l'escargot
Well-Known Member
I think he should sue you - you knew it was always slippery but you took no steps to warn him or the marina of the hazard, that was negligent of you /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
Friend breaks his leg in Marina, Legals
- Thread starter savageseadog
- Start date
snowleopard
Well-Known Member
[ QUOTE ]
naah - you can't avoid responsiblity of not doing something properly by not doing it at all. The thought process of that argument implies that a the risk is known.
...
[/ QUOTE ]
makes me think of the guy who was prosecuted by the police for not having headlights on in poor visibility. Their argument, which was accepted by the court, was that as he had his sidelights on he had admitted that visibility was poor so he was guilty. If he'd had no lights at all it would have been a matter of judgement and very hard to prove.
Remember that in the US, doctors regularly drive past accidents as they can be sued for trying to help but not for leaving the victims to bleed to death.
naah - you can't avoid responsiblity of not doing something properly by not doing it at all. The thought process of that argument implies that a the risk is known.
...
[/ QUOTE ]
makes me think of the guy who was prosecuted by the police for not having headlights on in poor visibility. Their argument, which was accepted by the court, was that as he had his sidelights on he had admitted that visibility was poor so he was guilty. If he'd had no lights at all it would have been a matter of judgement and very hard to prove.
Remember that in the US, doctors regularly drive past accidents as they can be sued for trying to help but not for leaving the victims to bleed to death.
misterg
Well-Known Member
Two parts to this reply...
Part 1 - For him to have a case, he needs to prove negligence as previously stated - this requires 3 things to be true: That the body he is claiming against owed him a duty of care, that there was a breach of this duty, and that the harm resulted from that breach. I'm not a lawyer, but from industrial experience of being on the wrong end of this sort of thing, I think your friend stands a bloody good chance of proving negligence:
Pontoon will either be public access, or part of a paid for service - IMO the owner will have a duty of care to users. Pontoon slippery? If the owner was aware of this (especially if someone has reported it previously), it is, IMO, a breach of duty - others use mesh to avoid problem, so owner not doing all he could. It seems fair to argue that the harm obviously resulted from slippery pontoon. --> negligence
Alternatively, the skipper will probably owe a duty of care to his crew. Did he know the pontoon was slippery? did he warn your friend? If not, there's a possible breach of the duty.
Part 2 - Even if your friend doesn't sue, his employer or insurance company may. Many employers (mine included) assert the right to recover their costs due to employees' injuries where a 3rd party can be held liable. If your friend claims against any earnings or payment protection insurance he holds, then it is possible / likely that the insurance company will attempt to recover their costs.
I am not a lawyer, and am probably talking complete b0110cks. (I would welcome comments on the above from real lawyers, however!). I find the whole situation deplorable, and believe it is only a matter of time before we sink to the US level of litigation, because the courts are unwilling to exercise reasonable common sense. (oops, bit of a rant there, sorry!). As a further comment, we (the UK) are required to enact legislation in line with EU directives where the "letter of the law" must be enforced. Other EU countries work to the "spirit / intent of the law" (more rant!)
Andy /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
Part 1 - For him to have a case, he needs to prove negligence as previously stated - this requires 3 things to be true: That the body he is claiming against owed him a duty of care, that there was a breach of this duty, and that the harm resulted from that breach. I'm not a lawyer, but from industrial experience of being on the wrong end of this sort of thing, I think your friend stands a bloody good chance of proving negligence:
Pontoon will either be public access, or part of a paid for service - IMO the owner will have a duty of care to users. Pontoon slippery? If the owner was aware of this (especially if someone has reported it previously), it is, IMO, a breach of duty - others use mesh to avoid problem, so owner not doing all he could. It seems fair to argue that the harm obviously resulted from slippery pontoon. --> negligence
Alternatively, the skipper will probably owe a duty of care to his crew. Did he know the pontoon was slippery? did he warn your friend? If not, there's a possible breach of the duty.
Part 2 - Even if your friend doesn't sue, his employer or insurance company may. Many employers (mine included) assert the right to recover their costs due to employees' injuries where a 3rd party can be held liable. If your friend claims against any earnings or payment protection insurance he holds, then it is possible / likely that the insurance company will attempt to recover their costs.
I am not a lawyer, and am probably talking complete b0110cks. (I would welcome comments on the above from real lawyers, however!). I find the whole situation deplorable, and believe it is only a matter of time before we sink to the US level of litigation, because the courts are unwilling to exercise reasonable common sense. (oops, bit of a rant there, sorry!). As a further comment, we (the UK) are required to enact legislation in line with EU directives where the "letter of the law" must be enforced. Other EU countries work to the "spirit / intent of the law" (more rant!)
