davieG Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 From the Mockery. INTRUDER AWARDED THOUSANDS BY IAN WISHART EDUCATION CORRESPONDENT 10:30 - 17 July 2007 A boy who broke into a primary school and injured himself swinging on a gate was received £5,700 in compensation. The secondary school pupil, who was trespassing at night on school grounds, was hurt when the gate collapsed. Leicestershire County Council had to pay money to the boy because they say they could not prove the gate had been maintained properly. Coun Kevin Feltham, the councillor in charge of finance at County Hall, said the money amounted to a "reward for breaking the law". He said: "We couldn't prove the gate was secured properly, even though he was swinging it off the hinges. It does seem rather silly that you can trespass and then take money away from taxpayers when we need this money more than ever. "He's being rewarded for breaking the law but there's nothing we can do about it. What makes it worse is that we are funding the lawyers." A county council spokesman said the boy was not a pupil at the school. The scale of his injuries was not revealed. He said: "The pupil was trespassing at night at a local primary school and was injured swinging on a large gate when the hinges gave way and the gate collapsed. "The pupil attended one of our secondary schools. As we were unable to prove the gate had been maintained, compensation of £5,700 was paid to the pupil." Pauline Town, secretary of the Leicestershire branch of the National Union of Teachers, said: "Whether the building was secure or not, he clearly shouldn't have been there in the first place. "There's quite a clear imbalance here, which doesn't send out a very good message. "It does raise lots of questions - like what about those responsible for keeping an eye on him?" A city school head teacher said no-win, no-fee insurance claim companies were targeting schools, leading to rocketing insurance premiums. He said: "Within the first week of starting to work at my school I was told to look back at a case where a boy had been injured seven or eight years ago and was trying to get compensation. "There was another incident where the council wanted to pay out about £5,000 to a child who had fallen in the playground. "It was only a minor injury and we'd dealt with it really well. If we start paying out that kind of compensation we are opening up the floodgates to compensation in the smallest of cases such as grazed knee or broken fingers."
Blue Bob Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Another classic example of political correctness gone wrong. There should be a law to say that if you are comitting an offence and something goes wrong that you are not entitled to compensation. No doubt the campaigners for Human Rights would be against this type of law but I think it is about time we told these people to **** off before they completely screw up the country.
davieG Posted 17 July 2007 Author Posted 17 July 2007 That is nuts but it won't cost me. Maybe not now but if things carry on as they are it'll catch up with you eventually.
Zingari Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 how can this keep happening ? surely the combined brains of the legal proffession can come up with something that prevents this
Guest Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 It's not political correctness gone wrong, it's the law of negligence, and as stated above, the Council could not prove that it had properly maintained the gate. Whether you agree with it or not, that's how it stands until Parliament decide that something should be done about it.
Blue Bob Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 It's not political correctness gone wrong, it's the law of negligence, and as stated above, the Council could not prove that it had properly maintained the gate. Whether you agree with it or not, that's how it stands until Parliament decide that something should be done about it. Sorry I disagree, all this means is that the council will now have to have a log for every gate, fence, window, door, wall ,fence and doorstep to name but a few from a list of several 100, 000 different items that go into making a building and surrounding property. Why should they have to have proof that it is properly maintained - no other company has to do this? Isnt there an element to say that the kid shouldnt have been swinging on the gate in the first place - after all even if the gate had been correctly maintained this was not the purpose of the gate. Expect your council tax to go up to fund this.
Zingari Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Sorry I disagree, all this means is that the council will now have to have a log for every gate, fence, window, door, wall ,fence and doorstep to name but a few from a list of several 100, 000 different items that go into making a building and surrounding property. Why should they have to have proof that it is properly maintained - no other company has to do this? Isnt there an element to say that the kid shouldnt have been swinging on the gate in the first place - after all even if the gate had been correctly maintained this was not the purpose of the gate. Expect your council tax to go up to fund this. too right i don't see what maintenance has got to do with it ; if some kid climbs up a lamp-post and falls down from it , what difference does it make if the council can prove the bulb had just been replaced ; its not the purpose of a gate to be climbed on or a lamp-post to be climbed up does no-one have a sense of personal responsibility for their action anymore
Daggers Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Woah there...rein it back in a minute guys. IF it was my kid and the gate collapsed on him during school time I would sue. Simple as. I don't think it is unacceptable to ask the school to be able to ensure that the site is safe for my kids. Now - being able to sue/claim damages while you are doing something illegal...that is wrong. You should forfeit all rights if you break the law. (and you should be allowed to kill anyone entering your home without permission - that OK with you reactionary guys? )
Zingari Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Woah there...rein it back in a minute guys.IF it was my kid and the gate collapsed on him during school time I would sue. Simple as. I don't think it is unacceptable to ask the school to be able to ensure that the site is safe for my kids. Now - being able to sue/claim damages while you are doing something illegal...that is wrong. You should forfeit all rights if you break the law. (and you should be allowed to kill anyone entering your home without permission - that OK with you reactionary guys? ) how can you make everything safe if someone is not using it for purpose ? a gate is for passing through not climbing over; (whether on school time or out of it ) try climbing or swinging on your back gate at home ; chances are it will not support your weight and come away from its hinges, possibly injuring you or someone else . would you want to be sued if some kid was playing in your garden and had an accident doing something on your property that it was not designed for ? eg ; like standing on a neighbour's shed roof and falling through it ; as i did when i was a kid ps i did not sue them as i got a harder whack from my dad who had to repair the roof !!
