You Shop, We Drop..... Our Driver Sues You

From CPD Webinars 26.08.08:

A Tesco customer is being pursued for compensation by one of the supermarket chain's home deliverymen months after he slipped on a driveway during a routine drop-off.

Paul Singleton used the supermarket's online shopping service for over three years, spending around £250 every few weeks.  But while his groceries were being delivered four months ago, the driver Andrew Britton, 44, mentioned he had slipped on the sloping driveway. Mr Britton then continued unloading items from the van.
Several weeks later a solicitor's letter unexpectedly arrived at Mr Singleton's home informing him he was being sued for compensation because the driver had injured his ankle in a fall on his property.  Mr Singleton said: "I was stunned and felt totally bemused.  My driveway only slopes down by about an inch.
He contacted Tesco and said: "I told them that one of their employees was suing a customer and they just said they couldn't help.

The fact that this type of situation arises should not come as a surprise to anyone now.  After all, these frivolous why-the-hell-not....let's-sue episodes are all the rage now and no longer just the concern of the USA.  Everyone wants legal redress for the slightest slip, slide or wiggle and the ambulance-chasing antics of so many law 'firms' who run those infamous and corny adverts appealing to gullible members of the public who believe themselves to have suffered slight misfortune are a plague to society.  Seriously, if this is the legal profession, I'm not sure I want 'in' after all. 

As cases go, this is pretty much in the same league as the guy who 'slipped' on a grape in an M&S car park earlier this year and tried to claim damages.  And let's face it, it's probably about as worthy.  I mean, if he'd dropped a bread roll on this toe, it'd be easier to sympathise.  Thinking about it, though, a bramble scratched my arm on the way back from work earlier...... I wonder which firm the Tesco-guy used?  Might be worth a call. 

PR 101: How NOT to handle an aggrieved tenant situation

From the Guardian 29/07/09:

A Chicago lettings agency is suing a former tenant for at least $50,000 (£30,000) after she complained on Twitter about mould in her apartment.

Horizon Group Management filed the lawsuit against Amanda Bonnen on Monday in response to what it claimed was her "false and defamatory" message on the microblogging site.

Jeff Michael, whose family runs Horizon, told the Chicago Sun-Times: "The statements are obviously false, and it's our intention to prove that."

He said the company never had a conversation with Bonnen about the post and never asked her to take it down. "We're a sue first, ask questions later kind of an organisation," he told the paper.

Oh really? Well, unsurprisingly, that approach has gone down a storm across the cyberspatial universe.

The lawsuit has provoked a backlash against Horizon on Twitter and the wider blogosphere. Horizon Group management has become one of the most searched and discussed subjects on Twitter, with posters criticising the company for its legal action and arguing it had made a major PR blunder.

Twitter user charlesthomas wrote: "So Bravo to you, Horizon Group Management! You damaged your rep far more than @abonnen ever could."

Another poster, jvandeboom, tweeted: "What a PR failure by Horizon Group Management ... Makes me believe the mold [sic] claims even more."

Although blogs, twitter and all the other lovely web 2.0 stuff that have become firmly part of the modern vernacular these days, through which grievances are often (and sometimes foolishly) aired, the number of companies who completely fudge their responses and simply exacerbate the situation is amazing.

Without knowing the full facts, here, such as whether the mould claims are true, and if there had been any contact between the tenant and Horizon prior to the tweet in question, it’s impossible to judge the legality of the situation or how rational it might have been. Online defamation, too, is conceptually built on rather shaky ground but the legal issues in play are almost a side-issue given Horizon’s response.

The blogosphere has long been used as tool for making yourself heard and I can think of several situations where bloggers have easily and immediately got a firm’s undivided attention whereupon they were reduced to sycophantic putty in the blogger’s hands. The way Horizon Lettings handled the situation is at the opposite end of the spectrum, of course, and has simply resulted in making things far worse than they need ever have been.

And although I have rather conventional attitude towards online defamation, I’ve very little sympathy with Horizon; that “sue first, ask questions later comment” is just killing me.

Mosley wins privacy case - starts libel proceedings

From ITV-F1.com 25/07/08:

Max Mosley has launched libel proceedings against the News of the World over allegations made in its edition the week after its initial expose on his sex life.

