compensation...

Status
Not open for further replies.
fini said:
Do you know this? I know I don't. I mean I'd presume that as there are lots of different manhole covers there'd be a responsible body of opinion on them - but I don't know that... I also know I wouldn't have a clue as to how to pick out a suitable manhole cover for a specific task.
Click to expand...

How hard can it be? Make sure it can fit the hole, withstand the elements, suitable materials, etc. You're using the Bolam test as if it's the general standard when talking about most negligence claims when it's used in rare circumstances (compared to how many negligence claims there are). You can see by the case law that it only affects professional, extremely skilled jobs. If you can find a case that concerns something so trivial then so be it but you won't. And the lower courts are not going to apply a test that hasn't been applied to these matters before. If they did you would appeal and win since they can't make law.
 
Conanius said:
so in summary, it had been/was raining, and you stepped on a bit of metal, and now want to sue because you hurt yourself?

without wanting to sound harsh... could you not just use your eyes any have stayed on tarmac? or at least had the common sense to know that as its been wet outside to know it'd be slippery?

Considering the quality of your posts recently, and how switched on you seem in motors, I'm gob smacked that A) you managed to do this and B) your even considering taking legal action.
Click to expand...
 
Conanius and Spie, He's made it clear that due to the placement of the manhole that it's on the island to cross, and although we're without pictures it sounds like it covers quite a lot of the ground; plus if it was at night, he might not have seen it clearly or recognised that it would still be wet and cause a problem.

I think saying that he's even considering legal action is a bit disrespectful in my opinion; given the situation he's done a bit more than just bruised his back or slipped, he'll be out of work for quite a while for something that could have been prevented had a traditional manhole been used. I'd say due to the placement, time of day and the time it had rained you should have something to go on. It could have happened to anyone and pointing this out to the council should get it heard if it's such a large part of the crossing.
 
Accidents happen. If it was that much of an issue people would be slipping there every time it rained. It was wet. Pay more attention in future.

But, I hope your back is better soon.
 
Jet said:
How hard can it be? Make sure it can fit the hole, withstand the elements, suitable materials, etc. You're using the Bolam test as if it's the general standard when talking about most negligence claims when it's used in rare circumstances (compared to how many negligence claims there are). You can see by the case law that it only affects professional, extremely skilled jobs. If you can find a case that concerns something so trivial then so be it but you won't. And the lower courts are not going to apply a test that hasn't been applied to these matters before. If they did you would appeal and win since they can't make law.
Click to expand...
I would have thought Great North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and others would be clear authority that it should be used in that case. It was a case where a car had come off the motorway and ended up causing a train crash. Contributory negligence was claimed (IIRC successfully) against the counsel for installing the wrong type of barrier at the side of the road, thus allowing the car to plow down the hill onto the railway lines. In working out whether the wrong barrier was installed they used the bolam test. How is this so different?

fini
 
Spie said:
Accidents happen. If it was that much of an issue people would be slipping there every time it rained. It was wet. Pay more attention in future.

But, I hope your back is better soon.
Click to expand...

my attitude has always been 'accidents happen' which was the reason for my trepidation in starting this thread...I hope that my original post conveyed that well enough rather than 'oh the humanity! must sue!'

from speaking to a few other residents, it has become apparent that while I am the first to injure myself, I am not the first to slip.

a friend has just been around for a cuppa and a chat; I got him to wander up the road and take a few photos.

but imageshack is playing up...could someone host them?

8 photos following the route I walked, showing examples of manhole covers on the paths, the island 8d the position of the cover I slipped on.

the island itself has several covers along its length, all of the diamondplate type but only one on the actual crossing.

there is also a photo showing that the cover in question is on 'the line of least resistance' across the island (offset railings mean you walk across it at an angle) and one facing back up the hill.

anyone got an email add I could send them to?

thanks :)

*n
 
fini said:
I would have thought Great North Eastern Railway Limited v Hart and others would be clear authority that it should be used in that case. It was a case where a car had come off the motorway and ended up causing a train crash. Contributory negligence was claimed (IIRC successfully) against the counsel for installing the wrong type of barrier at the side of the road, thus allowing the car to plow down the hill onto the railway lines. In working out whether the wrong barrier was installed they used the bolam test. How is this so different?

fini
Click to expand...

Well one is deciding the length, material and position of barriers that seperate a motorway and a railway line. Getting it wrong means death or serious injury. Speeds of cars, crash reports, angle of embankment, etc, all need to be taken into account. Surely you see the difference between that and manholes? Obviously your average person couldn't choose and install crash barriers but manholes? It's easy.

Besides which, I think you misunderstand what the Bolam test is. It's not a defence for the council in this case. It's a further tool for the claimant to prove that since the negligent act requires skill and ability the council has a higher standard of care to Penski. If anything, this is likely to help him since it makes it harder to prove the negligent act was reasonable.

