IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

2 Pages V   1 2 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Ouch!! That hurt. Chief Constable disappointed.
GMR
post Apr 1 2013, 05:59 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



A female police officer trips over the curb when called out to a Petrol station. She is now suing. Her chief constable said that he was "disappointed" in his officer and such accidents are common occurrences.

Do you feel that she should have sued? And if yes should all officers sue if they get hurt in the line of duty?

This happened in Norfolk; where is not really important... and this could come near you if she wins her case.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Apr 1 2013, 06:01 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Of course she should sue, but I also hope she looses.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Apr 1 2013, 06:12 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



My opinion is that all accident lawyers should be strung up, but then they might sue for restrictive practices (of the neck variety).

Too much litigation these days. What's wrong with the old-fashioned method of looking where you're going? Did you see the kerb in question on the news. It was well hidden - not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Apr 1 2013, 06:35 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Andy Capp @ Apr 1 2013, 07:01 PM) *
Of course she should sue, but I also hope she looses.




Why do you hope she should sue? To make her look stupid?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Apr 1 2013, 06:35 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (JeffG @ Apr 1 2013, 07:12 PM) *
My opinion is that all accident lawyers should be strung up, but then they might sue for restrictive practices (of the neck variety).

Too much litigation these days. What's wrong with the old-fashioned method of looking where you're going? Did you see the kerb in question on the news. It was well hidden - not.


In other words we are getting like America.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Apr 1 2013, 07:01 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



Is it significant that the individual is a police officer, and was on duty at the time of the accident?

If she was injured in the line of duty then I would expect - no, I would demand - that she is looked after and rehabilitated at no cost to herself. Didn't this happen?

If you want to sue for an injury then there needs to be a negligent breach of a duty of care. If the curb was just a curb as the OP suggests then there's unlikely to be any negligence, and she wont' succeed in her claim for damages.

However, it sounds to me as though this was more than just a "curb", it sounds as though there was some negligence involved, and if there was then why shouldn't she sue for damages - if I was injured at work through someone's negligence then I might very well want to sue to recover my losses - and why shouldn't I?

I'm not sure I understand the chief constable's comments - she surely isn't saying that her employees should waive their right to be safe in their work is she?


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Roost
post Apr 1 2013, 07:34 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 360
Joined: 13-May 09
Member No.: 31



If it is just as has been reported, that the officer fell over a kerb, then yes I feel she is just making herself look stupid.

As with anything reported in the press, I suspect that there may be more to it. Just call me cynical...

As to the Chief? Don't really see that it's much of their business as its an action by he individual to the location and not involving the police force in question.


--------------------
Roost

Welcome to the jungle....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Apr 1 2013, 07:38 PM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Roost @ Apr 1 2013, 08:34 PM) *
If it is just as has been reported, that the officer fell over a kerb, then yes I feel she is just making herself look stupid.

As with anything reported in the press, I suspect that there may be more to it. Just call me cynical...

As to the Chief? Don't really see that it's much of their business as its an action by he individual to the location and not involving the police force in question.


If it was more than the press had said then the Chief Constable wouldn't have commented in the way he did.

A police officers job is a hazardous job and you can't go running to the lawyer every time you've hurt yourself. What next; a stunt man suing his employers because he had an accident.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Apr 1 2013, 07:39 PM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Apr 1 2013, 08:01 PM) *
Is it significant that the individual is a police officer, and was on duty at the time of the accident?

If she was injured in the line of duty then I would expect - no, I would demand - that she is looked after and rehabilitated at no cost to herself. Didn't this happen?

If you want to sue for an injury then there needs to be a negligent breach of a duty of care. If the curb was just a curb as the OP suggests then there's unlikely to be any negligence, and she wont' succeed in her claim for damages.

However, it sounds to me as though this was more than just a "curb", it sounds as though there was some negligence involved, and if there was then why shouldn't she sue for damages - if I was injured at work through someone's negligence then I might very well want to sue to recover my losses - and why shouldn't I?

I'm not sure I understand the chief constable's comments - she surely isn't saying that her employees should waive their right to be safe in their work is she?


