiving fees if not, or it will be covered under your home contens insurance - if you have it).
I don't see why there's such a change of feeling from this and the negative comments in http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17729709
I don't see why there's such a change of feeling from this and the negative comments in http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17729709
NickXX said:Lol, could you have not walked round it
did you read the thread?
the manhole cover is situated on a traffic island in such a position that it is quite difficult to avoid.the alternative is walking on the road...a stretch of road with buses careening around the corner every few minutes.
the 'dividing island' of which the crossing is a part sits about 12" proud of the road meaning that, in the space of the 4' crossing (angled across the island), it slopes up 12", plateaus then slopes down 12" again. at best, it has been designed in a very cumbersome manner.
*n
Whilst a perfectly accurate walk-through of tort law this is the point where I disagree with you. When assessing forseability you're fundamentally assessing negligence. As such it is worth taking into account whether the manhole was of a standard type used by the rest of the industry, having been tested to ISO standards etc. If it is/had been then, if you use the Bolam test, how can you find a breach? You have to remember this isn't a greased up peice of glass - it's a 'probably' industry standard manhole designed for the task.Skull said:
As I said, whilst I believe it's worth seeing a solicitor - a bit of threatening ADR might elicit an out of court settlement - if it went to court I can't seeing him winning unfortunately.
fini
fini said:
The Bolam test doesn't apply to Penski's case. It applies to persons who are part of a profession which has a body of professional opinion.
I don't think council workers consider their skills in installing manhole covers as above average abilities lol. It's just reasonable care in this case. Almost every case that uses the Bolam test is medical in nature. I doubt the court would consider the skills of council workers in the same vein as doctors.
fini said:
Given the difficulties the Bolam test presents, it might depend on how old the manhole cover is. If it's been worn down, it should have been replaced.
Or, whether or not its industry standard turns on the facts, but it doesn't sound as if the manhole cover IS standard, I've not seen one which matches the description on a public path.
As you said "Unless there was thus a reason why that particular style of manhole shouldn't have been used at that location" and it seems that if it was prone to becoming slippery, it shouldnt have been used on a public footpath, and probably would satisfy the Bolam test.
I dunno!
The Bolam test is increasingly applied to less and less intricate skills though. Whilst the Bolam test started out as medical only it's now used in pretty much any tortious situation where a specialist skill is held. A quick search shows up it being used in:Jet said:
A v Hoare; H v Suffolk County Council; X and Y v Wandsworth London Borough - a teacher
R (on the application of Bramall) v The Law Society - a solicitor
Carty v London Borough of Croydon - local education authority
Great North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and others - proffessional highway and bridge designers
etc.
It's also worth mentioning that in this scenario it wouldn't be used against the council workers who installed the manhole, but the person that decided that type of manhole cover should be used - which is probably some civil servant as it'll probably have been decided centrally for all council civil engineering jobs. As such, it is to say that the procurement of materials for council civil engineering jobs is a pretty specific skill set.
@Skull - I agree. We're presuming that the manhole cover was really extremly slippery though - it might have just been a combination of penski's trainers, plus the unusual way that the water had collected that made it so slippery.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 1,519
- Location
- Liverpool - UK.
Skull said:
It's a section of diamond-plate aluminium sheet as he mentioned in his first post - not an entirely smooth piece of metal as you referred to in your earlier post.
Personally I dont think he had a leg to stand on
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Dec 2004
- Posts
- 26
penski said:...well this is a thread that I never thought I would be making.
today marks the end of the second week which I have been signed off sick from work. it looks like I will be signed off for another 2-4 weeks at least.
the reason I am off is due to a back injury sustained after slipping on a wet manhole cover, doing the full-on feet-in-the-air comedy fall...and landing on the top of my spine/shoulder.
as it stands, I am unable to work, I am in an inordinate amount of pain 24 hours a day, can sleep for about 4 hours per night (waking up every half hour or so), and my movement is limited to shuffling around, sitting bolt upright and lying flat on my back. luckily I can move my hands and hold my phone in front of me
the manhole in question is located on a traffic island as you walk into my estate. to cross the traffic island, you have to cross the manhole cover. it is made of virtually smooth aluminium (it has a 'diamondplate' style pattern that is raised 2-3mm) and is tilted at an angle of around 10 degrees.
for the record, the road you are crossing to have to go across that traffic island has a 50 limit, is for buses only and is on a blind corner...so it is not a road you just wander out onto...the island is pretty much essential.
I have always been against the so-called culture of blame which is why I never thought I would be making such a thread...but now I find myself unable to work, in constant pain and facing an uncertain future which at the very best will include intensive physio and at the worst frankly scares me.
...because a low-friction aluminium cover has been used in place of a traditional iron (or are they steel...?) one...you know the type - big letters and protrusions all over them so you don't land on your harris when it is wet.
luckily I can move all my limbs and will (should?) recover...but I've lost count of the number of medical professionals gasping at how lucky I am. I'm 20ish stone and over 6' tall...that's a big impact on the top of your spine...my gp likened it to someone swinging a sledgehammer at the back of your neck.
so the question; do I pursue this? has anyone here been in a similar or comparable situation? any advice?
thanks for any help
*n (worried, baked on painkillers and going stir crazy through boredom...thank god for my vario II!)
And it's anyones fault that you didn't have non-slip shoes on?
Stop being a big old lady-boy. Your from up north, your putting us northerners to shame. Back in my day a back injury was a luxury! We would still be working a 28 hour day down the pit whilst still managing to fit in walking the whippit and beating the wife.
Compensation? That word isnt even in our vocubulary.
Suck it up old man faeces happens
Compensation? That word isnt even in our vocubulary.
Suck it up old man faeces happens
talbotsean said:
I've never slipped before wearing these trainers...dunlop green flash. a fairly slip-resistant design by all accounts.
I don't wear specific non-slip shoes in my day-to-day life for the same reason I don't put a hard hat on every time I leave the house.
*n
- Status