Sue sue sue

epsilondraconis

Oh dear, has it really come to this that a school is negligent because a child hits another child with a stone during playtime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8061584.stm

dealer_wins

epsilondraconis wrote: »

Oh dear, has it really come to this that a school is negligent because a child hits another child with a stone during playtime.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cornwall/8061584.stm

That story sums up nicely all that is wrong with the UK.

Crazy_Jamie

epsilondraconis wrote: »

Oh dear, has it really come to this that a school is negligent because a child hits another child with a stone during playtime.

You need to go back and read the article you linked to. The school is not negligent because a boy hit another boy accidentally with a stone. The school is negligent because children were inadequately supervised during break time. Which, to be fair, is something that I have no problem agreeing with in principle.

I know it is the done thing to immediately criticise 'the state of this country' every time something crops up like this, but it is nothing new. Common law principles are being applied here that have existed for decades, and in the same manner that they have always been applied. Outrageous claims based on negligence have always been made, it's just that because people are more than happy to be spoon fed opinions nowadays they think this is something new. It really isn't.

bap98189

It shows how times have changed. The children were being supervised by 2 dinner ladies and that is deemed inadequate. I'm not that old, and I remember when I was at primary school, there was no supervision in the playground at all. At breaktime, the teachers just went to the staffroom whilst the kids went outside.

Crazy_Jamie

I've just had a read of the case summary for this (for those who have access to legal databases, which may just be Tozer in this forum, the case is Palmer v Cornwall County Council, and is now on Lawtel). The negligent act was failure to ensure adequate supervision at lunch time, which we know. The causation point (to succeed in a civil claim it must be shown that the accident would not have happened but for the negligence) is also covered in the case summary. It turns out that witness evidence from the boy who threw the stone, as well as other pupils, confirmed that throwing stones for any reason was well known as being prohibited under school rules, and the boy who threw the stone stated quite categorically that if there was better supervision (i.e. he thought he was being watched) he wouldn't have thrown it. The local authority argued that the fact that the boy had not been deterred by one supervisor (there was effectively only one watching his age group) showed that he would not have been deterred by more. The court disagreed.

I must admit that on reading the case summary I don't have any particular problem with this ruling. Seems fine and measured to me.

epsilondraconis

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

You need to go back and read the article you linked to. The school is not negligent because a boy hit another boy accidentally with a stone. The school is negligent because children were inadequately supervised during break time. Which, to be fair, is something that I have no problem agreeing with in principle.

I know it is the done thing to immediately criticise 'the state of this country' every time something crops up like this, but it is nothing new. Common law principles are being applied here that have existed for decades, and in the same manner that they have always been applied. Outrageous claims based on negligence have always been made, it's just that because people are more than happy to be spoon fed opinions nowadays they think this is something new. It really isn't.

Thanks, I did read the article which is why I posted the link. Sorry I failed to point out in my brief summary that the school was negligent because of the lack of supervision - that was the reason I posted the link so people could read it. I simply stated that the school was negligent (which you agree they were) because of an incident in which a child threw a stone and it hit another child in the eye (which occurred).

You state that "Common law principles are being applied here that have existed for decades, and in the same manner that they have always been applied.". That is the reason for posting this. Nothing in the law has changed, and yet there is a greater tendancy for people to sue whenever something goes wrong. Sometimes things happen; however it seems nowadays, that someone has to be found responsible for the incident and a claim should be made.

Another reason I linked to the article is there are fewer and fewer trips being organised by schools because of the health and safety concerns and the risk of being sued. That is a fact. There are other issues such as what a member of staff can do if a child is involved in an accident.

I understand and agree that the law has to be upheld; however it just seems at times, even though the same laws worked well 50 years ago, the 'blame' culture in our society has changed and therefore these same laws are limiting the opportunities we all took for granted years ago. It seems in some cases, common sense doesn't appear to enter the judgement.

In your last post you state:

"It turns out that witness evidence from the boy who threw the stone, as well as other pupils, confirmed that throwing stones for any reason was well known as being prohibited under school rules, and the boy who threw the stone stated quite categorically that if there was better supervision (i.e. he thought he was being watched) he wouldn't have thrown it."

I really don't know how to respond to that.

I'm off to bang my head against a brick wall.

Crazy_Jamie

Sorry I failed to point out in my brief summary that the school was negligent because of the lack of supervision - that was the reason I posted the link so people could read it. I simply stated that the school was negligent (which you agree they were) because of an incident in which a child threw a stone and it hit another child in the eye (which occurred).

