Smashed A Window @ Footy, Where do I stand!

[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.

Has not been overuled on the point you quoted you mean, because parts of the case are now irellivent IMHO. Yes, you can go to old cases, Carlill is a very good example of this, but it also proves another thing; when going back to old cases it is invariably for a single principle which has remained (in Carlill it would be where unilateral contracts become bilateral). The reason I cite Donoghue as the key case is because you can go to it for so much; the HL discussed a lot of different issues, there's a dissenting judge and important obiter remarks.

It doesn't provide the authority for breach, causation or defences.

I'm not sure how you can say D v S doesn't go over breach?

No lawyer would doubt that a person playing football doesn't have a duty, the question is whether that duty was breached.

Surely if you agree there was a duty not to break the windows you can not argue that that duty hasn't been breached - it's there in the facts?!

The Blyth case is the main authority on this point.

I still fail to see how blyth contradicts me, or are you suggesting that the hypothetical reasonable man, noticing unprotected windows close to a low fense would not take extra care due to this?

There is no problem applying it here.

That was my point. I originally mentioned it in reply to one of Gilly's posts

Most of property law is covered by the Law of Property Act 1925

I would seperate common law from statute, as the former seems to move at a much quicker pace than the latter.

I think its unfair to say dates aren't relevant. Look at Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, one of the key ways they managed to get through what was a mess of cases up 'til then was by going on about how the law moves on.

A case doesn't neccessarily need to be overuled to be bad law - if its based on public policy grounds which have changed, for example, it becomes easy to distinguish.

@KPeh:

I'm not sure why you lot are talking about trespassing and negligence? The post says he rented out the pitch for £18?

You're thinking of trespass in the trespass to land meaning - there are lots of different types of trespass.

And you can't negligently cause criminal damage. Only intentionally or recklessly.

That's why nobodies mentioned criminal damage

and I am yet to do property law!

You won't need property law for most of what we're discussing - its all Tort.

we've not really discussed contract law for the point you raised - we don't actually know whats IN the contract so can't comment.




To bring some sort of summary to this, here's my take on it:

The OP was negligant with the amount of force and lack of care he took when kicking the ball. The surroundings were obvious to him and thus he should have taken extra care due to them. As such, he has fallen under the standard of the hypothetical reasonable man (and obviously all the other people who played there over the years and failed to break the window) and as such is liable for the damage.

If I understand you correctly, your argument is over whether or not he has fallen under the standard required?

fini
PS: KPeh, where are you studying?

 

[Jet]

Has not been overuled on the point you quoted you mean, because parts of the case are now irellivent IMHO. Yes, you can go to old cases, Carlill is a very good example of this, but it also proves another thing; when going back to old cases it is invariably for a single principle which has remained (in Carlill it would be where unilateral contracts become bilateral). The reason I cite Donoghue as the key case is because you can go to it for so much; the HL discussed a lot of different issues, there's a dissenting judge and important obiter remarks.

Parts are irrelevant, that's why I didn't mention them. D v S only has a single principle too. Any other issues discussed and anything the dissenting judge said and any obiter remarks are not law and cannot be relied upon. They may hold weight in the HL or CA but the OP isn't going to end up there is he?

D v S has a very narrow point relating to duty of care (and product liability), anything discussed in the case about anything else is obiter and not good law.

I'm not sure how you can say D v S doesn't go over breach?

It may well do, but it isn't good law. The point of the case was to decide whether there was a duty and what this consisted of. Again, anything else is not good law and cannot be relied upon.

Surely if you agree there was a duty not to break the windows you can not argue that that duty hasn't been breached - it's there in the facts?!

Breach is not a factual test. If it was there would be no need for the raft of cases on the subject. It's an objective test to decide whether the standard of care was met. In this case it was, imo of course.

I still fail to see how blyth contradicts me, or are you suggesting that the hypothetical reasonable man, noticing unprotected windows close to a low fense would not take extra care due to this?

In an ideal world yes. Football is not like that. The OP took a genuine shot at goal and through his lack of talent (sorry) lobbed it over. Even professionals do it every game. If the OP had the talent to direct the shot where he liked he would be a pro. Mistakes happen in football which are accepted by everyone involved, even the court would accept that during a game of football (the pitch was built for this) the ball may escape if not properly fenced in. What extra care could you take? You would literally not be able to shoot over a sufficient speed etc, it's ridiculous and unworkable.

