Personal Injury Claim - Walking Down a Street Trip

Timmne

Why don't people look where they're walking these days? Does no responsibility lie with the person who owns the feet?

Crazy_Jamie

darich wrote: »

I've also never heard of a "one inch" rule - i was always under the impression the each and every case was treated on it's own merits.

To be fair dacouch is slightly wrong with his wording in one of his posts. A defect of under one inch doesn't mean that you cannot claim. Of course you can still claim. It's just that there is precedent stating that a defect of under one inch does not amount to the highway being in a dangerous condition for pedestrians, which in turn raises a problem with foreseeability of damage. So you can still claim, and each case is considered on its own merits, but in this scenario the defect being under one inch would be a significant risk to the claim succeeding.

It isn't entirely clear from the picture though. This is a little retrospective, and I should have put it in my first post about taking something to measure the defect, but having something thin and solid to place across the defect so that it touches the measuring tape can show exactly how deep the defect is. It does look to be under one inch, though.

Timmne wrote:

Does no responsibility lie with the person who owns the feet?

Often, yes it does. But usually in the form of contributory negligence (i.e. the award being reduced by a certain percentage to reflect the negligence of the Claimant in not spotting the hazard) rather than the claim being defeated in its entirety.

looby-loo_2

Moosic wrote: »

I don't understand that if it is under one inch that you cannot claim, i mean you can see that there is a danger. I have the photos to prove that, hospital report, doctors report, even witnesses.

The way she was walking was down the street, that is the angle i have taken the photos at. The council has not been informed by us, a counciller was around at the time of the fall asking questions and said he would report it to the council.

Any ideas on what to do ?

'i mean you can see that there is a danger.' Exactly, so why didn't your mum walk round it, not as if it was a one off on that stretch of pavement

Moosic

looby-loo wrote: »

'i mean you can see that there is a danger.' Exactly, so why didn't your mum walk round it, not as if it was a one off on that stretch of pavement

I think that is a very poor comment. I made my comment on here because i took photos of the stopcock cover today.. i'm making my personal judgement because you can see that there is a dip on the pavement and it looks subsided. In my opinion it looks like it it around an inch and is unsafe.

When you walk on pavements you don't expect things like this do you - you expect it to be maintained - This is not the case here from what i saw today taking the photos.

If you think there should be a law which is so stupid - aka one inch then it really shows the way this country is going doesn't it.

looby-loo_2

I expect the council have no money left to repair it

darich

Moosic wrote: »

I think that is a very poor comment. I made my comment on here because i took photos of the stopcock cover today.. i'm making my personal judgement because you can see that there is a dip on the pavement and it looks subsided. In my opinion it looks like it it around an inch and is unsafe.

When you walk on pavements you don't expect things like this do you - you expect it to be maintained - This is not the case here from what i saw today taking the photos.

If you think there should be a law which is so stupid - aka one inch then it really shows the way this country is going doesn't it.

You said in a previous post '"i mean you can see that there is a danger" - so I'd have to agree with looby loo - why didn't your mum walk around it? If it's as clear as your stating then we have to assume your mum delberately walked towards it.

The footway does look a bit uneven but one fault doesn't mean it's not maintained as your claiming. And as i already said in a previous post, the sunken stopcock may not even be the fault of the council but the water company.

For a claim of compensation to be successful you'd need to prove the council were negligent. I think this will fail since the defect is barely one inch deep, possibly not even their fault and if it's very obvious (as you claim) your mum could be called at least partially culpable.

A question for you- if your mum had completed her walk home without incident and had managed to negotiate this dangerous and hazardous footway would she have reported it to the council? Would she also have reported the uneven paving slabs in the foreground? or the monoblocks acting as a drainage channel across the footway adjacent to the lighting columnn? Or the BT manhole that looks higher than the footway surfacing? Or the bins on the footway taking up approximately 1m?

I doubt it very much and if that's the case then the stopcock clearly isn't as big a danger as you're making out.

I'm sorry your mum had a fall and the injuries look nasty but sometimes accidents happen and it's no-one's fault.

EDIT - "In my opinion it looks like it it(sic) around an inch" You've measured it so you'll know the exact size - how can you have an opinion on something like this?

Brooker_Dave

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Ignore the 'anti personal injury claims' brigade, Moosic. They always dance to the same tune and almost invariably know very little about what they're preaching about.

The claims industry in this country has caused a huge amount of damage to our economy and the way we lead our lives.

Everything has to be looked at on the off chance that some greedy little pig faced lawyer will try to extract a claim.

Greedy lawyers are the biggest winners in all of this.

Crazy_Jamie

Brooker_Dave wrote: »

The claims industry in this country has caused a huge amount of damage to our economy and the way we lead our lives.

Everything has to be looked at on the off chance that some greedy little pig faced lawyer will try to extract a claim.

Greedy lawyers are the biggest winners in all of this.

As I've said in the past, you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Posts like this only serve to make it more obvious just how ignorant you are.

Moosic wrote:

If you think there should be a law which is so stupid - aka one inch then it really shows the way this country is going doesn't it.

In all fairness the 'this really shows the way this country is going' stance doesn't work. The case law relating to the size of actionable defects can be traced back around 35 years, even before the Highways Act 1980. Like a lot of things with the law it is about balance. It is not reasonable to make a Council liable for every little defect, as perfection is unrealistic. The precedents in this, as with other areas of tort law, have been decided over decades. I know that it seems outrageous when you're placed in a situation where either you or someone you know is injured, but for the most part the system is fair objectively.

I would just like to point out here that we have only seen a limited number of pictures, and don't know everything about this. If you actually want to seek legal advice there's nothing stopping you. From what I have seen your chances are limited, but I'm just a name on a forum. If you want to seek legal advice then do so.

Moosic

You must work for the manc council. wonder what tony wilson [rip] would make of this.

Crazy_Jamie

Moosic wrote: »

You must work for the manc council. wonder what tony wilson [rip] would make of this.

Yes, because someone working for Manchester City Council would have advised you to take a tape measure to measure the defect and take photographs from plenty of different angles :rolleyes2

What I and most people are giving you in this thread is objective advice. I can understand why you might be highly strung over this, especially when the advice we're giving is not what you want to hear, but we're not the people to take it out on.