UK Police need kerbing.

[Gob]

I get the impression, though stand to be proved wrong, thet Sue treats these situations as a bit of mental exercise. A bit like a baker making bread at home for the fun of it.

[Lord Jim]

Well I get the impression she's quite serious and sincere about this, and also probably thinks we're all a bit ignorant for not being able to see the obvious public good of cops suing crime victims who call into the emergency line....

[Crackpot]

Many many times never thought it was anyone else's fault tho even when they weren't painted.

Perhaps you would have felt differently if you were injured enough to need medical attention and lost work, and if your fall could have been easily avoided had the property owner taken the most minimal of precautions that are well established standards.

I would have felt even sillier. While the worst I received from tripping was a twisted ankle And road rash in my palm bad enough to scar I have been in the position where I could have easily sued some deep pockets but felt that the injury was really my fault my only regret I didn't demand they replace the malfunctioning equipment (it really was a hazzard) and that I didn't tell the instructor to go fuck himself upon hearing he was using a rather unflattering description of events as a cautionary tale.

[rubato]

Police in the US used to use "Streamlight" flashlights with rechargeable batteries. This was a popular model:

http://images2.opticsplanet.com/365-240 ... 202000.jpg

They may have switched to LEDs more recently.


So police in the UK don't have 'ground sensing' vision with special "flashlight power" at night? And police are not taught to be careful walking in the dark?


yrs,
rubato

[Scooter]

Well I get the impression she's quite serious and sincere about this, and also probably thinks we're all a bit ignorant for not being able to see the obvious public good of cops suing crime victims who call into the emergency line....

Perhaps she doesn't see, when all of the elements of a negligence case have been met or can be successfully argued, why everyone is piling on the victim as if she is some kind of psychotic bitch.

This nonsense about victims being reticent to call police for fear of being sued is a complete red herring. If people are really that concerned about being sued over hidden hazards on their property that cause injury, then their fear isn't limited to police, ANY person they invite on their property is a potential lawsuit. This is a gas station, for cripes sake, there's no potential for a customer to trip and fall and sue them? So what's the guy going to do, shut down his business because a customer might sue him?

Police don't have special powers that allow them to sue in cases where others do not have the right. So they should not be subject to restrictions on when they can sue that do not apply to anyone else.

[Lord Jim]

I would have felt even sillier.

That's one of the things that struck me immediately about this CP...

Why doesn't this police officer have a sense of embarrassment over this? Why would she want to draw all this public attention and scorn and ridicule to what was essentially a screw up on her part for failing to exercise even a minimal level of caution?

It can't be easy 'round the station house...

I see the union is backing her, (though from the comment of the police union spokesperson even they don't seem too thrilled about it) but I'm sure most of her fellow officers see this as a bad joke and completely inappropriate behavior, (like the chief constable who was quoted) as most folks applying basic commonsense do...

If you're the kind of person who thinks that as a member of law enforcement, you should feel perfectly entitled to sue someone in a situation like this, you're really in wrong line of work....(maybe you should go to law school)

They ought to put a question about this on the pre-screening test for future applicants, and if the person answers yes, bounce them automatically....

[Scooter]

So in what other circumstance should police be prohibited from suing? If a cop is directing traffic and is run down by a car, should he/she be precluded from suing the driver? If an officer is working at a public demonstration and someone accidently swings a placard into his/her face and knocks out his/her teeth, should he/she be prevented from suing? If he/she is walking a beat and a steel beam that falls from a building under construction crushes his/her legs such that they need to be amputated, should he/she be prevented from suing?

I'm just trying to get a sense of what degree of negligence and what level of injury would pass your litmus test for when a cop no longer has to surrender his/her fundamental right to seek redress in the courts for damages he/she has suffered.

[Lord Jim]

why everyone is piling on the victim

See, there's the first major difference right there...

I don't think most of us in this discussion see the officer as any sort of "victim"...(I know I don't...it's not a word that I see as even remotely applying to her in this case...)

To me the clear "victim" here is Mr. Jones, who's being victimized by an unwarranted and frankly outrageous lawsuit for having made the mistake of dialing for emergency when his place of business was being broken into.

I see PC Jones as a police officer doing her job, answering an emergency call from a member of the public, (a job that by it's very nature is high risk and regularly requires her to enter into unfamiliar surroundings) who in the process of carrying out her responsibilities failed to exercise minimal caution or prudence and as a result, when encountering a perfectly mundane everyday thing like a four inch curb, wound up flat on her face.

(Maybe it's not entirely her fault; maybe she was trained inadequately; perhaps it's the police department she should be suing... however the nature of her error here...failure to watch where she was going in the dark... is such a basic commonsense life skill that it's hard to blame her police training for her screw up.)

And now she has a complete support system to cover her medical bills and pay her salary while she recovers from the injury she suffered as a result of her own negligence, but rather than be happy with that, and rather sheepishly hope people will forget about her boneheaded mistake, for some reason, (greed, belligerence, who knows?) she has decided to take the absurd course of actually suing the real victim, (the one' who's property was being broken into) because the poor shlep had the bad luck to draw PC Jones when he called the emergency line...

You, know something else funny I've noticed...

It seems to me that most of the lawyers here, most of time, have very little good to ever say about the police...

Except apparently, when they're suing someone....

[Lord Jim]

If a cop is directing traffic and is run down by a car, should he/she be precluded from suing the driver?