But it is a hazardous job. Some jobs you must expect to be hurt in the line of duty.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Apr 1 2013, 07:49 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (Roost @ Apr 1 2013, 08:34 PM) *
If it is just as has been reported, that the officer fell over a kerb, then yes I feel she is just making herself look stupid.

As with anything reported in the press, I suspect that there may be more to it. Just call me cynical...

As to the Chief? Don't really see that it's much of their business as its an action by he individual to the location and not involving the police force in question.

I would guess that if the Chief Constable already has everything in place to support officers injured in their duties then if, as is reported, this officer made a civil claim without talking to her line management then it reflects badly on the police - it looks bad that officers sue for falling over, but it reflects very badly on the police service if they are not seen to be doing everything to support their officers.

This news report seems reasonably balanced.

This comment from the nation BBC site is telling:

QUOTE
Norfolk Police said it had been unaware of the claim, adding: "We have a duty of care to any officer injured whilst on duty, to support their continued health and well-being and fitness to return to work.

"Officers can, in addition, receive further support from their staff association, as well as pursuing private treatment."


My feeling is that the police do adequately support their officers, and that this one officer could have been better advised not to make the national news. Of course if it turns out that Norfolk police are not adequately supporting their officers then that would be a very poor state of affairs.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
GMR
post Apr 1 2013, 07:53 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,085
Joined: 13-May 09
From: Newbury, Berkshire.
Member No.: 33



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Apr 1 2013, 08:49 PM) *
I would guess that if the Chief Constable already has everything in place to support officers injured in their duties then if, as is reported, this officer made a civil claim without talking to her line management then it reflects badly on the police - it looks bad that officers sue for falling over, but it reflects very badly on the police service if they are not seen to be doing everything to support their officers.

This news report seems reasonably balanced.

This comment from the nation BBC site is telling:



My feeling is that the police do adequately support their officers, and that this one officer could have been better advised not to make the national news. Of course if it turns out that Norfolk police are not adequately supporting their officers then that would be a very poor state of affairs.



The officer didn't contact the media the garage owner did.

As for supporting the police; well the public are angry and you can't support something that is stupid. If they support their officers willy nilly then people will never have any faith in their police.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gel
post Apr 1 2013, 08:11 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 947
Joined: 11-September 09
From: Thames Valley
Member No.: 337



QUOTE (Roost @ Apr 1 2013, 08:34 PM) *
If it is just as has been reported, that the officer fell over a kerb, then yes I feel she is just making herself look stupid.

As with anything reported in the press, I suspect that there may be more to it. Just call me cynical...

As to the Chief? Don't really see that it's much of their business as its an action by he individual to the location and not involving the police force in question.

Here's the culprit's boss& that naughty curb wink.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Simon Kirby
post Apr 1 2013, 08:19 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,326
Joined: 20-July 10
From: Wash Common
Member No.: 1,011



QUOTE (GMR @ Apr 1 2013, 08:39 PM) *
But it is a hazardous job. Some jobs you must expect to be hurt in the line of duty.

If you're a police officer you have to accept that the job can be physical and sometimes violent, and you don't go into the police if you can't deal with that, but police officers are due exactly the same duty of care as anyone else.

However, whether any particular injury results from a negligent breach of a duty of care is a different question. Say an officer pokes her eye on a twig while searching in thick undergrowth - it's a nasty injury, but there's no negligence because you can't reasonably be expected not to grow shrubbery on the off-chance that someone will go crawling about in it.

But now say an officer calling at your home trips on your uneven drive way. You are expected to take reasonable care that your visitors aren't injured, and dangerously uneven drive ways are a negligent breach of that duty of care, so whether you cause an injury to a police officer, paper boy, postman, or mother-in-law, they can all sue for damages.

The issue is that given that the police are put in harm's way the police service should, and I hope does, give them every support they need if they're injured in the line of duty, irrespective of whether there's a negligent breach of a duty of care or not. As a society we expect the police to face danger in their job, and we have to support them doing that, just as we do the armed forces.

If an officers feels that she needs to sue to recover losses that she believes the service has not compensated her for then it means either that the police service is letter its officers down and breaking that essential covenant, or else it means that she's gone off on one.