Andy /forums/images/graemlins/mad.gif
ShipsWoofy
Well-Known Member
But it is a wooden pontoon floating and likely to get wet often.
Are we awarding the guy money for breaking his leg or being a moron!
When our insurance goes up yet again next year I will thank your moronic friend for doing what he is best at, being a moron and blaming the rest of the civilised world for it.
If it isn't clear from the above, I am not a fan of this litigious society that has been created by the crew of the B ship. Or the freeloaders who see a quick effortless penny to be made, at least if he sues it might help pay his insurance premiums.
Are we awarding the guy money for breaking his leg or being a moron!
When our insurance goes up yet again next year I will thank your moronic friend for doing what he is best at, being a moron and blaming the rest of the civilised world for it.
If it isn't clear from the above, I am not a fan of this litigious society that has been created by the crew of the B ship. Or the freeloaders who see a quick effortless penny to be made, at least if he sues it might help pay his insurance premiums.
2Tizwoz
Well-Known Member
Our club has concrete pontoons with a rough finish to aid grip. They do become slippery with ice, guano and seafood remains (seabirds are just as messy as town centre humans).
Timber is subject to all the above and slime which makes them potentially dangerous.
Other than litigation what would persuade a marina to take more care with clients safety ?
Timber is subject to all the above and slime which makes them potentially dangerous.
Other than litigation what would persuade a marina to take more care with clients safety ?
aitchw
Well-Known Member
What do you want them to do? Quick fixes like chicken wire stretced over the timber are very short term and once a wire strand is broken is a worse problem from a litigation point of view as it is sharp and very damaging. Falling on a surface like that is going to be very abrasive and painful.
I just think we are going too far in expecting every environment we are active in to be risk free. It cannot be and I for one hate the notion of living in a world where everyone is coccooned against every possible risk.
If you can think of a practical way of improving the wooden pontoons, fine, make the suggestion. Otherwise use your common sense and take responsibility for your own actions.
I just think we are going too far in expecting every environment we are active in to be risk free. It cannot be and I for one hate the notion of living in a world where everyone is coccooned against every possible risk.
If you can think of a practical way of improving the wooden pontoons, fine, make the suggestion. Otherwise use your common sense and take responsibility for your own actions.
2Tizwoz
Well-Known Member
Nothing is 'risk free' but savageseadog's friend may not have had a nice day when he broke his leg.
In order that others don't suffer the same perhaps the marina would treat the particular pontoon with a non-slip surface. Deck paint would probably not last long in the particular situation which sounds like a high traffic area, but grit in bitumen such as the anti-skid patches used on the more slippery areas of the roads would help.
The marina operator will be required to maximise their profits. Litigation is available in order to bring the care of users of the facility into that equation. That it is widely abused by some people is a seperate problem. It is said 75% of the cost of an American ladder is insurance.
In order that others don't suffer the same perhaps the marina would treat the particular pontoon with a non-slip surface. Deck paint would probably not last long in the particular situation which sounds like a high traffic area, but grit in bitumen such as the anti-skid patches used on the more slippery areas of the roads would help.
The marina operator will be required to maximise their profits. Litigation is available in order to bring the care of users of the facility into that equation. That it is widely abused by some people is a seperate problem. It is said 75% of the cost of an American ladder is insurance.
misterg
Well-Known Member
Firstly (in case the red mist descends before you get to the end of this post...
) I agree with you and your sentiments!
[ QUOTE ]
But it is a wooden pontoon floating and likely to get wet often.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, but it is uncertain whether a court would regard it as acceptable for it to be slippery, particularly if there are practical measures that are used to prevent other pontoons in similar circumstances becoming slippery. It may never get to court, the mere prospect of the decision being uncertain may be enough to prompt insurers to offer settlement to avert a court case.
[ QUOTE ]
Are we awarding the guy money for breaking his leg or being a moron!