The FIA president won his high-profile privacy case against the British tabloid on Thursday and was awarded £60,000 damages and costs after the High Court ruled that his privacy had been breached when the newspaper revealed lurid details about his private life in March.

The verdict also refuted the newspaper’s claims that his activities with prostitutes had Nazi overtones.

Things were looking very bleak for Mosley back at the end of March when the story of his ‘S&M orgy in a Chelsea flat’ first broke. Since then, he’s successfully faced a vote of confidence by the FIA on June 3^rd - thereby keeping his position as head of the FIA - and was yesterday awarded a record amount of damages in respect of his privacy case against the New of the World. The untold damage that Max’s reputation suffered from the tabloid's expose cannot, of course, be remedied by money; in fact, nothing short of a time machine would manage that. Nevertheless, Mosley’s now setting out to right the wrongs he deems himself to have suffered by not only suing the News of the World for libel, but is also pursuing claims against German and French tabloids.  Good on him!

And yeah, Jackie Stewart is still adding his two cents worth to the effect that Mosley should resign. Blah, blah.  Give it a bone, Jackie – we’ve heard it all before.

Stray Sperm and Pillow Talk

As I perused the Times’ weird cases this week, they both jumped out at me as being slightly wackier than usual.

Firstly, hat tip to Pooni on this one who flagged this top story up last week or so.

From the Times 17/07/09:

Magdalena Kwiatkowska is seeking compensation having discovered that her 13-year-old daughter, whom she asserts has not had sex, became pregnant while on holiday. The mother says conception occurred after her daughter received a “stray sperm” in an Egyptian hotel swimming pool. Suing the hotel, the mother avows that there is no way her daughter could have met any boys while on the family holiday.

Oh she received a ‘stray sperm’ all right. I’m just not convinced it was casually floating about in the swimming pool. It certainly brings a new dimension to the argument that civil litigation claims are getting ever more fanciful?

And for a touch more legal wackiness:

A woman [from Missouri] had sex, separately, with identical twin brothers on the same day although neither man knew of the other’s sexual encounter with the woman. She gave birth to a daughter but each brother claimed to be the baby’s uncle not her father. The woman identified Raymon Miller as the father but, objecting to making payments of $256 a week in child support, he argued his twin, Richard, was the father. Paternity tests using DNA samples revealed only that both brothers had over a 99.99 percent probability of being the father.

The judge decided that since Raymon had spent the night with the woman and Richard’s sexual encounter had been much briefer; Raymon should be held as the legal father of the child.

The woman presumably knew they were identical twins, seeing as they didn’t know about each other’s assignation with the woman, right?  Or maybe she thought it was the same guy each time and there wasn’t much in the way of pillow talk to give the game away?

I don’t know, but  I do know that it’s truly amazing how people get themselves in these situations.

Wacky Wednesday: Bats, bras and Mosley's High Court action

Girl finds bat in bra

From BBC News 9/7/08:

A teenager who thought movement in her underwear was caused by her vibrating mobile phone found a bat curled up asleep in her  bra.

Abbie Hawkins, 19, of Norwich, had been wearing the bra for five hours when she plucked up the courage to investigate.

When she did, she found a baby bat in [the] padding in her 34FF bra. The hotel receptionist said she was shocked but felt bad for removing the "cuddly" bat. "It looked cosy and comfortable and I was sorry for disturbing it," she said.

You what? And she thought it was her phone? Maybe she makes a habit of leaving it in there – it does away with the need for a phone holder I suppose. But a bat!? I wonder what other wildlife she’s got nestling down there?

Women confirm Mosley shenanigans had no Nazi theme

From BBC News 8/7/08:

Four women who took part in a sadomasochistic session with motorsport boss Max Mosley have denied there was any Nazi-themed role-play.

Witness D, a student in her 20s who cannot be identified for legal reasons, said the paper's account of what had happened on 28 March in a Chelsea basement flat was "absurd".

She told the court: "I am particularly appalled at the accusations that our scenarios had any Nazi connotation or overtones. No Nazi images, uniforms or material were used."