--------------------
Right an injustice - give Simon Kirby his allotment back!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Apr 1 2013, 09:04 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



QUOTE (GMR @ Apr 1 2013, 06:35 PM) *
Why do you hope she should sue? To make her look stupid?


As a warning to others I'd have thought.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Apr 1 2013, 09:05 PM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



QUOTE (GMR @ Apr 1 2013, 07:35 PM) *
Why do you hope she should sue? To make her look stupid?

I said 'should', not 'hope'. If she feels she has a genuine complaint, she should feel free to exercise that point in court. If the story is as portrayed, then I hope it is thrown out so as to dissuade other such claims. If it upheld, then I hope that it is a good decision too.

Don't trust everything you read in the press or media.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Apr 2 2013, 08:14 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



At one time Solicitors were supposed to be officers of the supreme court and not simply the legal agent of their client. That puts a massive duty on those advising in this type of case. In my view, the Solicitor is quite wrong in sending the letter to the garage owner and arguably, he could have an action himself under the malicious communications legislation at least.

The WPC may well have a valid claim for an injury sustained at work. That means, again, at the very least, the Police Force would necessarily be a party to any litigation. The report also suggests that she had not informed her Police management; which suggests that she has an internal disciplinary issue to face. It also means she cannot found an action against the garage owner without the knowledge or consent of the Police.

Finally, the reported involvement of the Police Federation is also interesting, they are supposed to be funding the claim. That may well be just as an add on service to her membership which she is free to draw on legal consultation at no cost. However, using such firms for such purposes is for them, particularly ill advised.

In my view, the Solicitors should be referred to the Law Society, the WPC to a disciplinary panel and the Police Federation review its referral processes.

This really isn't a health and safety issue. Its more one about a poorly motivated and undisciplined WPC and an ill informed and grasping solicitor. Look around, regrettably there are lots more, we don't do personal integrity these days.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Apr 2 2013, 09:29 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Apr 1 2013, 09:19 PM) *
If you're a police officer you have to accept that the job can be physical and sometimes violent, and you don't go into the police if you can't deal with that, but police officers are due exactly the same duty of care as anyone else.

However, whether any particular injury results from a negligent breach of a duty of care is a different question. Say an officer pokes her eye on a twig while searching in thick undergrowth - it's a nasty injury, but there's no negligence because you can't reasonably be expected not to grow shrubbery on the off-chance that someone will go crawling about in it.

But now say an officer calling at your home trips on your uneven drive way. You are expected to take reasonable care that your visitors aren't injured, and dangerously uneven drive ways are a negligent breach of that duty of care, so whether you cause an injury to a police officer, paper boy, postman, or mother-in-law, they can all sue for damages.

The issue is that given that the police are put in harm's way the police service should, and I hope does, give them every support they need if they're injured in the line of duty, irrespective of whether there's a negligent breach of a duty of care or not. As a society we expect the police to face danger in their job, and we have to support them doing that, just as we do the armed forces.

If an officers feels that she needs to sue to recover losses that she believes the service has not compensated her for then it means either that the police service is letter its officers down and breaking that essential covenant, or else it means that she's gone off on one.


I've never once tripped over a curb going to someones house.
And if I do trip over something my first thought isn't "SUE THEM". It's one thing to fall over because of a seriously loose paving slab on a step but to trip over a curb is just dumb and the officer should leave the force by way of a "mutual agreement" shall we say, for being so dumb.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
MontyPython
post Apr 2 2013, 10:10 AM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 936
Joined: 16-June 12
Member No.: 8,755



Looking at the BBC report I see no reason for a claim, had she been chasing a suspect down a dark alley there would be no one to point the kerb out to her! Whilst she might be able to take time off work injured I see no reason for a claim.

I thought police officers were supposed to be observant - perhaps she is not very good at her job!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pbonnay
post Apr 2 2013, 10:38 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 318
Joined: 4-August 12
Member No.: 8,791



According to the news this morning, the officer is dropping her vexatious claim against the petrol station.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Apr 2 2013, 11:19 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



she probably got a phone call from a 'where there is blame there is a claim' legal firm who talked her in to making a claim.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

2 Pages V   1 2 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th January 2022 - 12:19 PM