I was not seeking to be pedantic with my point. I just wanted to remove the possibility of people taking the post the wrong way. Far too many people reach conclusions on this debate from misinformed positions.

Don't get me wrong though. I agree that, to an extent, there has to be a change in the way that people view the civil justice system because people are now more aware of it than ever before. I don't know the figures in terms of how many personal injury claims have been made in the past few years compared to a decade ago, but wouldn't be surprised if they have increased. People are bound to make more use of a system that they are more aware of, plus there have been schemes put in place (such as Conditional Fee Agreements) that have made the civil courts more accessible.

I do also agree that at times there needs to be an injection of common sense into some people's mentality. Whilst it should be noted that a lot of the claims reported by the media are not actually successful (people automatically seem to assume that they are), certainly things need to be looked at if prospective claims are having detrimental effects, such as reducing the number of school trips. Then again there are more issues to consider on this subject. Many actions taken for 'health and safety' reasons are rash and ill advised. Doing something as a result of a perceived problem when that problem is not realistic is a problem with the perception and not the supposed issue.

However, I have to admit that I don't see how this case is indicative of any sort of problem. This boy suffered what would appear to be quite a serious eye injury. It may have happened as a result of a relatively inconspicuous playground misdemeanor, but it is still a serious injury. It's not someone suing because their child fell over and grazed their knee or fell of a swing and bruised themselves. This injury could (allegedly) have altered this boy's future career. And if that injury has happened as a result of somebody else's negligence, it always has been and always will be correct that a civil claim results.

Any perceived or actual problem with the system must lie in the trivial, fraudulent or exaggerated cases. Not cases like this.

epsilondraconis

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Any perceived or actual problem with the system must lie in the trivial, fraudulent or exaggerated cases. Not cases like this.

Essentially we're both saying the same thing, except perhaps for those cases that fall into a 'grey' area. i.e. I guess I have a large 'grey' area, than you.

I agree, this case is not trivial, fraudulent or exaggerated, I just think that playground incidences are always going to occur. In this case it was found that there wasn't enough staff supervising. Had the ruling not found that scenario was true, perhaps it would have been that the school was negligent for not clearing up some of the loose stones so as to prevent the incident from occuring.

Anyway, it was good to post with you. I've noted your posts on the Mobile Phones board and they are very helpful. See you around...

DCodd

I think the School has been unfairly treated! One or two more pair of eyes in the playground has never or will ever deter misbehaviour! The boy may have said that it would but he certainly would not have said that regardless of who saw him he would not have cared and thrown it anyway!!! He was in enough trouble already!!!

We are "watched" 24/7 by untold amount of cameras, patrols and watch groups but that does not deter the violent crime (not for one second saying that this case was a violent crime) that happens on our streets on a daily basis!

Crazy_Jamie

epsilondraconis wrote: »

Essentially we're both saying the same thing, except perhaps for those cases that fall into a 'grey' area. i.e. I guess I have a large 'grey' area, than you.

I think that's a good way of summing it up.

epsilondraconis wrote:

Had the ruling not found that scenario was true, perhaps it would have been that the school was negligent for not clearing up some of the loose stones so as to prevent the incident from occuring.

Now if that was the basis of the claim I would have been more inclined to agree that it should never have been brought. Unusual circumstances aside, I would have been very surprised if negligence had been found on that basis.

epsilondraconis wrote:

Anyway, it was good to post with you. I've noted your posts on the Mobile Phones board and they are very helpful. See you around...

Always nice to have a constructive discussion

DCodd wrote:

The boy may have said that it would but he certainly would not have said that regardless of who saw him he would not have cared and thrown it anyway!!! He was in enough trouble already!!!

In all fairness, this happened eight years ago. I don't think the boy who threw the stone (now in his twenties I expect) would be overcome by the same child like tendencies to lie now as he may have done at the time. Besides which, he was no doubt cross examined by a barrister and may have been questioned by the Judge in addition. Everything would have turned on this case, not generalisations. Had he lied about his hypothetical actions I would far more readily assume that the Judge would have reached that conclusion as opposed to him fooling everybody.

DCodd

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

I think that's a good way of summing it up.


In all fairness, this happened eight years ago. I don't think the boy who threw the stone (now in his twenties I expect) would be overcome by the same child like tendencies to lie now as he may have done at the time. Besides which, he was no doubt cross examined by a barrister and may have been questioned by the Judge in addition. Everything would have turned on this case, not generalisations. Had he lied about his hypothetical actions I would far more readily assume that the Judge would have reached that conclusion as opposed to him fooling everybody.

Not sure about that one! Most early Twenties still carry a desire to "stick it to the man"!!;)