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.
Full Version: Ouch!! That hurt. Chief Constable disappointed.
Of course she should sue, but I also hope she looses.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
I thought police officers were supposed to be observant - perhaps she is not very good at her job!
According to the news this morning, the officer is dropping her vexatious claim against the petrol station.
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.
QUOTE (motormad @ Apr 2 2013, 10:29 AM)
I've never once tripped over a curb going to someones house.
Probably because we don't have them in the UK.
QUOTE (pbonnay @ Apr 2 2013, 11:38 AM)
According to the news this morning, the officer is dropping her vexatious claim against the petrol station.
What does that word even mean.........
It's a legal sound bite word. These days generally used to mean awkward. Bad reporting here, this isn't a vexatious claim, rather an unjustified and incorrect one. Vexatious really means someone continually resorting to litigation which has little justification other than to cause the opposite party a nuisance. However it really is a weasel word these days beloved of the technical college lawyer, usually to cover their own failings.
QUOTE (On the edge @ Apr 2 2013, 03:42 PM)
It's a legal sound bite word. These days generally used to mean awkward. Bad reporting here, this isn't a vexatious claim, rather an unjustified and incorrect one. Vexatious really means someone continually resorting to litigation which has little justification other than to cause the opposite party a nuisance. However it really is a weasel word these days beloved of the technical college lawyer, usually to cover their own failings.
Here, vexatious is used to describe a claim of little or no merit, brought to annoy or to bully for example. I know it is used in a lazy fashion by some, but may apply here if it is believed that the claim was brought to upset and worry the garage owner so he would put the matter to his business insurers with a plea for them to get rid of the problem with an offer. The use of this word to "cover their own failings" does not make any sense.
The claimant is not a vexatious litigant however - only the High Court can decide if someone is, and usually only after many actions.
Edit: Contrary to earlier reports about it being dropped, latest news is that the claim is still live!
http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/02/pc-kelly-jon...erself-3579038/
QUOTE (pbonnay @ Apr 2 2013, 03:56 PM)
Contrary to earlier reports about it being dropped, latest news is that the claim is still live!
http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/02/pc-kelly-jon...erself-3579038/
http://metro.co.uk/2013/04/02/pc-kelly-jon...erself-3579038/
Beggars belief. If you have a child with you and it trips over, you say to it, in an irritated way, "Watch where you're going". Unfortunate that this police officer wasn't given this advice when she was a child.
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Apr 2 2013, 05:56 PM)
Beggars belief. If you have a child with you and it trips over, you say to it, in an irritated way, "Watch where you're going". Unfortunate that this police officer wasn't given this advice when she was a child.
No, you've got it wrong; you now instruct your child, if she or he slips or injures themselves, is that their first thought should be to Sue. The second thought is lawyer and the third thought is money; no necessarily in that order.
QUOTE (pbonnay @ Apr 2 2013, 11:38 AM)
According to the news this morning, the officer is dropping her vexatious claim against the petrol station.
I think she's been well advised to do so. She's taken a lot of disapprobation over this and that seems to be entirely because she's a police officer. I think it was an ill-advised thing to do, but any of us are capable of acting ill-advisedly and to take such heat just because you're a police officer seems harsh to me. Obviously I know next to nothing about what really went on, but like OtE I wonder that the solicitor shouldn't have refused to take instruction in the best interests of the officer.
Got to feel sorry for the garage owner though, can't be nice being sued. I'm pleased sense prevailed in the end. Perhaps he might have done better to write to the chief constable first though rather than going to the press.
Edit: Oh, if she hasn't withdrawn her claim then that is a shame.
QUOTE (GMR @ Apr 2 2013, 07:58 PM)
No, you've got it wrong; you now instruct your child, if she or he slips or injures themselves, is that their first thought should be to Sue. The second thought is lawyer and the third thought is money; no necessarily in that order.
I'm sorry, but this is just so much nonsense.
Say you pull up gently in your car at traffic lights only for some toad-of-toad-hall to caroom into the back of you in his Golf. I'm guessing you would expect the driver to compensate you for your losses in getting your car repaired wouldn't you? So why is it such an alien idea to expect to be compensated for your losses if the injury is to your person rather than just your stuff?
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Apr 2 2013, 08:10 PM)
I'm sorry, but this is just so much nonsense.
I was being ironic, however, the culture, our culture, is getting very much like America; which is a sue culture.
