Barking up the wrong tree

 

From the Solicitors Journal 02/08/11:

Families ‘unlikely to appeal’ after National Trust ruling.

Edward Powell, head of personal injury at Essex firm Ellisons, has said it is “unlikely there will be an appeal” after the High Court ruled that the National Trust was not negligent after a boy died from a falling branch on one of its estates.

Daniel Mullinger was on a primary school trip when the class sheltered under an old beech tree in heavy rain at Felbrigg Hall, Norfolk. A heavy branch collapsed onto the group, killing Daniel and seriously injuring three other children.

The accident occurred in the Great Wood, home to almost 250,000 mature trees and a Site of Special Scientific Interest because of them.

Delivering judgment in Bowen and others v The National Trust [2011] EWHC 1992 (QB), Mr Justice Mackay said the group was sheltering briefly under a large beech tree, probably between 160 and 180 years old, when “entirely without warning” a large branch fractured and fell on them.

Mackay J said the Trust owed the children a duty under the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957 and under the general law of tort.

He said there was no obligation to ensure the safety of visitors, merely to “take reasonable care to provide reasonable safety”.

Mackay J went on: “It is easy to state the law in this area, but less easy to apply it, particularly in a case with such a tragic outcome as this.

“The thrust of the case against the defendant is that its tree inspectors, for whom it is vicariously liable, failed to exercise reasonable care in their task.”

As truly tragic as this case is, common sense has prevailed.  Sheer bad luck rather than any wrongdoing seems to have been the driving force behind this terrible outcome.

On a related note, I’ve got a rather large tree outside my house which I’m sure will soon be shedding God know how many tens of thousands of leaves all around. Maybe I should treat myself to a leaf blower before they turn into a soggy, slippery mulch and one of my charming neighbours decides to sue me … (they seem the litigious sort).

Path’s become ‘too dangerous for wheelchair’

^{Photo courtesy of James McCauley}

Not my headline; it’s the witty, attention-grabbing header chosen by the South Gloucestershire Observer dated 07/07/11.  Oh yes!

A woman was injured after falling from a footpath the city council has failed to make safe, despite pledges it would do so.

She was rescued from a stream after slipping from the path between Water Lane [appropriately named?!], Tesco supermarket and Calington Road, Brislington.

It is not clear how she ended up in the water but four Avon fire and rescue appliances and Great Western Ambulance Service were needed to get her out of the water and onto a spinal board.

“It’s not clear how the woman ended up in the water?” How about – she slipped?

More to the point, why on earth did it take 4 fire engines and crews to get her out of a stream? Talk about adding insult to injury. Was it not enough that the poor woman suffered the ignominy of going a over t into a stream without the local rag implying she’s the size of a fully grown rhino!

A fire service spokeswoman said the woman had fallen 2m into the water.

Good to see the roving reporter actually did some kind of research then.  Strange that the fact the woman ended up in the water remained a mystery to them then!

Phil Collins, [traa la la] who lives with his disabled, 82-year old mum Margaret on nearby Homemead Drive, said the path was far too treacherous to take her along in her wheelchair.

… The woman who fell in the stream was taken to hospital with back injuries but it is not believed that she was seriously hurt.

Huh!  And what about her pride after this brarmer went to press?

If you've suffered a slip, trip or fall, you may wish to consult a firm of no win no fee solicitors.

Wimbledon concern over slips & trips – just a load of balls?

From the Telegraph 21/06/11:

Thousands of tennis fans were denied the chance to watch Andy Murray's opening match at Wimbledon last night as the outdoor screen was turned off for the first time in the tournament's history because of the weather.

Wimbledon spokesman Johnny Perkins said: "The hill has been closed because of the slippery nature of the grass while it is so wet.

"It is a health and safety issue. We just can’t have people slipping and sliding and falling off the thing and breaking their ankles.

We potentially could have large numbers of people slipping and sliding all over the place."

Still, that doesn’t seem to concern local authorities when they don’t bother gritting the pavements in winter.

The announcement, made on a tannoy system as Murray warmed up, was met with groans and boos by the crowds who had gathered on the hill, a favoured viewing spot for those who do not manage to get tickets for the main courts at SW19.

Um – excuse me: you can’t make groaning or grunting noises at Wimbledon!!! It’s just not cricket tennis, ahem, allowed - apparently. Personally, I think there’s nothing better than a good old grunt, shriek and moan whilst on court. And if you’re hitting a tennis ball at the time, so much the better.

Anyway, can’t Henman Hill / Murray Mount be astroturfed?  Or what about insisting fans move around on wet grass on all fours or imitating a seal moving up a beach?  Or why not have Wimbledon organisers dish out studded boots?

No?  

[As for … British hopeful Katie O'Brien] … [h]er day was would only get worse after writing on her Twitter page: "I've just been sat in the rain on Henman Hill with friends and family drowning my sorrows with a Pimms!!!"

Great – so instead of getting wet feet on the grass, inconsolable tennis fans turn to the bottle and give their livers a pounding.  Still, isn’t that what Wimbledon is all about for us Brits – downfalls and alcohol?

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.