[/ QUOTE ]
We may not be awarding the guy *anything*. We may award his *employer* the costs of his sick pay, and / or hiring a replacement; we may award his insurers the cost of paying his (insured) mortgage payments, before talking about "pain and suffering" that the guy has suffered due to "the wealthy marina operator milking profits and skimping on simple maintenance to avoid their pontoons becoming dangerously slippery, m'lud" / "Luxury yacht owner failing to ensure his skipper supervised the crew correctly"
[ QUOTE ]
When our insurance goes up yet again next year I will thank your moronic friend for doing what he is best at, being a moron and blaming the rest of the civilised world for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
It can be that simple, but there are more powerful, insiduous forces at work. Any commercial enterprise that loses out because someone has an accident is driven commercially to recover those costs from someone else wherever and whenever possible. Not to do so is to give money away. How many accountants would agree to that? Trades' Unions are promoting civil law as a way of 'encouraging' employers to discharge their duties correctly. Confidence in the legal system's ability to reach common sense decisions is low, so insurers settle, even if they are legally in the right, because this is cheaper than going to court to defend their client with an uncertain outcome.
[ QUOTE ]
If it isn't clear from the above, I am not a fan of this litigious society that has been created by the crew of the B ship. Or the freeloaders who see a quick effortless penny to be made,
[/ QUOTE ]
Nor me, but I think it is bound to get worse, and I think we'll get more of the sort of announcements we got on "burglar bashing" before someone gets to the root of the problem (spirit of law vs letter of law, IMHO)
The whole thing is an ever tightening spiral of what may "reasonably" be expected.
Andy /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
) I agree with you and your sentiments![ QUOTE ]
But it is a wooden pontoon floating and likely to get wet often.
[/ QUOTE ]
Agreed, but it is uncertain whether a court would regard it as acceptable for it to be slippery, particularly if there are practical measures that are used to prevent other pontoons in similar circumstances becoming slippery. It may never get to court, the mere prospect of the decision being uncertain may be enough to prompt insurers to offer settlement to avert a court case.
[ QUOTE ]
Are we awarding the guy money for breaking his leg or being a moron!
[/ QUOTE ]
We may not be awarding the guy *anything*. We may award his *employer* the costs of his sick pay, and / or hiring a replacement; we may award his insurers the cost of paying his (insured) mortgage payments, before talking about "pain and suffering" that the guy has suffered due to "the wealthy marina operator milking profits and skimping on simple maintenance to avoid their pontoons becoming dangerously slippery, m'lud" / "Luxury yacht owner failing to ensure his skipper supervised the crew correctly"
[ QUOTE ]
When our insurance goes up yet again next year I will thank your moronic friend for doing what he is best at, being a moron and blaming the rest of the civilised world for it.
[/ QUOTE ]
It can be that simple, but there are more powerful, insiduous forces at work. Any commercial enterprise that loses out because someone has an accident is driven commercially to recover those costs from someone else wherever and whenever possible. Not to do so is to give money away. How many accountants would agree to that? Trades' Unions are promoting civil law as a way of 'encouraging' employers to discharge their duties correctly. Confidence in the legal system's ability to reach common sense decisions is low, so insurers settle, even if they are legally in the right, because this is cheaper than going to court to defend their client with an uncertain outcome.
[ QUOTE ]
If it isn't clear from the above, I am not a fan of this litigious society that has been created by the crew of the B ship. Or the freeloaders who see a quick effortless penny to be made,
[/ QUOTE ]
Nor me, but I think it is bound to get worse, and I think we'll get more of the sort of announcements we got on "burglar bashing" before someone gets to the root of the problem (spirit of law vs letter of law, IMHO)
The whole thing is an ever tightening spiral of what may "reasonably" be expected.
Andy /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif
Peppermint
Well-Known Member
Re: Nearly always.
Their is no vested interest in things being any different. After all where's the profit in not looking for blame?
Thats the reality and it's reflected in your insurance premiums. Smaller portions of your premium now cover damage or loss. Increasing amounts are to cover third party claims for injury and legal costs.
Their is no vested interest in things being any different. After all where's the profit in not looking for blame?
Thats the reality and it's reflected in your insurance premiums. Smaller portions of your premium now cover damage or loss. Increasing amounts are to cover third party claims for injury and legal costs.
Lakesailor
Well-Known Member
Re: Nearly always.
In the same way as there is no financial incentive to ban smoking or deal with with the binge drinking society or a thousand other things that "real" politicians would wish to deal with.
Too much commercial pressure from the great and the good.
In the same way as there is no financial incentive to ban smoking or deal with with the binge drinking society or a thousand other things that "real" politicians would wish to deal with.
Too much commercial pressure from the great and the good.
Peppermint
Well-Known Member
Re: True NM
Nm
Nm
Will_M
Well-Known Member
Go after the manufactory of your friends foot-wear clearly the souls of your friends shoes/boots were not non-slip proof enough!!!! /forums/images/graemlins/tongue.gif
Unfortunate accident really, isn’t it.
Unfortunate accident really, isn’t it.