I would seperate common law from statute, as the former seems to move at a much quicker pace than the latter.

Your assertion was that because of the date the law will have moved on. That isn't true and is not true in other areas, as highlighted. Not sure what relevance the pace has.

I think its unfair to say dates aren't relevant. Look at Alcock v Chief Constable of South Yorkshire Police, one of the key ways they managed to get through what was a mess of cases up 'til then was by going on about how the law moves on.

Dates are only relevant if there is a conflict. The age of a case or statute has no bearing on its validity.

A case doesn't neccessarily need to be overuled to be bad law - if its based on public policy grounds which have changed, for example, it becomes easy to distinguish.

True, but Blyth has not been distinguished on that point.

Considered: Madras Rail Co v Zemindar of Carvetinagarum (1874) 30 LT 770; Baker v James Bros & Sons, Ltd, [1921] All ER Rep 590; Markland v Manchester Corpn, [1934] 1 KB 566; Bolton v Stone, [1951] 1 All ER 1078; Cork v Kirby Maclean, Ltd, [1952] 2 All ER 402; Prosser & Son, Ltd v Levy, [1955] 3 All ER 577. Referred to: Smith v London and South Western Rail Co (1870) LR 6 CP 14; Stretton's Derby Brewery v Derby Corpn, [1891-4] All ER Rep 731; Bull v Shoreditch Borough (1902) 1 LGR 81; Weld-Blundell v Stephens, [1920] All ER Rep 32; Re Polemis and Furness, Withy & Co, Ltd, [1921] All ER Rep 40; Montreal City v Watt and Scott, [1922] 2 AC 555; Phillips v Britannia Hygienic Laundry Co, [1923] 1 KB 539; Cunard v Antifyre, Ltd, [1932] All ER Rep 558; Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock and Engineering Co, [1961] 1 All ER 404.

Taken from Lexis-Nexis.

Edit: it was distinguished in an unreported case.

The OP was negligant with the amount of force and lack of care he took when kicking the ball.

This is where we disagree.

My opinion is that it is impossible to be negligent about force and direction if you are playing within the rules of the game. This is a purpose built football complex, the court would have no right to impose a duty on players to tone down the match, or to limit shot power (unworkable) or anything suchlike.

 

[hittman]

just pay it. else don't use the pitch. you cant change the fact, you broke the window.

 

[Trojan]

I wouldn't pay in a million years in that situation. You've hired the facilities and used them as intended - to play football. The accident has occured due to the poor design of the said facilities, not through your misuse of them.

The OP was negligant with the amount of force and lack of care he took when kicking the ball.

Are you serious? You're actually saying that a footballer is negligent if he kicks the ball with force?

 

[Amleto]

My opinion is that it is impossible to be negligent about force and direction if you are playing within the rules of the game. This is a purpose built football complex, the court would have no right to impose a duty on players to tone down the match, or to limit shot power (unworkable) or anything suchlike.

I agree. I think that is the key factor

You pay to play football, not to play '75%, don't-kick-the-ball-too-hard+pastil-colours-only' football. How can you be responsible for what happens if/when the ball exits the playing area? If it found its way onto a road and caused a major accident, would that be your fault? All you were doing was participating in the intended use in a specifically designed area. Saying that it is the players' fault is just crazy talk tbh.


fini: surely it is the duty of people who own/run the pitches to notice that *they* put a low fence around a pitch where *they* have unprotected windows close by!! I feel a lack of common sense abounding from someone somewhere!

 

[Zefan]

If you smash it you cash it.

 

[Trojan]

You pay to play football, not to play '75%, don't-kick-the-ball-too-hard+pastil-colours-only' football. How can you be responsible for what happens if/when the ball exits the playing area? If it found its way onto a road and caused a major accident, would that be your fault? All you were doing was participating in the intended use in a specifically designed area. Saying that it is the players' fault is just crazy talk tbh.

Nail. Hit. Head.

 

[Werewolf]

If it is a purpose built football pitch I would assume measures were in place to prevent accidental damage to neighbouring buildings, and if you had paid for use of the facilities any accidental damage caused during the normal authorised use of them would be covered by the operator as a normal risk of doing business.