On 28 March, she said, she felt she was "amongst friends, doing something I enjoy and all those involved enjoy".

Maybe Max will survive this after all. The case continues.....

Woman goes hyper at Dunkin’ Donuts

Hyperglycaemic that is.  Allegedly.

From Money.msn.com 03/06/11:

A Philadelphia woman is suing Dunkin' Donuts, saying a worker mistakenly put sugar in her coffee, which ultimately caused her to go into diabetic shock.

There’s nothing like bringing a negligence claim against a friendly barista doing a good deed in the city of brotherly love, is there? 

Danielle Jordan's lawsuit claims she asked for artificial sweetener to be added to her coffee during a June 2009 visit. Jordan claims she downed the drink and experienced dizziness, light-headedness and ended up making an emergency trip to the hospital.

A legal liaison for the Canton, Mass.-based doughnut chain told the Philadelphia Daily News she couldn't comment on the case. But she says employees only provide customers with the order they ask for.

Jordan's lawyer, Kenneth Rodgers, says his client couldn't tell from the taste of the coffee that she got sugar instead of her preferred artificial sweetener. He says she didn't finish the drink before she fell ill.

The lawsuit seeks unspecified damages.

Perhaps this is just me, but if you knew you were a diabetic, wouldn’t you always insist on putting your own sugar in?  In my experience, your average barista wouldn’t know whether they were breaking open a sachet of sugar, saccharin, or a wet wipe and dumping it in your cawfee.

So who knows what happened: did the barista get the sachets muddled? Had the claimant scoffed a sneaky donut around the corner before going in and it really was saccharin in there?  Heck, maybe a sugar cube became dislodged from a ceiling tile overhead and plopped in the coffee unbeknownst to anyone?

In any case - who cares – it’ll settle within the week! 

Sweet as you like. 

Avoiding Allegations of Discrimination: What NOT to say

From BBC News 14/04/09:

A cabin crew boss was forced to employ only young, slim, single women to crew private aircraft, a tribunal has heard.

Alexandria Proud, from London, has claimed unfair constructive dismissal by charter aircraft firm Gama Aviation.

Miss Proud said she was verbally abused by aircraft owner Alireza Ittehedeh and not supported by her employer.

Gama Aviation supplies pilots and flight attendants for about 30 privately-owned aircraft.

Miss Proud said she was forced to discriminate when recruiting cabin staff on grounds of sex, marital status and age, and criticised for not getting enough suitable candidates.

"The successful candidate would be female, physically attractive, aged 18 to 30, single and no larger than a size 12," said Miss Proud.

"I was also specifically informed that if there was a male flight attendant it would be thought that he was gay and the owner would not tolerate such an individual on the aircraft."

Miss Proud issued a formal grievance against the firm's director of operations Steve Wright after he behaved "inappropriately" and was aggressive, the Southampton tribunal heard.

I know throw-away comments are uttered on the spur of the moment with little regard paid to tact (and legislative provisions relating to discrimination by employers) but if there was ever a classic example of something a boss should absolutely not, ever say to his recruiter, this is surely it. But besides from the potential for falling foul of employment discrimination legislation, I don’t know how much business-sense it would make to hire candidates who were very similar in age, sex, weight and appearance etc. Given the diversity of people who own private aircraft, it seems unlikely that they would all have identical desires as to the cabin crew they would want to serve them in the skies. I’m also curious as to how Mr Ittehedeh would react to discovering that certain members of his exclusively female cabin crew (who ostensibly conformed to his exacting standards) were actually gay. Would he find that equally egregious?

Granted, the allegations are as yet unproven but I’ll be watching this one with interest. The tribunal continues.

Boys will be boys

Orchard v Lee [2009] EWCA Civ 295

From the Solicitors Journal 07/04/09:

The Court of Appeal has ruled that a 13 year-old boy who ran into a dinner lady and seriously injured her during a game of tag in a school courtyard was not liable for negligence.

“13 year-old boys will be 13 year-old boys who will play tag,” Lord Justice Waller said. “They will run backwards and they will taunt each other. If that is what they are doing and they are not breaking any rules they should not be held liable in negligence.

“Parents and schools are there to control children and it would be a retrograde step to visit liability on a 13 year-old for simply playing a game in the area where he was allowed to do so.”