Babylon Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 When I have children I'll tell them to break into school at night and shove pencils up their noses. I'll then sue the school because they can't show that the pencils had been properly maintained.
Kent Fox Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 One of the problems here arises that negligence is not a law, per se. Negligence is a Tort, effectively a civil wrong, not criminal wrong. The school has a "duty of care" to ensure it's property is safe. It clearly wasn't as the gate fell off and that, in the mind of a reasonable man, is bloody hard if it's closed! Hence, the boy filed for injury to him because of the lack of care by the school... However, trespass is also a tort, I think. And as I didn't read the whole article, I don't know if the school countered the negligence claim with the trespass claim. Much of the process of tort law involves determining who is at fault and the extent of the damage. There. Simple. Tort Law. Done. Questions??
Zingari Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 One of the problems here arises that negligence is not a law, per se. Negligence is a Tort, effectively a civil wrong, not criminal wrong.The school has a "duty of care" to ensure it's property is safe. It clearly wasn't as the gate fell off and that, in the mind of a reasonable man, is bloody hard if it's closed! Hence, the boy filed for injury to him because of the lack of care by the school... However, trespass is also a tort, I think. And as I didn't read the whole article, I don't know if the school countered the negligence claim with the trespass claim. Much of the process of tort law involves determining who is at fault and the extent of the damage. There. Simple. Tort Law. Done. Questions?? who tort you all this
Kent Fox Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 A man who knows more about Law than I. A Lawyer type person.
Zingari Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 A man who knows more about Law than I.A Lawyer type person. well hopefully everyone's been tort a lesson now
Babylon Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 The school should be given £5700 from the boy for breaking their gate.
Blue Bob Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 how can you make everything safe if someone is not using it for purpose ? a gate is for passing through not climbing over; (whether on school time or out of it ) try climbing or swinging on your back gate at home ; chances are it will not support your weight and come away from its hinges, possibly injuring you or someone else . would you want to be sued if some kid was playing in your garden and had an accident doing something on your property that it was not designed for ? eg ; like standing on a neighbour's shed roof and falling through it ; as i did when i was a kid ps i did not sue them as i got a harder whack from my dad who had to repair the roof !! I think that hits the nail on the head. Kids dont get a whack anymore. Did you sue your Dad for whacking you - I am sure that will be the new trend. I appreciate what Kent Fox has said about the law of Tort, however the Council could have counter argued that it would not have been a reasonable expectation for them to have kept a log of every structure and its sub components and their maintenance. Reading between the lines of the article I would guess that this one has been settled out of court as it would have been cheaper to pay the toerag off than employ a lawyer to fight the case - maybe that shows us what toerags solicitors are!!!!
Kent Fox Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 I think that hits the nail on the head. Kids dont get a whack anymore. Did you sue your Dad for whacking you - I am sure that will be the new trend.I appreciate what Kent Fox has said about the law of Tort, however the Council could have counter argued that it would not have been a reasonable expectation for them to have kept a log of every structure and its sub components and their maintenance. Reading between the lines of the article I would guess that this one has been settled out of court as it would have been cheaper to pay the toerag off than employ a lawyer to fight the case - maybe that shows us what toerags solicitors are!!!! I think that is the problem. The case was won because the gates were not safe, open or closed. Therefore this was an accident waiting to happen at some point. Schools employ people to look after the place and this does not appear to have happened. Basically, as I understand it, if it had not been this kid climbing them for them to break, it could have happened at 8:45am and squashed 20+ kids. Think of the outcome then. The gates breaking is a 'wrong'. A 'reasonable man' may consider it to be lucky that only one child was injured. And I also think that it is likely the school thought they had a good case against the kid which is why it wasn't settled out of court. I could go on but I am beginning to bore myself and getting achy fingers.