My local school has a similar football pitch, astroturf fenced in, that is hired out after school hours to various teams and clubs (my nephew trains there,).
The fencing around that pitch is somewhere in the region of 12-18 foot high - It's certainly about twice my height at least, and that is a short distance from any buildings.

It's worth remembering that an 8 foot fence (if it was only that height) is only going to be level with the top of a regulation size goal, so it's not going to stop many balls that were intended to go into the top of the net, but went a tad high (and would fall under the catagory of **** poor risk assement/planning on the part of the operators of the site).

Having said that, if I was in the position of the original poster I would probably offer to pay some of the cost (possibly all of it), but also make a very pointed suggestion that if the pitch is going to be hired out for the use, it should be up to the job.

It's for this sort of reason a lot of golf courses, cricket pitches etc that back onto roads or buildings have very high netting in place.

 

[KPeh]

@KPeh:

You're thinking of trespass in the trespass to land meaning - there are lots of different types of trespass.


PS: KPeh, where are you studying?

Law LLB, but I'm only an ickle first year student and haven't done torts (or property etc) yet!

 

[VeNT]

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?

no, because a roof is more structualy sound than a window, the roof would have had to be very unsable for that to happen, whereas windows are more delicate.

pesoanaly I'd of talked it though with the guy calmly, pointing out that while I have no direct legal responability I am willing to pay TOWARDS the cost of the new window.

 

[Gilly]

no, because a roof is more structualy sound than a window, the roof would have had to be very unsable for that to happen, whereas windows are more delicate.

So the delicacy of the hardware involved in the incident dictates liability?

To reiterate, there's no way I'd be paying anything. To the point where I'd find somewhere else to play if they tried forcing me to.

 

[Desmo]

Holy analogy overload batman

Some of them have had me in stitches for the last 5 minutes

 

[Desmo]

The OP was negligant with the amount of force and lack of care he took when kicking the ball. The surroundings were obvious to him and thus he should have taken extra care due to them.

Could you not say the sports centre were negligent in the location of the pitch and surrounding protection? It was obvious to them what could have happened and they should have taken extra care.

 

[fini]

Law LLB, but I'm only an ickle first year student and haven't done torts (or property etc) yet!

I'd guessed you were first year from contract - which I think basically every uni does in the first year.

PS: KPeh, where are you studying?

If you don't mind me askin...

EDIT:
Desmo, If you could that would go towards contributory negligence and thus he'd pay only part of the cost - so first you've got to work out whether he has to pay any at all.

fini

 

[merlin]

Not read the full thread because I have a life - but, third party property damage is covered under the public liability section of your home contents insurance.

Breaking someones window by accident would be picked up by your contents insurers no problemo.

 

[KPeh]

I'd guessed you were first year from contract - which I think basically every uni does in the first year.


If you don't mind me askin...

fini

I'm a little slow on the response here, but Liverpool University!

 

[player]

I don't think you should (have to) pay for a replacement.


unless of course it is under the T&Cs of booking the pitch that you should pay for damages (which I doubt)

 

[NokkonWud]

I believe that we should not have to pay this as it should be covered under insurance! obviously they are aware of the threat of footballs hitting the windows as they have reinforced glass!!! therefore how can they expect to charge for damage to a window!!!!!!

Exactly what I would have thought, it covers any insurance and damages, it's whether or not it only covers whats on the pitch (nets, turf, goal frames) or both the pitch and surrounding areas.

 

[dynabol]

Oh My God!

What the hell's wrong with people here?! What the hell's with quoting legal textbooks?! Jesus H...

He kicked the ball over a fence and smashed a window. Accidently. I would hazard a guess at the club being advised over various eventualities when they were formulating their insurance policy, including this one.

How about a different angle to it... the club could have been negligent for not providing adequate protection to their property, i.e. the fence was not high enough. Maybe this could affect their insurance policy in any way?

Just thought I'd join in the fun

 

[Royality]

Of course, I would imagine that everyone here who is saying there should be no need to pay would also support the sports centre in denying use of their facilities to the thread starter and his friends in the future?

That would also be protecting their investment.

I'd say this. It's not your fault that you brokw the window as it should have been taken care of by the centre before they allowed people to hire the pitch. However, while it's not very nice, I'd expect them to not allow you to play there again if you don't pay.

Is it worth the hassle?