QUOTE
Say you pull up gently in your car at traffic lights only for some toad-of-toad-hall to caroom into the back of you in his Golf. I'm guessing you would expect the driver to compensate you for your losses in getting your car repaired wouldn't you? So why is it such an alien idea to expect to be compensated for your losses if the injury is to your person rather than just your stuff?
Not everything is black or white as you suggest. We are seeing more and more people creating situations where suing is beneficial and rewarding. It was reported on the news awhile back where there is a scam going were you ram on your breaks, forcing the other driver to hit you. Claiming whiplash and damage to your car. This can be very rewarding. In some cases they disconnect the break lights.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Apr 2 2013, 08:10 PM)
Say you pull up gently in your car at traffic lights only for some toad-of-toad-hall to caroom into the back of you in his Golf. I'm guessing you would expect the driver to compensate you for your losses in getting your car repaired wouldn't you?
No I wouldn't. I would expect his insurance to pay, (and for him to be charged a suitably loaded premium in the future for his carelessness - but that's nothing to do with me). I am sick of the compensation culture and associated litigation at the drop of a hat we are getting into.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Apr 2 2013, 08:10 PM)
Say you pull up gently in your car at traffic lights only for some toad-of-toad-hall to caroom into the back of you in his Golf. I'm guessing you would expect the driver to compensate you for your losses in getting your car repaired wouldn't you? So why is it such an alien idea to expect to be compensated for your losses if the injury is to your person rather than just your stuff?
Slightly different scenario. The kerb didn't lift out of the ground like a bollard. She was careless.
The driver in your cameo was not under your control and of course you should expect to be recompensed as she would also have every right if instead of falling ar:se over t1t, someone had crashed into her.
Let's hope that if it goes to court she will be given 5p in compensation (cost of the bandaid) but of course her injuries 'r' us legal team will still get their barristers fees.
About time someone got a grip of all this profiteering by the legal fat cats.
QUOTE (JeffG @ Apr 2 2013, 08:36 PM)
No I wouldn't. I would expect his insurance to pay, (and for him to be charged a suitably loaded premium in the future for his carelessness - but that's nothing to do with me). I am sick of the compensation culture and associated litigation at the drop of a hat we are getting into.
Sure, his insurance pays because insurance companies are sensible and know that if their client ran into the back of you at lights then he is 100% responsible for the accident. More specifically, insurance companies know that, were they to refuse to settle such a claim, then you could successfully sue for damages in court.
The point here is that insurance companies only pay up because ultimately the court would compel them, and they know very well when they're on a hiding to nothing and it's simply not worth their time and money defending the indefensible.
The situation is essentially no different with personal injury, the difficulty is that not everyone who causes a personal injury carries public liability insurance, and of those who don't may will obstinately and ignorantly deny their liability when they are entirely and indefensibly liable, so even when you are injured due to a negligent breach of a duty of care you will often have to resort to court action to achieve the settlement which, were it a car accident, would be a hassle-free claim and cheque by return of post.
QUOTE (Exhausted @ Apr 2 2013, 08:50 PM)
Slightly different scenario. The kerb didn't lift out of the ground like a bollard. She was careless.
The driver in your cameo was not under your control and of course you should expect to be recompensed as she would also have every right if instead of falling ar:se over t1t, someone had crashed into her.
Let's hope that if it goes to court she will be given 5p in compensation (cost of the bandaid) but of course her injuries 'r' us legal team will still get their barristers fees.
About time someone got a grip of all this profiteering by the legal fat cats.
The driver in your cameo was not under your control and of course you should expect to be recompensed as she would also have every right if instead of falling ar:se over t1t, someone had crashed into her.
Let's hope that if it goes to court she will be given 5p in compensation (cost of the bandaid) but of course her injuries 'r' us legal team will still get their barristers fees.
About time someone got a grip of all this profiteering by the legal fat cats.
It's not at all clear to me that the police officer has any case. It doesn't sound as though she has suffered any loss because the police service have fully supported and rehabilitated her, and it's not obvious to me that the garage owner has been negligent in failing to light the curb.
QUOTE (Simon Kirby @ Apr 2 2013, 09:10 PM)
It's not at all clear to me that the police officer has any case. It doesn't sound as though she has suffered any loss because the police service have fully supported and rehabilitated her, and it's not obvious to me that the garage owner has been negligent in failing to light the curb.
To be honest it isn't obviously to anybody other than the police woman and her lawyer.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.