Smashed A Window @ Footy, Where do I stand!

[VeNT]

Yeah, but you're not paying someone else to use their equipment. Say you hired a board and it broke through FAIR use, would you expect to be forced into replacing it?

I wouldn't.

Jokester

no, true,

but if I went swimming and though some error of judgement I broke a window at the pool, or a chair or a door etc, and it was compleatly my fault ie was not hanging off already, was not pushed by others etc, then I would expect to have to pay to repair/replace the broken item.

 

[Jokester]

I'm sure you'd agree showing that you have a negative duty towards the breakage of peoples windows would be easy.

Would the care of duty not rest with the company? It would be their duty to provide facilities suitable for the intended use.

It's somewhat negligent to place an unprotected window in a situation where it would be reasonable to expect it getting hit by a football.

Speaking as an engineer, I have a care of duty to provide designs that are safe and fit for purpose (and comply with the law etc). If I designed something that through normal use resulted in damage to it, it wouldn't be the user that gets blamed it would be me.

Jokester

 

[Jokester]

no, true,

but if I went swimming and though some error of judgement I broke a window at the pool, or a chair or a door etc, and it was compleatly my fault ie was not hanging off already, was not pushed by others etc, then I would expect to have to pay to repair/replace the broken item.

Totally agree. but the analogy here in my opinion would be if he broke the diving board when he was using it normally.

It's totally normal for a ball to leave the pitch during play and during warmups hence it wasn't his fault that a window was placed somewhere where it could easily be hit during normal use of the football facilities.

Jokester

 

[Jet]

no I don't

also maybe he DOESN'T have insurance!

persoanly I do a kiteboarding (useing power kites and mountine boards on beaches etc) and I have personal insurance that meens if I damage anything or anyone I'm covered for whatever happens.

maybe you need somthing simmiler for your football club?

You think the prices at Tesco etc, don't include their insurance costs? Really? Of course they do, any business not doing so would be extremely foolish.

Does it not tell you something that no such football insurance exists?

 

[VeNT]

Totally agree. but the analogy here in my opinion would be if he broke the diving board when he was using it normally.

It's totally normal for a ball to leave the pitch during play and during warmups hence it wasn't his fault that a window was placed somewhere where it could easily be hit during normal use of the football facilities.

Jokester

he said that it was a double glazed window, they are VERY hard to brake, but what I meen is that for the sake of being nice I'd try to talk to the guy rather than just saying no.

 

[VeNT]

You think the prices at Tesco etc, don't include their insurance costs? Really? Of course they do, any business not doing so would be extremely foolish.

Does it not tell you something that no such football insurance exists?

they do, but tescos is a little different from a guy who owns a field.

and I'd bet there is an insurance for people running public parks etc that would cover this, but it doesn't meen that he has it.

also I'd like it if you didn't get aggressive with me (as your post seems), I am voicing my opinion and have every right to do so here (kinda).

 

[Skyfire]

If you were using the pitch illegally in the dead of night and got caught for a broken window - pay up But if you are paying to be on the pitch, seek legal advice. It's their fault if their insurance pemium goes up

 

[VeNT]

If you were using the pitch illegally in the dead of night and got caught for a broken window - pay up But if you are paying to be on the pitch, seek legal advice. It's their fault if their insurance pemium goes up

what would they say if they where charged more for playing there as a direct result of this broken window?

they are a higher risk group (if you'ed had an accsident in the car, even if you didn't claim you preamium may go up) so therfore I'd say that the owner is within his rights to charge you more than others using this pitch.

 

[Jet]

Originally Posted by TORT LAW text and materials second edition mark lunney and ken oliphant pg104
The existence of a duty of care is the primary requiremnt for a successful claim in negligence....potential limitations of liability under the principle of Donoghue v Stevenson were rejected.


I'm sure you'd agree showing that you have a negative duty towards the breakage of peoples windows would be easy.

fini

You have left out the rest of the requirements of negligence though? What use is that?

"Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man guided by those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do." per Alderson B in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co 1856.

Therefore, the standard of care required of the defendant is that of the hypothetical, reasonable man in the defendant’s circumstances.

