Drowning whose responsible

[kliever]

`This weekend (the one after a terrible squall had claimed a fishermans life) an eight year old child lost his life whilst swimming/playing in the sea at hartlepool (seaton carew), it is said that hartlepool is the only seaside resort in the N.E. of England without lifeguard cover. Lifeguards were cut by the elected representitives because the annual cost of £10000 was thougt to be excessive. My question is should the person/persons responsible for the cost cutting be made responsible for this action. ie ("Herald of Free Enterprise" Corporate manslaughter). I would appreciate an early reply from legal minded members of this forum as my next move is to communicate with the local mayor on the action that should be taken.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Bergman]

I was at Hartlepool during the "squall"

36mm of rain fell in 20 minutes, winds were between 50 and 60 knots.

Fortunately SWMBO insisted on go for some shopping before going sailing and we were loading the car when it struck.

Point is there was no warning, we went into Tesco in bright sunshine and came out in virtual darkness.

I don't see how you can hold anyone liable for that.

The man who saddly died was in a fishing coble, several other fishing boats had a rough time but survived, one yacht was towed in by a fishing boat and that yacht was skippered by a former trawler skipper of enormous experience. Clearly not a case of amateurs getting themsleves into trouble.

I left on Saturday before the tragic loss of a child. There had been a considerable swell running for 3 or 4 days before the Saturday when an Easterly/North Easterly wind got up. The sea state was forecast as moderate and from the look of it around lunchtime with white horses far out to sea that was a conservative forecast.

One really must question the wisdom of allowing children to play in the sea in those conditions.

I cannot see that there is a duty to save people from the consequences of their own actions. If your boat is lost at sea will you try to sue the RNLI? - No.

The board and management of Railtrack had a duty to provide a safe permanent way on which trains could travel. The allegation as I understand it, is that through negligence they failed to discharge this duty, and it is this failure that is the basis of the action against them. There was no corporate prosecution following the Herald disaster.

I cannot accept that a local authority has a duty to provide a safe sea where it laps or crashes against their bit of shore.

By all means write to the Mayor, I believe he used to be a monkey at the football ground, but I suspect little will be achieved.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Deep_6]

What of the parents - do they have any responsibility for a minor.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[stamfordian]

This may sound harsh but surly it.s not the coucil to blame ,although i can see your point,if there,s a warning on the beach that it,s not patrolled,part of the blame(if any to be proportioned which i don, think you can)is with the person,s who,s care the lad was in; at eight he should be supervised,having said this we all know how difficult it is to predict these things and by the sound of the squarl nobody could have been prepared.
Might make the coucil recon sider there decision though and i don,t think you letter will be the only one.

<hr width=100% size=1><A target="_blank" HREF=http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/stamfordian>http://www.arweb.co.uk/argallery/stamfordian</A>

 

[dick_james]

Have you ever heard of the word "accident"? There are occasions where no one is to blame. The only people you could say were responsible are the parents/guardians of the child. It was their decision to allow the child to swim and presumably they were looking after him at the time. However in this blame culture everyone looks to someone to sue to get some dosh.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

I believe that unless there is a legislated requirement for them to provide an effective lifeguard service then they are no different to anyone else. Take, for example, a doctor who is the only one for miles around. If he decides to withdraw his services one can hardly blame him for any deaths or illness complications that may be a result of his decision. If the community electing the representatives feel strongly enough about it they will elect another crowd next time, but comparisons with manslaughter charges being made elsewhere are entirely inappropriate.

In some countries the lifeguard service is run by voluntary organisations - perhaps you could put your energy into starting a local voluntary one rather than into what could appear to be trying to find scapegoats.

John



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[ArthurWood]

Are you American? ie from the land where it's always someone else's fault /forums/images/icons/smile.gif


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[kliever]

Not american, hartlepudlian by virtue of 55+ years of residence, I dont do fault only responsibility. I believe the lifeguards were volounteers the £10000 was presumeably for running costs. At first I thought of parential responsibility but on monday a bbc camera in my face and grandson on my knee the only word I could utter was sad.
I believe the local authority actively promote the said beach, there are no warnings.
I sailed out of hartlepool for many years before relocating to a place with more sunshine, shall be returning to the boat soon but back in h/pool for christmas.

John R

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[richardandtracy]

If anyone is to blame it is the parents who are to blame, not the council. The parents have not discharged their duty of care to someone for whom they are legally responsible. I know that's how I would feel if it happened to one of my daughters - it is my duty, responsibility (no-one else's) and pleasure to ensure that they remain safe and sound.

Having said that, there really are things called 'accidents' where unforeseen/ unforeseeable events really do have unpleasant consequences. In this situation I would say it was a desperate accident and no-one was to blame.

It is unfortunate that the council decided on removal of the lifeguard, but I can't object to any move that returns responsibility back to the people who take the actions. How do you know that the presence of a lifeguard would have saved the boy's life? It is possible, but not certain. The lack of a lifeguard should actually have had no effect on the parent's vigilance - the presence of a guard does not make them less responsible by one iota.

