Sue sue sue

flufflett

The school were negligent because they didn't have adequate supervision - and they didn't conduct any risk assessments. Had they had done risk assessments they would have realised the supervision was inadequate and increased their supervision levels. Had the stone still been thrown into the boys eye with adequate supervision - (however many of the witnesses confirmed that simply seeing a teacher watching them was enough to deter them from doing so) - the school would not have been negligent because it would have excercised the due care as loco partentis it is legally obliged to do. The same applies to a parent - if something happened to a young child and that parent went out shopping or got drunk and wasn't superivising them and they got hurt then they would be guilty of neglect. I don't understand why anyone has a problem with this case.

DCodd

flufflett wrote: »

The school were negligent because they didn't have adequate supervision - and they didn't conduct any risk assessments. Had they had done risk assessments they would have realised the supervision was inadequate and increased their supervision levels. Had the stone still been thrown into the boys eye with adequate supervision - (however many of the witnesses confirmed that simply seeing a teacher watching them was enough to deter them from doing so) - the school would not have been negligent because it would have excercised the due care as loco partentis it is legally obliged to do. The same applies to a parent - if something happened to a young child and that parent went out shopping or got drunk and wasn't superivising them and they got hurt then they would be guilty of neglect. I don't understand why anyone has a problem with this case.

I'm sorry but this is a typical "its not little Johny's fault" attitude. If this boy had subsequently beat up a child on the way home from school would you then say it was not his fault as he did not have supervision. I see this attitude in my O/H school all the time, the parents ALWAYS have a reason why "little Johny" is disrupting classes or swearing at or hitting other children and Teachers!! It is never their fault

It was the boy who had a disregard for the safety of other children around him and it was he who threw the stone, so how come it is the schools fault?

We must stop this transfer of blame culture, it is the reason there is so much teenage crime, they have been told its not their fault too many times, make kids take the responsibilty for their actions and learn respect now and hopefully they will take that lesson through the rest of their life!!!!!!!

DrScotsman

I was just about to type a post saying how I agreed with the judge. Then I reread the BBC news article and realised the kid was year 9/10 (age 13/14/15).

I hope we can all agree that children cannot be wholly responsible for their actions up until a certain age. For throwing a stone however, that has long passed at age 13.

Not to mention the application of the but-for test isn't explained on the BBC News article. Was the stone that hit the kid the first stone that the boy had thrown? Then of course the school shouldn't be negligent! Was it the 5th? Then maybe not at age 13, but if it was a smaller playground of 10 year olds then yes I guess they should be. If it was the 40th stone then I guess I would hold the school negligent for a child under 14, two dinner ladies should have spotted that (depends how big you're picturing this playground). I think I'd hold them jointly negligent with the boy though.

Also I don't buy into the "If there was more supervision I wouldn't have thrown stones" argument, for that matter. At age 13 that isn't an excuse.

LinasPilibaitisisbatman

Mr Palmer had dreams of being a Goalkeeper - and is no doubt suing with this "income" in mind - yet bet he couldnt even get a game for his school team

Scum of the earth.

DrScotsman

Every child on the news dreams of being a goalkeeper or a model or something like that...

There was a case I barely remember: some guy had an illness, let's call it cancer. His doctor had misdiagnosed him the first time, and if he had diagnosed correctly there was a treatment with a ~25% of curing him. When he was finally diagnosed properly the chance had diminished, let's say it dropped to 2%. The question was what the doctor would be liable for? I know this is a poor example because there isn't a market value on someone's life, but the question was on whether he'd be liable for all the costs, 25% of the costs, or 23% of the costs...I can't remember the outcome for sure, but I think the doctor had no liability at all actually.

My point being if we took into account the probability of him actually earning that salary and multiplied that by the lost income, I'm sure it'd be peanuts, or possibly nothing.

That's not even counting forseeability into this mess.

Crazy_Jamie

DrScotsman wrote: »

Every child on the news dreams of being a goalkeeper or a model or something like that...

There was a case I barely remember: some guy had an illness, let's call it cancer. His doctor had misdiagnosed him the first time, and if he had diagnosed correctly there was a treatment with a ~25% of curing him. When he was finally diagnosed properly the chance had diminished, let's say it dropped to 2%. The question was what the doctor would be liable for? I know this is a poor example because there isn't a market value on someone's life, but the question was on whether he'd be liable for all the costs, 25% of the costs, or 23% of the costs...I can't remember the outcome for sure, but I think the doctor had no liability at all actually.

My point being if we took into account the probability of him actually earning that salary and multiplied that by the lost income, I'm sure it'd be peanuts, or possibly nothing.

That's not even counting forseeability into this mess.

You could be thinking of Hoston v East Berkshire Health Authority. Though that wasn't a terminal case there was a 25% chance of complete recovery had the correct diagnosis been made originally. Either way precedent dictates that there would be no liability at all there, because on the balance of probabilities recovery would not have happened (i.e. 25% is below the 51% threshold for the standard of proof).

It's a slightly different approach to that taken in terms of damages though. If this boy pleads his future loss of earnings as that of a professional footballer he will need to show that he would have reached that level, and must do so on the balance of probabilities. It will not be a case of having a 5% chance of making £1,000,000 so receiving £50,000. The most likely level will be taken and that will be used to determine the loss of earnings claim. If it cannot be shown on the balance of probabilities that he would have become professional, it will be a simple part of his loss of amenity with general damages.

RadoJo

LinasPilibaitisisbatman wrote: »

Mr Palmer had dreams of being a Goalkeeper - and is no doubt suing with this "income" in mind - yet bet he couldnt even get a game for his school team

Scum of the earth.

I can't believe you have just typed that about someone who was hit in the eye with a stone through (as far as the article says) no fault of his own. Unless you are aware of more than you have let on here, then you have no idea whether or not he was good at football, whether or not he will even sue (the article just states that he 'could' sue the council over it following a decision made by the appeals court) or how much he might ask for, yet you have decided that he is 'scum of the earth'.

flufflett

DCodd wrote: »

I'm sorry but this is a typical "its not little Johny's fault" attitude. If this boy had subsequently beat up a child on the way home from school would you then say it was not his fault as he did not have supervision. I see this attitude in my O/H school all the time, the parents ALWAYS have a reason why "little Johny" is disrupting classes or swearing at or hitting other children and Teachers!! It is never their fault

It was the boy who had a disregard for the safety of other children around him and it was he who threw the stone, so how come it is the schools fault?

We must stop this transfer of blame culture, it is the reason there is so much teenage crime, they have been told its not their fault too many times, make kids take the responsibilty for their actions and learn respect now and hopefully they will take that lesson through the rest of their life!!!!!!!

I don't understand why you want to blame the children - the whole point of supervision for children is they need it - have you read "Lord of the Flies"? Quite simply there are things that a school by law has to do and levels of supervision, together with risk assessments are fundamental to pupils' safety. The same as an airoplane having to do certain checks on aircraft - if Air France hadn't done certain checks on the missing Brazil aircraft will you be saying that some of the passengers deserved to go down in it? Whether this boy was a bully or an angel is immaterial - the basic fact is the school didn't do as it is legally binded to do - that is provide comprehensive proof of proper assessment of risk, together with analysis of supervision required. Please read the full judgement instead of the BBC summary - it's available online. Had the school had undertaken risk assessments and had the required no of staff supervising and then the stone had been thrown and hit the boy in the eye - then the school wouldn't have been negligent. Nobody can be certain how long the stone throwing had been going on for - as there was inadequate supervision - the supervisor didn't even realise the boy had been injured until he brought into the school - that's how lapse the supervision was - so as the appeal court said - how could the school have know how often and for how long was the dangerous act of stone throwing been going on.

DCodd

flufflett wrote: »

I don't understand why you want to blame the children - the whole point of supervision for children is they need it - have you read "Lord of the Flies"? Quite simply there are things that a school by law has to do and levels of supervision, together with risk assessments are fundamental to pupils' safety. The same as an airoplane having to do certain checks on aircraft - if Air France hadn't done certain checks on the missing Brazil aircraft will you be saying that some of the passengers deserved to go down in it? Whether this boy was a bully or an angel is immaterial - the basic fact is the school didn't do as it is legally binded to do - that is provide comprehensive proof of proper assessment of risk, together with analysis of supervision required. Please read the full judgement instead of the BBC summary - it's available online. Had the school had undertaken risk assessments and had the required no of staff supervising and then the stone had been thrown and hit the boy in the eye - then the school wouldn't have been negligent. Nobody can be certain how long the stone throwing had been going on for - as there was inadequate supervision - the supervisor didn't even realise the boy had been injured until he brought into the school - that's how lapse the supervision was - so as the appeal court said - how could the school have know how often and for how long was the dangerous act of stone throwing been going on.

PLEASE!!! I work for a company that operates within the construction industry, one of THE MOST legislated industries in the country!! We have to do risks assesments for picking up a sweet wrapper!!!!! The fundamental danger in any situation is the lack of personal responsibility on the part of the individual!!! No amount of supervision or paperwork will stop an individual, especially one who keeps getting told that someone else has the responsibility for their actions, from acting in a dangerous manner!!!

dizziblonde

Have you not realized yet? Schools are ALWAYS to blame for everything. If a 90 year old man goes on a rampaging psychopathic spree with a spoon... he went to school once so it's the school's fault. Rightly or wrongly in this case (2 dinner ladies seems a little low for supervision - most schools go quite generous with the ratio of midday supervisors to children as lots of stuff tends to kick off during lunchtimes and the like) the other lad involved in this SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN THROWING FLIPPING STONES IN THE FIRST PLACE! Most reception aged kids can tell you that throwing stones is bad and explain why - they may have momentary lapses where they decide it's a good idea to try, but they do still know that it's on the list of daft things to do. You'll probably never get to the bottom of what exactly went on - but considering some of the daft games I've seen kids come up with in the past... it could be anything (the logic of particularly boys continues to astound me - the 11 year old who just randomly came up to me a few weeks ago in the playground and informed me he'd decided to tell everyone on the yard he was a fish being a prime example). Unfortunately though - schools are incredibly easy targets for those firms that love to advertise on daytime TV (I shock them in the street when they come up and ask me if I've been in an accident and I reply "yep but accidents happen and that's the way of the world" and their brains can't compute not sueing) and in hospital A+E waiting rooms. Trying to think of what I've been threatened to be sued for by parents in the past - someone getting 8/10 on a spelling test, a lost PE kit and a kid who fell over trying to catch another kid to hit him in the playground... all idle bluster but the threat is there and it's why I'm not prepared to be the leading adult on school trips and the like these days - which means the kids miss out (sorry but it's my livelihood and ability to keep my home on the line). Sorry - but I hate this sue sue sue mentality taking over the country and I LOATHE those daytime TV ads always implying that there's someone somewhere to blame for every bit of bad luck people have - I can trip over the floor easily - I don't blame the council, I've got a lousy sense of balance and I just look where I'm going better in future. Edit: this did have paragraphing - honest! The forums have randomly eaten them!