What would the average footballer do in the OP's circumstances.

I for one would and have done the same before.
Although Gilly has great skill (I can tell) he has bound to have done the same before.

Imo the court would agree that missing the goal after a poor shot is not negligence towards any window.

 

[Jokester]

he said that it was a double glazed window, they are VERY hard to brake, but what I meen is that for the sake of being nice I'd try to talk to the guy rather than just saying no.

It would have been even harder to break if they had put up a net of adequate height though.

Jokester

 

[VeNT]

It would have been even harder to break if they had put up a net of adequate height though.

Jokester

true, but from what I understand the ball went OVER the goal yes?

 

[Jet]

they do, but tescos is a little different from a guy who owns a field.

and I'd bet there is an insurance for people running public parks etc that would cover this, but it doesn't meen that he has it.

also I'd like it if you didn't get aggressive with me (as your post seems), I am voicing my opinion and have every right to do so here (kinda).

It's not a guy owning a field though is it? It's a purpose built astro-turf football pitch. Imo the chances of injury or damage are higher at a football complex than in Tesco.

He may not have insurance, more fool him. If someone cuts their throat on a damaged goal and dies he's going to have to find a couple of million from somewhere. I would hazard a guess that liability insurance is mandatory for establishments dealing with the public, in fact i'm almost sure it is. Premiums cost thousands, they wouldn't increase the premium ten fold for a few hundred pound window.

 

[Jokester]

true, but from what I understand the ball went OVER the goal yes?

Yes, it does happen on a regular basis (more often than not with my 5s team sadly), that's why most reputable astro-turf pitches put up large nets round the pitch to stop this sort of thing happening. It's a perfectly reasonable precaution to take and any premises suffering damage to their property as a result of them not doing so only has themselves to blame.

Jokester

 

[VeNT]

It's not a guy owning a field though is it? It's a purpose built astro-turf football pitch. Imo the chances of injury or damage are higher at a football complex than in Tesco.

He may not have insurance, more fool him. If someone cuts their throat on a damaged goal and dies he's going to have to find a couple of million from somewhere. I would hazard a guess that liability insurance is mandatory for establishments dealing with the public, in fact i'm almost sure it is. Premiums cost thousands, they wouldn't increase the premium ten fold for a few hundred pound window.

Liability insurance yes, even I have that for my work.

but it does not meen that he had insurance that covered the window being broken by a guy kicking a football the wrong way, also why should his insurance have to pay when it was not HIM kicking the ball?

if I crashed my car into yours, would I have to pay or your insurance?

 

[Jet]

Liability insurance yes, even I have that for my work.

but it does not meen that he had insurance that covered the window being broken by a guy kicking a football the wrong way, also why should his insurance have to pay when it was not HIM kicking the ball?

if I crashed my car into yours, would I have to pay or your insurance?

You could refuse to pay, then my insurers will sue you for negligence because you caused the accident. This case is different in that negligence isn't proven so he can't be sued. I can't think of an example involving cars that would result in a crash not caused by the negligence of one driver. However, in cases where it is not obvious who was the cause, insurers will split the cost, knock for knock i believe it's called.

With regards to the insurance, i got ahead of myself and mean building insurance. What would happen if you kicked the ball, it hit the bar, then the roof (assuming indoor) and a £200,000 roof collapsed? Would you expect to be billed?

 

[fini]

per Alderson B in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co 1856.

Quoting an 1856 case? The law has changed a lot since 1856, please read Donoghue v Stevenson which is now the prima facie authority on this subject.

@Gilly

The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour

Thus Lord Atkin defined a general duty of care over a person and his or her chattels.

EDIT: I should add that the neighbourhood principle was looked over again in [Caparo Industries Plc -v- Dickman and others], but little was changed, and certainly nothing with relevance to this.

fini

 

[Bernard]

Fair enough, if it's a full size pitch 8ft is nowhere near enough. I was assuming 5 a side size, and 5 a side rules.

Having thought about it, I would probably offer to pay for the damage.

