Councillor Lesley Kelly, cabinet member with responsibility for public protection at Havering Council, said: "This was an avoidable accident and I am pleased that the shopping centre are going to make the escalator safe.
"We will take action where public safety is at risk."
And do you feel that public protection in Havering is best served by ensuring that, no matter how negligent people are, accidents that then happen to them are not only someone else's
fault, but someone else's
money will then be confiscated from them as well?
A statement from Savills read: "On October 8, 2009, a 12-year-old boy suffered personal injuries after falling from the outside of the escalator located within the complex. The boy had been holding on to the handrail of the escalator and riding up its outer side as part of a game of dare.
"Security personnel were quickly on the scene and he was taken to hospital by ambulance.
"Following the incident, proceedings were brought against SCL by the London Borough of Havering.
"It was alleged that the company had failed to take sufficient measures to prevent access by children to the outside of the escalator.
"The allegations were denied on the grounds that the company did not have a duty to protect against risks arising from the deliberate misuse of the escalator and reasonably practicable steps had been taken to ensure the safety of those using the escalator, to include a deflector shield which the boy deliberately navigated around.
"There was no question that the escalator was perfectly safe when used sensibly and properly by members of the public.
"SCL has a great deal of sympathy for the boy's injuries, however, the judgment comes as a huge disappointment given the company's excellent health and safety record and the unusual circumstances of this case.
"SCL is lodging an appeal against the decision."
I hope they win.
Hmm - and whose money did the borough spend to bring this farcical action? Oh, yes . . . .
ReplyDeleteI'd question the use of the word 'accident' to describe the entirely predictable outcome of an act of monumental stupidity.
ReplyDeleteWe really need a new term for this sort of thing - 'arsident', perhaps, or 'tit-hap' - but I can't think of quite the right word.
Anyone got any better suggestions?
How about calling it a Darwincident?
ReplyDeleteBunny
ReplyDeleteThe incident involved a twelve year old boy, boys are notorious for doing things which are monumentally stupid. This lad has carried on this glorious tradition, equally why were not the parents of the lad prosecuted for allowing him access to the shopping centre unsupervised? Perhaps one solution would be that all people until they are of an age were they can be trusted to act in a sensible manner are cared for by the state? They could be held in secure camps and ..... that wouldn't work either.
A young lad did something stupid and got hurt, he will most likely never do it again. The shopping centre had taken adequate steps, perhaps we could stop inadequate job's worth bastards getting near positions of responsibility and not bring pointless litigation in cases like this.
I once heard of someone in the USA who stood on a fridge to do something, and fell off it. He sued the fridge manufacturer and won.
ReplyDeleteI always thought this was a silly story, but now I'm not so sure.
"Hmm - and whose money did the borough spend to bring this farcical action? Oh, yes . . . ."
ReplyDeleteIf it saves one life..!
"We really need a new term for this sort of thing..."
Definitely! And DJ has the perfect one!
"The shopping centre had taken adequate steps, perhaps we could stop inadequate job's worth bastards getting near positions of responsibility..."
That would be a start...
"I always thought this was a silly story, but now I'm not so sure."
They say that what America has, we get soon after!