Edmund Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 The family should be named and shamed. This is an absolute disgrace and just shows once again how shite the legal system is in england. People walk all over and it makes me sick. To top it all off there probably foreign or benefit fiends and live in a house which weve paid for and use our school and hospital facilities which once again we pay for and then dont work during the week so claim benefits which we pay for. Im not racist or say that foriegners are to blame but this article and many others ive witnesed anger me so much as its us honest workers who dont get shit accept tax rises. I work x amount of hours and have to save roughly for 3,4 yearsd to get on the property market where people can have a kid or just walk into this country and get a house. im sorry if ive offended anyone but to be frank i thinks its bollox and they should be more sensible with these laws. Look at each case individually and use commen sense!!!!!! In actual fact im also pissed off at the law firm who can justify defending these sort of people. disgusting......... :@ :@ :@
Zingari Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 I think that hits the nail on the head. Kids dont get a whack anymore. Did you sue your Dad for whacking you - I am sure that will be the new trend.I appreciate what Kent Fox has said about the law of Tort, however the Council could have counter argued that it would not have been a reasonable expectation for them to have kept a log of every structure and its sub components and their maintenance. Reading between the lines of the article I would guess that this one has been settled out of court as it would have been cheaper to pay the toerag off than employ a lawyer to fight the case - maybe that shows us what toerags solicitors are!!!! every man-jack of 'em ( and woman jackesses )
Alexikokopops Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 how can you make everything safe if someone is not using it for purpose ? a gate is for passing through not climbing over; (whether on school time or out of it ) try climbing or swinging on your back gate at home ; chances are it will not support your weight and come away from its hinges, possibly injuring you or someone else . would you want to be sued if some kid was playing in your garden and had an accident doing something on your property that it was not designed for ? eg ; like standing on a neighbour's shed roof and falling through it ; as i did when i was a kid ps i did not sue them as i got a harder whack from my dad who had to repair the roof !! To be fair though if it's a gate at a school you've got to expect kids to swing on it. I know I used to do it all the time as a youngster (my parents wouldn't buy me a Game Boy ). It's like baby proofing your house, you need to idiot child proof the schools. If they're doing it illegally though they can get to feck.
Kent Fox Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 The family should be named and shamed. This is an absolute disgrace and just shows once again how shite the legal system is in england. People walk all over and it makes me sick. To top it all off there probably foreign or benefit fiends and live in a house which weve paid for and use our school and hospital facilities which once again we pay for and then dont work during the week so claim benefits which we pay for. Im not racist or say that foriegners are to blame but this article and many others ive witnesed anger me so much as its us honest workers who dont get shit accept tax rises. I work x amount of hours and have to save roughly for 3,4 yearsd to get on the property market where people can have a kid or just walk into this country and get a house. im sorry if ive offended anyone but to be frank i thinks its bollox and they should be more sensible with these laws. Look at each case individually and use commen sense!!!!!! In actual fact im also pissed off at the law firm who can justify defending these sort of people. disgusting......... :@ :@ :@ Whilst I agree with much of what you're saying, I have to defend the "shite legal system" bit. Tort law is, I believe, the oldest of all our 'laws'. Any man or woman can take a Tort case and win, because they are so win-able! If you're interested, take a butcher's at this link. I know it's Wiki, but it's quite accurate and easy to understand. Tort's are fun! It's the rest of the judicial system that's gone to cock.
Zingari Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 To be fair though if it's a gate at a school you've got to expect kids to swing on it. I know I used to do it all the time as a youngster (my parents wouldn't buy me a Game Boy ). It's like baby proofing your house, you need to idiot child proof the schools. If they're doing it illegally though they can get to feck. true ; in the same way i expect kids to climb lamp-posts and trees ; but i don't expect the council to be sued every time one falls down from one
Bryn Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 Reminds me of a story round here where a burglar tried to break into a house by opening a skylight, fell through the skylight onto a table and, well, fooked himself up, sued and got about £12k. It's a travesty.
Alexikokopops Posted 17 July 2007 Posted 17 July 2007 true ; in the same way i expect kids to climb lamp-posts and trees ; but i don't expect the council to be sued every time one falls down from one Difference is it's a School, there's a high concentration of stupid children.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.