 

[Jet]

Quoting an 1856 case? The law has changed a lot since 1856, please read Donoghue v Stevenson which is now the prima facie authority on this subject.
fini

Quoting a case which has never been overruled you mean? The date is irrelevant if the case is still good law, which it is.

There is no one case for negligence. Donoghue v Stevenson is merely the landmark case establishing a duty of care. It doesn't provide the authority for breach, causation or defences. All of which play a part in proving negligence. You have quoted the main point from D v S only. That merely outlines the duty of care. No lawyer would doubt that a person playing football doesn't have a duty, the question is whether that duty was breached. The Blyth case is the main authority on this point.

D v S has no bearing on this problem at all in actual fact. There is no problem applying it here.

The fact you said that quoting an 1856 case is wrong shows you don't know enough about it. The leading case in contract is Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Co 1893, but it hasn't been repealed so it's still good law. Most of property law is covered by the Law of Property Act 1925, it hasn't been repealed and is still good law. Dates are not relevant.

 

[KPeh]

(edit): eep, some better law people than me posted.. I'll just read over that before I embarrase myself *copied*.

edit: here's the post again. I'm not sure why you lot are talking about trespassing and negligence? The post says he rented out the pitch for £18?
And you can't negligently cause criminal damage. Only intentionally or recklessly. Edit: and I am yet to do property law!

Anyway, the post:

There are two seperate law issues here.. The first is whether you commited criminal damage (Criminal law), the second is whether you will have to pay for damages as a result of the contract (Civil law).

It wont be viewed as criminal damage - the CPS wouldn't bother with the case. I suppose if you refused to pay they could get the police involved, but are more likely to get money back from a civil court by the contract you made to use the pitch. But the law on criminal damage in case your interested (in respect to this) is to whether you were reckless as to the damage being committed. A person acts recklessly (with regard to criminal damage) with respect to:
"i) a circumstance when he is aware of a risk that it exists or will exist,
ii) a result when he is aware of a risk that it will occur; and it is, in the cirumstances known to him, unreasonable to take the risk."
Given that they had designated it a football pitch, it would be quite odd if at all possible to claim you were reckless, though I guess possible under part i. But I wouldn't expect it to reach a criminal court anyway.

So, that that was all hypothetical. I'm really not sure what the law would say here.. On one hand you made a contract which is likely to make you liable for the damage, but on the other hand, if that term is unfair (if the glass was so badly placed it was likely to be smashed when the pitch was used), then you might not be liable. A term is unfair if 'contrary to the requirement of good faith it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations arising under the contract'.

So, *shrug*. I'm sure there's some cases with this sort of thing in them which would set out the law, but I don't know of any. Anyway, I would try and avoid paying for it. Send them a letter saying it was unreasonable make you pay for damage to a pane of glass so close to the pitch, since when the pitch was used for its purpose, the pane was likely to get damaged.

 

[Jet]

You're mostly right. It isn't criminal damage because there was no intention and no recklessness imo.

However, negligence as a tort does not just involve personal injury as a loss. The loss may consist of personal injury, damage to property, or what is categorised as pure economic loss. It may also consist of psychiatric damage (traditionally known as “nervous shock”) (quote from notes). It's not negligence causing criminal damage but negligence causing damage to property.

Clearly what is being argued is that he was negligent and should pay for the economic loss. I disagree. Imo he wasn't negligent because he didn't breach the duty, as per the Blyth case.

Again, your right about the contract as well. That's the main factor for the OP's worry imo. But it's not that the term is unfair, that is a very strict test. If the club want players to pay for any damage they can.

2) Notice. If the clause appears in a document that has not been signed or on a notice on a wall at the place where the contract is made, then, whether or not the clause is incorporated depends upon the rules relating to notice. The basic rule of notice is that the clause will only be incorporated if the person relying on the exemption clause took reasonable steps to draw it to the attention of the other party. See Chapleton v Barry UDC 1940,
Olley v Marlborough Court Ltd 1949.

That's why I was asking if there was a notice at the till (where the contract is made) or wether he was told this clause. If not then it isn't a valid term of the contract and he can't be forced to pay.