However unfortunate this ‘injured dinnerlady incident’ might be, working with kids is sometimes like this. Thankfully, commonsense prevailed and the law has made no attempt to curtail children playing what must one of the oldest games ever devised. Of course children have a duty not to do utterly ridiculous acts (generally speaking) but they also must be afforded the freedom to play and enjoy childhood games unencumbered by regulatory shackles. This is surely the correct decision, no matter how you slice it.  And besides, from what I remember, dinnerladies are generally officious enough as it is, without the law purporting to feed their power trips any further.

But seriously, this kind of thing goes with the territory of being a dinner lady.  My message is simple; Working with children can be (occasionally) dangerous. If in doubt, don’t work with them!

Man sues pet store after slipping in…

Yes, you guessed it.  And I would imagine it wasn’t pretty!

From Los Angeles Times 03/04/10:

A Virginia man is suing PetSmart for $1 million after he slipped in a pile of you-know-what at a Newport News store location during a trip to purchase dog food and bird seed in early 2009.

The man, Robert Holloway, says he badly injured his back, requiring surgery, and lost four false teeth in the incident.

Wow – I hope he didn’t go face-down in the stuff! Else that really would be adding insult to injury.

The suit alleges that PetSmart staff "negligently allowed animals to enter the premises and deposit feces in such a manner as to create a dangerous and hazardous condition," according to documents acquired by the Virginian-Pilot. Goodove says Holloway didn't see the feces because they blended in with the color of the store's floor.

Fancy. What a charming shade that floor must be.

The Virginian-Pilot reports that the suit was initially filed in Norfolk Circuit Court, but PetSmart succeeded in getting it moved to U.S. District Court, where a similar suit against the company was dismissed in 2008.

In court documents, PetSmart denied the allegation of negligence, according to the Associated Press.

It puts the odd grape left rolling about in a supermarket car park in perspective, I guess.  Whether PetSmart are found to have been negligent in not spotting the offending pile and getting the poop scoop out is another matter, of course.

Law Actually Hot Picks of the Week

Another Sunday, another batch of my hot picks. I’ve no idea whether this will become a regular thing or if it's something more of a ‘passing fancy’. As ever, the same rules apply: what follows is a selection of news stories that caught my eye from the last 7 days.

Talk Talk says ‘No No’ to BPI proposal

Charles Dunstone, CEO of Carphone Warehouse has vocalised in the last week his disapproval of the music industry’s proposal to hold ISP responsible for customers who download music illegally. He lambasted the idea, quoting his legal team who advised him that trying to hold an ISP responsible in this way is analogous with trying to “prosecute a bus company that takes a shoplifter the shops”.

Talk Talk is the first ISP to have responded to the recent proposals that seek to force ISPs to disconnect users who download songs illegally. Dunstone claimed that “consumers had a right to unfettered internet access” and “it’s not our job to control it”. Good call.

'Web-based applications are all well and good, but there's still no beating the desktop computer.'

I agree wholeheartedly agree with this. I’ve used a lot of web-based apps in my time and some can be handy if you’re on the road or using a public computer which doesn’t have the required program installed locally. Still, cloud computing is improving all the time and, I feel, the direction the computing world is heading in, long term. It’s just we’re not there yet. Not even close.

Doctor asks “Where has all the pubic hair gone?”

Okay, stay with me on this one – the article I stumbled across on Digg actually discusses a serious issue. The article documents, inter alia, the findings of two people who find the glamour and beauty obsessed world that’s spreading to the pre-teen age bracket increasingly disturbing. In one case, Melanie Engle an aesthetician (don’t worry – I hadn’t heard of it either) describes that recently a mother brought her 8 year old daughter in to a beauty salon for an eyebrow wax specifying that she wanted them “arched like a supermodel’s”. Later that day, Engle “was directed to give her pint-size client a … bikini wax.” Further on in the article, a one Dr Hillman – who specialises in adolescent medicine – has found it increasingly difficult to rely on err, ‘growth’ as a diagnostic aid. “[N]ow, I need to ask girls, if it’s not there, ‘Do you wax? Do you shave?’ Because so many of them do.”