Regards

Richard.


<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Gordonmc]

If there had been a lifeguard on duty, would you hold him responsible for the death of the little boy? Would he/she or the organising body be liable for damages?

No beach in the UK has 24/7 lifeguard cover. Would you hold the lifeguards responsible for a death if it occured when the service was stood down for the night? If not I can't see how the local authority would be responsible in either that circumstance or if there was no service at all.

It seems from the descriptions of the conditions on the post that the lifeguards would have been unable to do much anyway. This is a sad case and thoughts must be with the parents who will not, or should not, need to be reminded of their responsibilities.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[AndrewB]

Whatever the argument about \'responsibility\' ...

... there may be a case here. Some people may not like it, but that is the way things are done.

For some reason this reminds me of the Lyme Regis case of 15 years ago, concerning duties of care of local councils in resorts. The following quote is from Hansard:

5 Mar 1997 : Column 914

Civil Actions (Limit on Proceedings)

4.5 pm

Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to contain civil actions for compensation.

It used to be said that Englishmen, and indeed women, had stiff upper lips and a calm approach to life's vicissitudes. Misfortune was met with a stoic resolve, and with comments such as "chin up". That has changed, perhaps for the better in some ways. Sadly, British society has become a great deal more litigious in respect of any misfortune, and we seem, in the words of the Lord Chancellor, to be living with a "compensation culture". No longer does the concept of an act of God, an accident or bad luck feature in most people's calculations. Someone else must be to blame for misfortune, and that someone should pay compensation. We seem to be following the United States of America. I think that the House will agree that that is not a healthy development in our society.

I recall the case of a man who slipped on the Cobb in Lyme Regis in 1988. One would suppose that anyone walking beside the sea would have a duty of care, and would realise that sea water makes the stones slippery. Nevertheless, the incident was thought worthy of a court case, and he was initially awarded £95,000 compensation, because the council had not put up a sign saying that wet stones are slippery.

(To the best of my knowledge this bill did not become law).



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Trevethan]

Nanny state again?

Britain, well England has always been litigous... a hangover of the anglosaxon laws of weregeld -- damages for killing maiming, etc -- indeed in Tudor England sueing your neighbours was major entertainment.

My problem with Kliever's post is that it encourages the nanny state even more...

I am only 34, but grew up in the westcountry, swimming and sailing... I never saw a lifeguard ever, and used to play in the breakers off the North Devon and Cornish coasts. You learn a great deal of respect for the water after the first time a dirty great wave breaks on your head and you get rolled on the bottom.

Maybe I was lucky and didn't drown and was able to learn from my mistakes -- but I am sure I would not have the confidence I have in the water had it not been those hairy moments.

Of copurse this doesn't mitigate the loss the child's parents must feel, but I wonder how much comfort they'd get from somebody saying if they still had lifeguards the child might be alright....

Right now I am sure the parents are blaming themselves... and to be brutally honest I suspect that is where the majority of the blame will lie.. not on the mayor or the lack of lifeguards...

Parents have the ultimate duty of care to their children, and they should not expect the government/society in general to take on that burden.



<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[oldgit]

Those "elected representatives' had no doubt got the whingeing of the "we pay to much tax/rates already clique" ringing in their ears.

<hr width=100% size=1>Two boats please one here n one in the Med

 

[Deep_6]

At what stage would Oldgit decide he was paying too much tax and join the 'clique'

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Whatever the argument about \'responsibility\' ...

Andrew, might a difference with the Cobb slipping over case be that (as I understand it to be from afar) the Cobb is a man built structure over which someone therefore holds management responsibility?

Whatever, when people can successfully sue, for example, finding that their coffee can burn them when they spill it in a McDonalds, one has to wonder at what little self responsibilty some people must hold.

John

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Jacket]

Re: Whatever the argument about \'responsibility\' ...

Can we sue IPC media for not warning us that YBW forums are addictive?

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[MainlySteam]

Re: Whatever the argument about \'responsibility\' ...

Now there is a good idea. And their magazines addictive too - my kids are starving because I buy too many of them.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[Peppermint]

Re: Providing a lifeguard

may well increase the authorities liability rather than reducing it.

<hr width=100% size=1>

 

[johnt]

As someone who doesnt hail from this part of the world, county Durham.....and cant wait for the time I can move away again! I must say that this whole topic arose from what I see as typical North East thinking and culture..the whole place is superficial and has a " Whats in it for me?" attitude

it has a lovely coast line ..and the nastiest harbours and marinas I have ever found with just ONE exception...and where else can you find a chandlers where you have to ring a bell before you can get in to buy something ? and the attitude is ...take it or leave it!.......I REALLY can't wait for the time I can LEAVE IT

<hr width=100% size=1>