The families of three young boys who were injured as they played near the railway in the Black Country are to sue rail bosses.
...and who'd be surprised if it was, then maybe the rail company should countersue for the repair bill?
One boy was injured when he came into contact with a 25,000 volt cable, another suffered minor burns, while the third was left traumatised after witnessing it.
The families claim a "big gaping hole" in the fence had not been repaired and allowed the boys to get in and play.
The families want compensation for the "psychological trauma" the boys suffered, as well as their physical injuries.
We, the British public, should demand compensation from the parents for the aggravation reading such ghastly chutzpah causes us.
“It is well known that children, commonly teenagers, will play upon railway property, or enter to 'train surf'," Mr Hannington said.
"The fact that they are not permitted to be there does not absolve the railway operator or landowner of any responsibilities to the children trespassing."
Funny. I never did as a child.
“It is well known that children, commonly teenagers, will play upon railway property, or enter to 'train surf'."
ReplyDeleteReally? When I was a teenager, the number of my peers that did this was the square root of zero. Why? Because none of us were stupid enough to ignore the danger of 100-ton trains moving at 70mph.
"The fact that they are not permitted to be there does not absolve the railway operator or landowner of any responsibilities to the children trespassing."
Yes it bloody well does! Trespass is trespass, simple as that. A hole in the fence doesn't magically invalidate trespass law.
Third one not actually injured, yet still managed to think of a reason for getting some compo. These little shits are going to turn into delightful adults
ReplyDeleteAnd how do they manage in continental Europe where vast tracts of railway are unfenced?
ReplyDeleteI am disappointed this was only a rehearsal for a Darwin Award.
ReplyDeleteYes it bloody well does!
ReplyDeleteEr, no it doesn't. The precedent for this was set in 1972: British Railways Board v Herrington [1972]
The railway has a duty of care in law not to cause harm to trespassers.
And how do they manage in continental Europe where vast tracts of railway are unfenced?
ReplyDeleteThey leave it to Darwin. Besides, Continental Europe does not use common law principles.
If some teenaged oik had the cheek to climb onto Mr Harrington's garden shed, fall off and break his neck what would Mr Harrington's defence be when sued?
ReplyDeleteHerrington was a five year old child. Maybe you should read the judgement and take the time to try to understand what it says.
ReplyDeleteIt seems a little perverse to apply the precedent of a judgement regarding a five year old to an incident involving teenagers. Teenagers would be expected to be fully aware of the dangers of trespassing on railway lines whereas a five year old would not.
ReplyDeleteThe precedent applies to all trespassers. There are two things at play here - the common law duty of care that applies in a dangerous environment and the Railways Act that requires the infrastructure owner to maintain an impermeable fence to keep trespassers out. Failure to do that applies across the board and makes no discrimination based upon the age of the trespasser. One of the peculiarities of the railway is that it does not immediately appear dangerous when trains are not about, even to adults.
ReplyDelete"Because none of us were stupid enough to ignore the danger of 100-ton trains moving at 70mph."
ReplyDeleteI can remember a school assembly where we were all called to a talk given by a railway official, who went into bloodcurdling detail about the effects of trains & electricity on the human body!
Do that now, and everyone would be up in arms and demanding compo for 'PTSD'...
"These little shits are going to turn into delightful adults"
With parents like this, it's a racing certainty.
"I am disappointed this was only a rehearsal for a Darwin Award."
Me too.
"It seems a little perverse to apply the precedent of a judgement regarding a five year old to an incident involving teenagers."
Our laws, perverse? The hell you say! ;)
"One of the peculiarities of the railway is that it does not immediately appear dangerous when trains are not about, even to adults."
They scare me to death! All it takes is a bit of imagination.
"The railway has a duty of care in law not to cause harm to trespassers."
ReplyDeleteIn other words, there is a law designed to protect people who break the law by trespassing.