Max Mosley caught with his trousers down

I was shocked to learn of Mosley’s antics this week in which it was alleged he partook in a Nazi-style sex orgy with prostitutes. Mosley initially refused to comment and has since vehemently maintained there was no Nazi role-playing involved at all. Mosley is now suing the News of the World for breach of privacy claiming unlimited damages. As a long-term fanatic of F1, it’s only natural I took an interest. Mosley, a former barrister who specialised in intellectual property disputes has weathered several crises in his time as FIA president but none quite like this. Assuming that there were no Nazi-themes involved in his rather shady antics, I think Mosley does a great job as president and should remain in the role. That said, I sense this story has a long way still to go and it remains to be seen if he'll get that chance.

And finally, thanks to Andro for giving me the heads-up on this one: Michael Arrington over at Tech Crunch is suing Facebook for $25 million for allowing 3rd parties to use his image and Facebook content as ads without his express permission. I blogged last week about the issue of Facebook seeking to grant themselves the right to utilise the user content for ads that’s tucked neatly away in their terms and conditions and now this.

--UPDATE --  This story: April Fool or non April Fool?  When I initially heard about this I couldn't decide what it was.  Trawling the comments, I noticed, people weren't buying it as a true story.  Just to clarify, I still don't know and I don't really care either way: half the lawsuits in America seem to be lifted from the pages of a joke book, quite frankly, so what's one more?  Whether it's a straightforward gag, frivolous lawsuit or double-bluff, what does it matter?  Would I personally try sue Facebook for 25 million dollars?  You bet your ass I would. 

Failure to wear seatbelt, not contributory negligence

From the Solicitors Journal 03/03/10:

A 16 year-old boy who sat in the front seat of a friend’s car without a safety belt, but with a female friend “on his knee or lap” should not lose a percentage of his damages for contributory negligence, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

William Stanton suffered serious brain damage when the driver, who was also not wearing a belt, lost control of his car driving a group of young people back from a bar in South Yorkshire.

The court heard that Matthew Collinson was driving too fast on a single lane road, at a minimum of twice the 30 mph speed limit, when he hit an oncoming vehicle. He was killed immediately and the car ended up on its roof.

Giving judgment in Stanton v Collinson [2010] EWCA Civ 81, Lord Justice Hughes said the High Court had declined to reduce the damages awarded to Stanton on the grounds that it had not been shown that wearing a belt would have sufficiently reduced his injuries.

Hughes LJ said Collinson was just within the legal alcohol limit at the time of the crash and there was no evidence that Stanton had drunk too much.

“Who was sitting on whom in the front was hotly in issue at the trial, but the judge’s finding, which is not now challenged, was that the claimant had the girl on his lap or knee,” Hughes LJ said.

“Neither had the seat belt on. Nor did the driver or the other passengers wear the belts available.”

Lord Justice Hughes went on: “It seems to me that the decision whether the evidence nevertheless showed, on the balance of probabilities, that a seat belt would sufficiently have reduced the injuries to require a reduction for contributory negligence was a fine one.

“Some judges might, as it seems to me, have been persuaded that this was more likely than not, given the apparent agreement to that effect of both experts, with relevant experience, and given the element of restraint which at least the lap part of a seat belt would have provided.

As Hughes LJ highlighted, the decision whether or not to find that not wearing a seatbelt had amounted to contributory negligence was a fine one – particularly as Stanton remains seriously brain damaged and in need of considerable care since the accident. The real question, perhaps, is whether the judge should have found against the claimant on the grounds of policy. In other words, should he have found that failure to wear a seatbelt did in fact amount to contributory negligence on the basis that such a decision would send out a strong and more meaningful message to the public at large about the undeniable importance of seatbelts.

 

If you've been involved in a car accident, you may be entitled to make an accident claim to cover your costs arising from the accident

Claimant hopes he is inching towards justice

From the Consumerist 10/01/11:

What with all that free healthcare and those easygoing natures up north in Canada, there's not much to get upset about. So why not sue over a penis enlarger to stir stuff up?

A Quebec man says that even though he used the penis enlarger in question for 500 hours total, it never worked. Imagine spending that much time with something that is doing absolutely nothing!