Either way, I don't think it applies in this case since there has been no case in history which has used it for this purpose. People sue the council all the time and win. Whether it's curbs, paving slabs or manhole covers and I have never heard the Bolam test being applied and never heard the council win in spite of it.

Surely paving slabs require skill and ability to choose? If manholes do? Yet people sue for this all the time.
 
Jet said:
Well one is deciding the length, material and position of barriers that seperate a motorway and a railway line. Getting it wrong means death or serious injury.
Click to expand...
...and the other is picking the length, material and position of a manhole on a road. Gettin it wrong means death or serious injury from a fall

Jet said:
Besides which, I think you misunderstand what the Bolam test is. It's not a defence for the council in this case. It's a further tool for the claimant to prove that since the negligent act requires skill and ability the council has a higher standard of care to Penski.
Click to expand...
I don't know enough about what goes into manhole selection procedures to say whether Bolam's likely to come to the aide of either penski or the council. IMHO Bolam's not about saying 'because you're professional you have a higher standard' (although yes this is inevitably the outcome), it's about saying 'because you're a professional we'll need to check with another professional as to what a responsible professional in your field should have done'. Whether the council has breached that test is beyond my knowledge of manhole procurement and maintenance procedures.

Jet said:
Surely paving slabs require skill and ability to choose? If manholes do?
Click to expand...
I've seen ten maybe twenty different types of manhole cover - practically every one I see seems to look different. Paving slabs tend all look the same (not to say that they actually are (I don't know)). As there seems to be no choice over paving slabs then there can be no negligence in the choice. As there's a myriad of choice of manhole covers then there can be a negligent choice.

fini
 
Last edited:
email sent with pics.

most of the manhole covers in the area are of the large steel type with defined ridges on them...you can't slip on these (got someone to try ;))

the rest of them are small, plastic access hatches for the water.

*n
 
fini said:
...and the other is picking the length, material and position of a manhole on a road. Gettin it wrong means death or serious injury from a fall
Click to expand...

Length - to fit the hole?
Material - metal that doesn't rust?
Position - above the hole? This obviously depends on where the tunnels are which is out of the councils control.

I don't know how you can say it takes special skill or ability to choose a manhole cover.

I disagree that there are 20 types of manhole covers as well. There are something like 4 different types of storm drain covers in Newcastle. And these are merely different brands with slightly different designs.
 
length - well presumably they're not just covering a random hole -someone has had to decide the length of the hole at some point
material - penski's pointed to three different materials used in his area -I'm sure lots of different alloys are used aswell.
position - why is it out of the council's control where the tunnel is? Even if where the tunnel is located is out of the council's control, where that tunnel meets the surface (ie where the hole is dug) would still be up to the council.

It turns out there are are a lot more types of manhole than even I thought.
 
just spoke to a neighbour.

apparantly maintenance of the roads isn't being signed off to the council until all phases of the build are complete...

I don't know if this means that the choice of manhole design, placement and so forth was the responsibility of the council or the builders...or where responsibility lies.

*n
 
Burned_Alive said:
So you slipped on your arse in the rain and you think the blame lies with someone else?

-10 Respect

Get well soon though.
Click to expand...

congratulations on reading the thread

firstly, I didn't land on my arse
secondly, it wasn't raining

perhaps in the future you could try not making crass and ignorant assumptions?

most pertinently, I am merely trying to ascertain whether the type of cover should be used where it has been used.

had the cover been of the conventional steel type with large raised sections, I would not have had to start this thread.

if the negligence of an individual, company or authority is the reason for the 'wrong' cover being used and therefore the personal injury which I have suffered and the loss of earnings due to spending 4-8 weeks off work is the result of that negligence, why should I not seek recompense?

*n
 
penski said:
congratulations on reading the thread

firstly, I didn't land on my arse
secondly, it wasn't raining

perhaps in the future you could try not making crass and ignorant assumptions?
Click to expand...

Figure of speech, im not making crass or ignorant assumptions, other people in the thread have come to the same conclusion i did. You said it was wet, its not a massive step to think it was raining, i apologise if you stated otherwise and i missed it. It seems to me like you're just trying to find a way to justify your little bit of greed now you think you're owed something, after you've probably slagged people off in the past for the very same.

Just accept that accidents happen, realise that if anyones to blame its probably you and move on.
 
Just done a bit of a case search for you penski and the only semi-relevent case I came up with was:

Atkins v Ealing London Borough Council 2006

Mrs Atkins stood on a manhole cover, which then tilted causing her foot to fall into the manhole. Under s 41 of the Highways Act 1980 the counsel has a duty to keep the roads safe. Apparently there are inspectors that councils pay to check the roads once a month (who knew!).

It was found that the council had a duty to check manholes for 'tiltability' and thus successfully claimed £2750.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom