Sue sue sue

DCodd

DrScotsman wrote: »

The court did.

They have more evidence than me or you have, and are more qualified to talk about this.

The calculation of impossibilities, AH that old chestnut:rotfl:

Crazy_Jamie

DCodd wrote:

Risk assesments and supervision will not stop these things from happening!

But they do reduce the frequency that these things happen, hence their value and the importance that is placed on them. The issue is here is one of causation (i.e. would more supervision have prevented this accident), and that is the main area of debate. The court has found that it would have. I entirely understand your scepticism relating to that finding, but no one in this thread heard that evidence or the cross examination, so it is difficult for us to comment on whether or not the court made an error in that regard. Personally my first instinct would be to trust the court's judgment unless evidence suggests otherwise, but of course I appreciate that not all people share that same view!

DCodd

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

But they do reduce the frequency that these things happen, hence their value and the importance that is placed on them. The issue is here is one of causation (i.e. would more supervision have prevented this accident), and that is the main area of debate. The court has found that it would have. I entirely understand your scepticism relating to that finding, but no one in this thread heard that evidence or the cross examination, so it is difficult for us to comment on whether or not the court made an error in that regard. Personally my first instinct would be to trust the court's judgment unless evidence suggests otherwise, but of course I appreciate that not all people share that same view!

I have to say with a great deal of experience of risk assesments in an ever changing environment, they have only one real worth, and that is to placate an ever demanding insurance industry. Even the HSE only look at them for complicity and then discard them.

flufflett

DCodd wrote: »

I have to say with a great deal of experience of risk assesments in an ever changing environment, they have only one real worth, and that is to placate an ever demanding insurance industry. Even the HSE only look at them for complicity and then discard them.

Risk assessments should be an on-going process - they don't need to be unduly complex or arduous - risk assessments are something that normal adults do as a matter of course every day. A school has a LEGAL responsibility to act as loco parentis - so therefore had they actually thought to examine their supervision levels at break time - they would have realised that they were inadequate. As I have said several times, had they had adequate supervision and the stone still went in the boys eye - then the court would not have found against them - however, as they didn't have the legal framework they are required by law to have as an institution, they were deemed to be negligent. There have been other cases in the playgound which have been unsuccessful because the schools being sued for the accidents had a range of expected risk assessments and they had a good ratio of supervision. Check out Teachernet - there is plenty on there about the legal responsibility for schools to supervise and conduct risk assessments.

Here is a quote from a Supervision policy of a school in Dorset :
Negligence
If a claim for negligence is brought against a member of staff it is important to be able to show that a structured supervision plan exists, is known and understood by all involved, and that adequate care was being exercised at the time of the incident. High standards of supervision must be maintained at all times.

Any injury to a pupil would not in itself be grounds for a successful action against a member of staff. It is necessary to show that there has been negligence by the school which has resulted in the injury sustained by the pupil. The employer is responsible for any negligent acts of their employees committed in the course of their employment. However if anything happened to a pupil, the cause of which could be attributed to some lapse in the standard of appropriate care, the member of staff could incur some legal liability.

DCodd

flufflett wrote: »

Risk assessments should be an on-going process - they don't need to be unduly complex or arduous - risk assessments are something that normal adults do as a matter of course every day. A school has a LEGAL responsibility to act as loco parentis - so therefore had they actually thought to examine their supervision levels at break time - they would have realised that they were inadequate. As I have said several times, had they had adequate supervision and the stone still went in the boys eye - then the court would not have found against them - however, as they didn't have the legal framework they are required by law to have as an institution, they were deemed to be negligent. There have been other cases in the playgound which have been unsuccessful because the schools being sued for the accidents had a range of expected risk assessments and they had a good ratio of supervision. Check out Teachernet - there is plenty on there about the legal responsibility for schools to supervise and conduct risk assessments.

Here is a quote from a Supervision policy of a school in Dorset :
Negligence
If a claim for negligence is brought against a member of staff it is important to be able to show that a structured supervision plan exists, is known and understood by all involved, and that adequate care was being exercised at the time of the incident. High standards of supervision must be maintained at all times.

Any injury to a pupil would not in itself be grounds for a successful action against a member of staff. It is necessary to show that there has been negligence by the school which has resulted in the injury sustained by the pupil. The employer is responsible for any negligent acts of their employees committed in the course of their employment. However if anything happened to a pupil, the cause of which could be attributed to some lapse in the standard of appropriate care, the member of staff could incur some legal liability.

But THAT is the point, 20 or 30 years ago this would not have happened, we have embraced the American blame and sue culture and along with that culture came the American "it's not my fault" culture! and with that, the "you can't do anything to stop me" attitude. If a child goes on the rampage in a classroom the standard proceedure is to clear the OTHER children from that classroom! Thus denying those children of an education and giving the disruptive child the attention it craves!!!! As for Risk Assesments you hit the nail on the head, they are required for complicity purposes only!!! You said it, if they had a Risk Assesment then they would not have been liable!!!

And as for the liability of the employer for an injury to a member of staff!!! HA HA Staff members can be mentaly and physically abused on a daily basis but because "little Johnny" has ADHD, ODD or some other type of pigeon hole then there is NO protection for the staff!!! By the way I have HGADD!!!! (Haven't Got A Disorder, Disorder)

flufflett

DCodd wrote: »

But THAT is the point, 20 or 30 years ago this would not have happened, we have embraced the American blame and sue culture and along with that culture came the American "it's not my fault" culture! and with that, the "you can't do anything to stop me" attitude. If a child goes on the rampage in a classroom the standard proceedure is to clear the OTHER children from that classroom! Thus denying those children of an education and giving the disruptive child the attention it craves!!!! As for Risk Assesments you hit the nail on the head, they are required for complicity purposes only!!! You said it, if they had a Risk Assesment then they would not have been liable!!!