500 hours?! That’s dedication for you. But really – was there no (ahem) change whatsoever? 

If not, surely there was a point along the way before the claimant had amassed a whopping 500 hours of use that made him think, “maybe this isn’t working”.

He's going before small claims court, trying to get $762 in moral and punitive damages and to cover the cost of the tool [snicker snicker] in question, the $262 X4 Extender Deluxe Edition, says the Chronicle Herald.

At least he didn’t suffer any kind of injury or otherwise do himself a mischief stretching himself seven ways to Sunday!

I was going to produce some kind of spoof graphic for this post, but having stumbled across the manufacturer’s website, my reaction to their own banner was too good to omit.

Ouch!  That sounds horribly like spinal traction to me!!

With all those apparently wasted hours behind him, the man told a paper in Granby, Que., that he was speaking out so that other men wouldn't make the same mistake he had. A judge is expected to rule on the case in the next month and a half.

The story was posted on Consumerist back in early January, but after a quick search on Google, I’ve not been able to find any kind of update on the judgment. This case has really been inching along! Maybe the judge wanted to try the product for himself?

Anyhoo, all of this excitement has reminded me of a hilarious moment late last year in one of TWiT podcasts I regularly listen to.  Here’s a snippet.

What started out as an innocent discussion about the form factor of tablets / slate PCs quickly degenerates into something much worse!

 

Oh yes–Cali’s a sceptical kinda girl!

County Court: Sorry litigants, we're too busy to respond

Happily, I've managed to sufficiently pacify a rather aggrieved customer from pursuing the legal action he started against us.  He settled his rather frivolous claim for about 1 fifth of of what he was initially asking for.  The time and hassle of me preparing for the hearing and myself and commercial director travelling up to London for it was not worth the measly few hundred quid it ended up costing.

However, after the claimant and I informed the relevant county court that we had settled, the court then had the temerity to send back a letter essentially saying they were too busy to respond to us properly but hopefully would in the near future.  Just charming.

The grape slip-up

From BBC News 17.03.08:

An accountant who claimed he injured himself by slipping on a grape in a Marks and Spencer car park has lost his High Court bid for damages.

Alexander Martin-Sklan, 55, from Golders Green, north London, was claiming £300,000 over the incident in his local store car park in June 2004.

He said a piece of fruit found on his shoe after the fall could have been picked up inside the store or car park.

The judge ruled in favour of the retail giant which was contesting the action.

I nearly choked to death on a grape once so I appreciate better than most just how hazardous this fruit can be. But slipping over because of one? Seems like the claimant didn’t even know if the grape was to blame or not. Maybe the mushy mess he found on his shoe after he bit the dust wasn’t actually a grape at all – perhaps it was a big ground beetle.

So the judge didn’t find in his favour? Wow, I certainly didn't see that one coming.

£30K compensation for another ‘grape slip-up’

From CPD Webinars 23/02/09:

Jeanette Plummer, 62, has been awarded nearly £30,000 in compensation after she slipped on two grapes and broke her shoulder in a Marks & Spencer store in Bath. The fall, in October 2005, left her needing a shoulder joint replacement  operation.

"The fall has really had an effect on my life. I'm now restricted as to what I can do. I'm really glad to get the compensation money,” Mrs Plummer said.

Louise Hart, a partner at Bath law firm Withy King which represented Mrs Plummer, said "It has taken three years to resolve this hotly contested matter but we are pleased to have finally agreed an out-of-court settlement with Marks & Spencer.  We feel strongly that the accident could have been avoided if the grapes had been sold in zipped bags and a more effective cleaning policy had been in place to deal with any food spills.  When these accidents are caused by faulty products or the negligent actions of others, it is only right that the victims are compensated for their injuries and any long-term effects on their lives."

What is it with Marks & Spencer and their customers slipping over on grapes? Long time readers of Law Actually might remember this post from around this time last year concerning a very similar issue. Maybe it’s the fact that M&S simply attract more accident-prone customers than other stores.  Or maybe they’re just more litigious.

