Litigation proceedings against my local council

somethingcorporate

I just wonder if picking her up and dusting her off and getting on with your lives would have avoided any of this "mental trauma".

Kids fall over all the time, not many need therapy and a payout to get over it. As a child I hit my head twice on concrete posts playing football both requiring medical attention - I needed no more than a stitch and lollypop each time and at no time did the thought (to me or my parents) of money enter into it. It's just a shame any trip or fall immediately brings dollar-signs to the front of the brain.

ILW

somethingcorporate wrote: »

I just wonder if picking her up and dusting her off and getting on with your lives would have avoided any of this "mental trauma".

Kids fall over all the time, not many need therapy and a payout to get over it. As a child I hit my head twice on concrete posts playing football both requiring medical attention - I needed no more than a stitch and lollypop each time and at no time did the thought (to me or my parents) of money enter into it. It's just a shame any trip or fall immediately brings dollar-signs to the front of the brain.

Seems OP thinks it is worth the risk for a few quid.

honey10

Sorry to go against the grain here, but the OP has said that they only pursued compensation after the council did nothing to rectify the problem, after admitting it was their problem, and an emergency.
The daughter was obviously traumatised for a time, and the OP has said the money is going into a fund for when she is older.
I agree that the culture we live in is very money and litigation orientated, however, its the world we live in. The council have a duty to keep things like the highways safe, and if the next person to fall over is elderly, it could be fatal. maybe if everyone who falls over the danger sued, instead of putting it down to one of those things, then the council would actually fix it rather than 'forgetting'

System

honey10 wrote: »

maybe if everyone who falls over the danger sued, instead of putting it down to one of those things, then the council would actually fix it rather than 'forgetting'

Or maybe they will say that due to the cap on council tax they have no option but to either reduce the roads and footpath maintenance budget due to the increase in insurance premiums or cut funding for education, the disabled, benefit etc.

Pot size is fixed, something will have to suffer following that route.

honey10

!!!!!! wrote: »

Or maybe they will say that due to the cap on council tax they have no option but to either reduce the roads and footpath maintenance budget due to the increase in insurance premiums or cut funding for education, the disabled, benefit etc.

Pot size is fixed, something will have to suffer following that route.

I agree, but surely, an obviously dangerous stretch of footpath needs attention. The council themselves appear to admit that, if the money was not available, then they should not have committed to completing works within 48 hours, nobody forced them into a timescale.

somethingcorporate

honey10 wrote: »

Sorry to go against the grain here, but the OP has said that they only pursued compensation after the council did nothing to rectify the problem, after admitting it was their problem, and an emergency.
The daughter was obviously traumatised for a time, and the OP has said the money is going into a fund for when she is older.
I agree that the culture we live in is very money and litigation orientated, however, its the world we live in. The council have a duty to keep things like the highways safe, and if the next person to fall over is elderly, it could be fatal. maybe if everyone who falls over the danger sued, instead of putting it down to one of those things, then the council would actually fix it rather than 'forgetting'

I agree on the point that there should be consequences to the council for not fixing but given the event had already happened and no further issue to the OP was caused why should they get the money for the lack of fixing? At that point in the timeline ANYONE that used the footpath should be compensated (to use your example, had someone elderly fallen over it and died would you expect the OP to get compensation for it? hell no!).

It's just a pointless drain on councils.

unholyangel

AvadaKedavra wrote: »

I comforted her as soon as she fell, and I encourage her to walk that way holding my hand.

Sounds to me, like you assume I cannot contain my anger.

I don't think they meant anything like that. Just usually when kids fall, there is a split second where they are in shock and they will look - usually to their mother or father - and react based on what they "sense" from their parent.

Kids are incredibly smart, the majority of their learning - especially in the early years, comes from mirroring/imitating people close to them. I dont just mean walking talking etc, I mean even how they "act" within relationships is highly likely to have been influenced from how they saw others around them "act" in relationships.

Take spiders for instance. My mother used to scream and make a big scene, I remember her doing so even from a very early age. I grew up petrified of them - still am even though I know its illogical. Most psychologists would say its a learned behaviour, that I've learned to behave that way because of my mother.

Doesn't make you a bad mum, just human. And completely understandable to worry about your kids. They say you never stop worrying!

I wont comment much on the pavement, all I will say is that they shouldve fixed it and more fool them for not.

Jeff_Bridges_hair

ILW wrote: »

Sure when I was younger, kids were always falling over. Seem to remember having constantly scabby knees. Never thought of being traumatised or looking for compo.
Am I alone in finding this all a bit shabby?

I used to do that too. The only difference being it was normally because I tripped over my shoelaces or up the kerb or because I was running so fast.

NOT because the pavements were in such a disrepair that they actually caused the accident which is what happened in the OP.


This shold be treated the same as potholes in the road - which im sure if you went over and knacked your wheels, reported it and found out it had been reported before (theres a website for that) then you and everyone who has seemingly admonished the OP on this thread would CERTAINLY be after the council for some 'compo' or money to repair your car as you would put on your claim form.

Why should a young child be any different. The council have been negligent here, plain and simple, and this has been found to be the case as they have admitted liability.

ILW

Jeff_Bridges_hair wrote: »

I used to do that too. The only difference being it was normally because I tripped over my shoelaces or up the kerb or because I was running so fast.

NOT because the pavements were in such a disrepair that they actually caused the accident which is what happened in the OP.


This shold be treated the same as potholes in the road - which im sure if you went over and knacked your wheels, reported it and found out it had been reported before (theres a website for that) then you and everyone who has seemingly admonished the OP on this thread would CERTAINLY be after the council for some 'compo' or money to repair your car as you would put on your claim form.

Why should a young child be any different. The council have been negligent here, plain and simple, and this has been found to be the case as they have admitted liability.

Unlike the car, there is no direct financial loss to the child. (Poss cost of a plaster?) so it is in fact just an earner for the parents.

pulliptears

Sorry, have I really just read 'Psychological Trauma' for tripping over? Jesus christ my daughter should be a gibbering wreck in a padded room at this stage.

Sue for the pavement being uneven by all means but 'Psychological Trauma' for tripping over is hysterical.