Elliott Gregory, 20, wants £300,000 from Network Rail after suffering burns which were so severe he spent months in hospital and needed reconstructive surgery. He was 15 at the time.And how did he get injured?
His carbon fishing rod acted as a conductor for the overhead cables to "arc" 25,000 volts through his body.Now, anyone who is wondering at the callous-seeming title for this blogpost, and my lack of concern for these grievous injuries to a young lad, read on:
A High Court writ states that Mr Gregory, from Enfield, squeezed through a fence to cross the tracks near Cheshunt station at a popular, though illegal, short-cut for anglers who had been to the Lea Valley.That's right. The idiot trespassed on the railway, and now wants money from NR to compensate him for his own idiocy.
And who is to say he won't get it?
Even if NR had done all of that, who is to say he'd have heeded them, since he thought nothing of trespassing on the railway?The writ alleges that Network Rail failed in its "statutory duty" to ensure he "did not suffer injury on the premises".
It further claims the fence was poorly maintained and that NR failed to erect proper danger signs, or to warn of the risk of arcing and of carrying objects "beyond head height" on the tracks.
I wonder if he's getting legal aid, or if this is a 'no win, no fee' deal?
16 comments:
Slightly o/t, I saw an advert yesterday for one of those ambulance-chasing solicitors offering a free iPad to anyone making a claim of £20,000 or more.
An attempt to corner the youth market, perhaps?
I know it sounds crackers but in these enlightened days as a landowner you have a duty of care towards trespassers.
Whether he'll get all the money he wants (or his solicitor wants) remains to be seen but he'll win his case almost for certain.
I wonder if he's getting legal aid, or if this is a 'no win, no fee' deal?
Well, he's already been overcharged once...
... I'll get me coat.
Yup, there's a legal precedent for this; BRB v Herrington (1971). Herrington was a five year old boy who strayed onto the railway and was killed. The law says that the railway has to be fenced (Railways Act 1845) and that fence adequately maintained to prevent unauthorised access.
Open and shut case, I'm afraid.
From given facts, the boy has a rightful claim and such cases properly fall under the 'no win, no fee' scheme. There seems to be some chance of compensation being significantly augmented by punitive damages.
Detesting the groaning bandwagon of ambulance chasing, thieving lawyers, is easy for the rest of us. A lay panel is long overdue to adjudicate on fees above a certain threshold; fixing and capping legal charges, as appropriate. Oh, wait, it's standing room only for lawyers in the particular House which could enable that safeguard.
"One, two, three, four, five ..
Once I caught a wire alive ..
Six, seven, eight, nine, ten ..
Landed on me feet, again" ..
The law is not quite such an ass as others suggest.
Herrington, to which
m'learned friend Mr Longrider refers, turns on the fact that a five year old cannot be expected to assess such risks. More relevant is Tomlinson v Congleton Borough Council [2004] 1 AC 46, where Lord Hoffmann said, "A duty to protect against obvious risks or self-inflicted harm exists only in cases in which there is no genuine and informed choice, as in the case of employees whose work requires them to take the risk, or some lack of capacity, such as the inability of children to recognise danger".
As any fule kno, railway tracks are obviously dangerous places. Darwinian principles should prevail here. At least there should be no question of this being funded by Legal Aid; Legal Aid for personal injury cases went out years ago, this will be contingency fee chancers at work.
As he was trespassing at the relevant time, Gregory should be told to sod off ..
And should consider himself very fortunate not to be charged with "Abstracting Electricity" ..
Moral of the story - watch where you poke your rod .. ;)
After reading this legal judgement today, I lost the will to live.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15596588
I've always played by the rules but henceforth anything UK governmental is fair game for screwing as much money out of as I can muster.
(Do not read if you're on blood pressure meds.)
Open and shut case or not, duty of care / maintenance or not, this was the kids own stupid fault and he will have / should have been well aware of the risks.
If the law does favour compensation in this case then it needs to be changed. Responsibility for safety should lie with the individual in the first instance. If they do not uphold their responsibility then others should not be forced to do it for them.
Anon makes a fair point. However, railway tracks do not appear dangerous when you are on them and there are no trains about and the power overhead seems a long way off to the uninformed. People don't think about arcing - rail workers are forbidden to get close to live overheads for that reason. Likely as not, the risks just didn't occur to this person.
Herrington will still apply as it follows on from the common law principle of duty of care - even towards trespassers, not to mention the 1845 Railways act that is designed to keep trespassers off the railway lines.
I still expect him to win his cse. Until there is a legal precednet that overturns Herrington, Network Rail will contnue to lose such cases. Tomlinson might be worth a try, but I doubt it will prevail.
Call me a cynic or a relaist or even just plain pessimisitc, but I doubt I will be proved wrong. Be nice itf I was, though.
"... offering a free iPad to anyone making a claim of £20,000 or more."
!!!
"..in these enlightened days as a landowner you have a duty of care towards trespassers."
Indeed, but I would like to see any compensation he's given swallowed up by the fine he's handed for trespassing, as MTG notes..
"... I'll get me coat."
SNORK!
"After reading this legal judgement today, I lost the will to live. "
GAH!!!
Julia, codeine phosphate can help ease a bad haddock.
If he wins any compo, Network Rail should immediately bring a civil suit for trespass and damages incurred by his unauthorised access onto their property. There must have been significant costs involved afterwards - checking wires etc, trains cancelled/delayed.
Your all quick enough to judge, but none of you ask for the facts. 1. The path he used had been used for over 40 years. Therefore watching the older kids use it could be why he started. 2. It was a shortcut into lea valley. Now who wouldn't use a shortcut unaware of danger if the trains weren't there. 3. If that was your child or family member you would want the same. 4. A 15 year old boy wanted to sue them, does that really sound right? Maybe it was someone else on his behalf. Your all criticising through a computer but I bet none of you would be saying anything if it was you or a family member.
"Therefore watching the older kids use it could be why he started."
Does that somehow make it less of bad idea, then?
Did your mother never say to you 'If all your friends jumped off a cliff, would you do it too?'..?
"If that was your child or family member you would want the same. "
Actually, I'd be too ashamed I'd clearly raised a moron.
Post a Comment