It’s strange that with all the glass products about in supermarkets, something as innocuous as a couple of grapes could cause such injury.  The zipper bags for grapes are a good idea, I suppose, though the cost will inevitably be passed on to customers. As for the ‘more effective cleaning policy’, it’s difficult to judge how reasonable that argument was. With a product like grapes, there’s always going to be the odd ‘escapee’ and should surely remain within the bounds of acceptability. Even so, there are ways for such risks to be mitigated - such as upright edges to counters where the product is displayed or by recessing the counters themselves. If, though, there were enough grapes and/or mush lying around to make a decent bottle of red wine, it’s probably a different matter.

Facebook sues Faceporn

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

Trash Deluge hits Exeter: Blame the Students

I know Exeter isn’t the only place in the UK having, shall we say, a bit of a tough time of it lately in respect of their rubbish collections, but what the heck.

Paraphrasing the story I stumbled across on This Is Exeter, it seems the December snowfall, Christmas bank holidays and the council’s ever-increasing fears about being sued as a result of accidents caused by an out-of-control dustcart, have culminated in a perfect storm of trash - which is obliterating the city. I believe Exeter is now well on the way to be being buried under sackfuls of the stuff.

Being ever mindful of litigation myself, perhaps there’s a business opportunity here for personal injury firms to solicit pedestrians who have suffered the misfortune of tripping and falling over the bags of trash on the streets.  Should PI lawyers now start following dustcarts rather than ambulances, to look for business?

Anyhow, the article itself was pretty ho-hum but it was the comments further down which really caught my eye.

From This is Exeter 31/12/10:

Areas of St James and Mount Pleasant were among the worst hit when the council was forced to withdraw collections because of the weather.

But the authority has been sharply criticised for not starting up collections as soon as the thaw began, and failing to let people know about when rubbish would be picked up.

Caroline Lee, of St James, said student areas were the most affected.

“I am afraid to let my children walk around some streets here because it is so disgusting,” she said. “The students put out their rubbish before leaving for Christmas and the collection was cancelled so it has been there for nearly a month.”

Ah, those damn students. Let’s see what some of the comments had to say. In particular, a one R. James said:

This is nothing to do with the weather, ECC or the guys in the trucks..its [sic] about an unintelligent, inconsiderate and unwelcome underclass living in a city they care nothing about, and in which they have created a filthy noisy ghetto...UNIVERSITY STUDENTS

Ouch! Isn’t that a bit harsh? What would R. James rather students do - let it pile up inside their halls and homes festering?  In fact, I’m surprised R. James thought students would have the time to put rubbish out; surely they would be too busy having sex and doing drugs or urinating on war memorials for that?

Thankfully, an anonymous commenter leapt to the students’ defence:

...Why are the students being blamed, most left well before the snow came, so are not ... in Exeter. This is the residents trashing their own neighbourhood, shame on them! Oh it's refuse, not refuge...

Oh deary me – there was quite a lot of bitching back and forth on the grammatical boob of confusing refuse with refuge.

In particular, a reader (Sue) who is “related to a refuse collector which is employed by ECC” (fancy that) took umbrage. Sue wanted to “correct some of the idiotic points on the comments board” and, to be honest, good on her for trying.

I loved her swipe at a fellow commenter, David, who held some rather forthright and none-too-complimentary views on Exeter City Council:

...Now to Dear David, 31-Dec-2010, 13:17. Well then sweetie, a refuge is a place of safety, I do believe my sweet you check you dictionary as I think you meant ‘refuse’ which means rubbish and so on.

Oooh. Meowwwww!

There were a lot of strained exchanges about the merits of snow chains, snow tyres and the turning circle of 26 ton trash lorries, as well as whether councils made use of smaller vehicles to collect rubbish. Plus there was the guy who firmly believed the city council was in contravention of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 for encouraging residents to put their trash out for collection and then failing to collect it. It all made very entertaining reading!!

Just as an aside, I was rather tickled during my stay in Philadelphia when I realised they enjoy a twice weekly trash collection! (Ooh, I wonder how THAT would go down with the residents of Exeter at the moment!!) 

And I was thinking: couldn’t Santa have done everyone a favour and collected up the trash lying about outside people’s homes when he passed over the UK on the 24^th December? He must have had plenty of room in his sleigh having delivered all those presents, after all.