And as for the liability of the employer for an injury to a member of staff!!! HA HA Staff members can be mentaly and physically abused on a daily basis but because "little Johnny" has ADHD, ODD or some other type of pigeon hole then there is NO protection for the staff!!! By the way I have HGADD!!!! (Haven't Got A Disorder, Disorder)

People in this country have been suing people for years - the HSE legislation is evolving and improving all the time - we are lucky there are standards which should make institutions and employers more responsible - and when they don't they get sued. In USA it is an entirely different scenario and I believe the British courts are doing their utmost to ensure we don't end up like them. As a parent I expect my kids' school to do their utmost to ensure my kids are safe from all reasonable predictable harm. It seems to me you just have anger issues that you want to focus on the youth of today and you should remember you were young once too - we all deserve a good, fair and SAFE education - that's why our taxes are so high.

DCodd

flufflett wrote: »

People in this country have been suing people for years - the HSE legislation is evolving and improving all the time - we are lucky there are standards which should make institutions and employers more responsible - and when they don't they get sued. In USA it is an entirely different scenario and I believe the British courts are doing their utmost to ensure we don't end up like them. As a parent I expect my kids' school to do their utmost to ensure my kids are safe from all reasonable predictable harm. It seems to me you just have anger issues that you want to focus on the youth of today and you should remember you were young once too - we all deserve a good, fair and SAFE education - that's why our taxes are so high.

I have no anger issues with todays kids at all, I personally think that they get a very bad press and this is bourne out by my posts! When I was a kid we behaved the same as the kids do today it was just that I was allowed to be a kid and society expected no less, I was given no excuses for bad behaviour and had to answer for my actions! There was no public perception, like today, that says my actions could be excused by the actions or non-action of someone else.

I received an injury at what was then "middle" school, to my hamstring by tripping and falling on to the base of a netball post. I still have problems with this injury all these years later but I nor my parents would ever even dream of blaming the school, even though it should not have been there in the playground,I was messing around and if it hadn't happened to me it could have happened to the other kids I was messing around with! and we knew the risks without a doubt!


People need to read the HSE's "It's a myth" section on their website. You may be supprised to find out what is driven by law and what is driven by insurance claims!!

flufflett

DCodd wrote: »

I have no anger issues with todays kids at all, I personally think that they get a very bad press and this is bourne out by my posts! When I was a kid we behaved the same as the kids do today it was just that I was allowed to be a kid and society expected no less, I was given no excuses for bad behaviour and had to answer for my actions! There was no public perception, like today, that says my actions could be excused by the actions or non-action of someone else.

I received an injury at what was then "middle" school, to my hamstring by tripping and falling on to the base of a netball post. I still have problems with this injury all these years later but I nor my parents would ever even dream of blaming the school, even though it should not have been there in the playground,I was messing around and if it hadn't happened to me it could have happened to the other kids I was messing around with! and we knew the risks without a doubt!


People need to read the HSE's "It's a myth" section on their website. You may be supprised to find out what is driven by law and what is driven by insurance claims!!

I appreciate people take advantage with insurance claims - all sorts of different insurance claims are fraudulent. And I had a very normal, full childhood - riding miles on my bike - taking risks, as do my kids. Except - I don't let them hang around the front of shops being a nuisance (and they don't seem to want to) and I have taught them to be aware of danger. However, when they are at school, I expect that school to exercise its legal responsibilities to supervise and analyse risk - so I'm sure in this particular case the stone thowing must've have been a frequent passtime because the dinnerlady was overstretched just to watch the younger groups. So it's the school's managements who messed up - big time and I agree with the claim and I agree with the court of appeal. Tripping on a netball post is an entirely different situation. As I said perhaps you need to read more of this particular case - I don't think things have changed that dramatically in the last 30 or 40 years - and most changes are for the better - or to do with the changes in the ethnicity of the school pupils.

DCodd

flufflett wrote: »

I appreciate people take advantage with insurance claims - all sorts of different insurance claims are fraudulent. And I had a very normal, full childhood - riding miles on my bike - taking risks, as do my kids. Except - I don't let them hang around the front of shops being a nuisance (and they don't seem to want to) and I have taught them to be aware of danger. However, when they are at school, I expect that school to exercise its legal responsibilities to supervise and analyse risk - so I'm sure in this particular case the stone thowing must've have been a frequent passtime because the dinnerlady was overstretched just to watch the younger groups. So it's the school's managements who messed up - big time and I agree with the claim and I agree with the court of appeal. Tripping on a netball post is an entirely different situation. As I said perhaps you need to read more of this particular case - I don't think things have changed that dramatically in the last 30 or 40 years - and most changes are for the better - or to do with the changes in the ethnicity of the school pupils.

We are never going to agree on this, but hey how boring would these boards be if everyone agreed:D

I actually do think some things have changed, mainly attitude to responsibilty and I am truly concerned about the consequences for the future.

I think the modern teenager has been demonised in the press and that really does not help! I see kids today doing the things me and my friends used to do when we were kids yet they are being told they are anti-social. Since when has a group of kids meeting over the park been anti-social?? They have a hard time just being allowed to be kids and cases like this that attach blame IMHO to the wrong party and remove the responsibilty from the indivdual just allows demonising to continue!

People need to take on the full responsibilty for their own actions! IMO:D