In that case, first there are obviously serious criminal charges involved, but personally I wouldn't have a huge problem with a police officer pursuing damages in a case like that...(I believe laws and procedures for something like that may vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction...This is kind of like the question "should a police officer be able to sue a store robber for injuries if they shoot them"...I suspect most police departments have specific policies to cover those kinds of officer related injuries, as opposed to injuries caused simply by officer negligence, like in this case.)

However, should an on duty officer walk into a parked car, and as a result trips and falls, (which would be a much better analogy to the current case) I think it would be preposterous for the officer to sue the car owner...(especially if it happened to be owned by a crime victim who was receiving police help for an emergency call... which makes it an even better analogy)

None of the other examples you cite involve negligence or failure to use commonsense or due caution on the officer's part, as happened in this case, so I don't really see them as analogous.

[Scooter]

You, know something else funny I've noticed...

It seems to me that most of the lawyers here, most of time, have very little good to ever say about the police...

Except apparently, when they're suing someone....

I have never been a lawyer, so sorry to burst your illusion that only an "ambulance chaser" would choose to analyze the case on, you know, the elements rather than drink the koolaid of the tort reform crowd, of which you no doubt get an endless supply.

[Lord Jim]

choose to analyze the case on, you know, the elements

That's precisely what I've done; .(and it appears to me that most of the other participants in thread have done so as well.) that describes my approach to a tee...I have analyzed and assessed all of the relevant elements in this case in great detail, and have done so applying commonsense standards.

What I have refused to do is buy into categorizing someone as a "victim" when the known facts in no way shape or form support such a description.

[Lord Jim]

I have never been a lawyer

That's funny, I have thought you were a lawyer for as long as I can remember; not sure how I initially got that impression...

[Scooter]

My partner was a lawyer, I may have mentioned that at some point.

[rubato]

I think someone who is challenged beyond her ability by walking around a nice paved area at night with nothing more difficult than a curb cannot handle the rigors of police work and should seek employment tearing tickets in a brightly lit movie foyer.

If there was some unusually dangerous situation like an open hole in the pavement she might have a point.

yrs,
rubato

[oldr_n_wsr]

Curbs

Curbs should generally be about 5-6 inches in height, which is comfortable for most people. Curbs less than 4 inches in height or greater than 8 inches should be reworked. A curb height that is too low is often tripped over and not seen. Curb heights 8 inches or more sometimes cause falls. Excessive curb heights can be reduced by building up the material on the low end, or installing a ramp.

Attention should be given toward the contrast of the curb with the surrounding surface, particularly at night. While a white curb against freshly surfaced black asphalt provides good color contrast, a white curb against well faded light grey asphalt may not. Where the contrast between the curb and adjacent surface is not striking, the curb should be highlighted with a bright contrasting color such as yellow to bring awareness to the change in elevation. If paint is used, it should be supplemented with slip resistant grit material to improve the coefficient of friction of the paint surface and reduce the potential for slips and falls.

-CMR Risk & Insurance Services, Preventing Falls Around Curbs and Ramps http://cmrris.com/news-real-estate-deta ... login.html

Problem: Unpainted curbs or curb ramps along high-traffic sidewalks and other high traffic areas may be difficult to see, creating a trip hazard.

Solution: Paint curbs and curb ramps with nonslip yellow paint. In addition, consider reworking curb areas by installing a curb ramp with flared sides and contrasting color.

-EMC Insurance Companies, Slip, Trip and Fall Prevention Guide http://www.emcins.com/Docs/OFILib/AA050 ... 111216.PDF

Bumpers and curbs
***
Bumpers and curbs tend to blend into the parking lot, especially if they are the same color as the parking lot. Making bumpers and curbs more visible is a good strategy for preventing trips and falls. This can be done by painting all bumpers and curbs a high visibility color.

--SAIF Corp., Prevent Slips, Trips and Falls http://www.saif.com/_files/SafetyHealth ... l_book.pdf

Prevention Strategies
■ Patch or fill cracks in walkways greater than ½" wide.
■ Patch, fill, or repave outdoor areas that have deep grooves, cracks, or holes.
■ Create visual cues. Highlight changes in curb or walkway elevation with Safety Yellow warning paint.
■ Concrete wheel stops in parking lots can be a tripping hazard and should not be used.
■ Remove stones and debris from walking surfaces.
■ Ensure that underground watering system structures are covered or highlighted

-US Dept. of Health & Human Svcs (CDC and NIOSH), Slip, Trip, and Fall Prevention http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2011-123/ ... 11-123.pdf

The US Access Board notes that safety yellow is the standardized color for marking elevation change hazards on walking surfaces and specifies that such visual detection cues “shall contrast visually with adjoining surfaces, either light-on-dark, or dark-on-light,” (70% contrast in light reflectance value LRV) therefore, allowing brightness contrast as further options for improving visual detection of transition hazards.

Just because you lot aren't aware of safety standards and practices doesn't mean they don't exist.[/quote]

Most curbs I know of do not follow these recommendations.

[Sue U]

I get the impression, though stand to be proved wrong, thet Sue treats these situations as a bit of mental exercise. A bit like a baker making bread at home for the fun of it.

Well I get the impression she's quite serious and sincere about this, and also probably thinks we're all a bit ignorant for not being able to see the obvious public good of cops suing crime victims who call into the emergency line....

Perhaps she doesn't see, when all of the elements of a negligence case have been met or can be successfully argued, why everyone is piling on the victim as if she is some kind of psychotic bitch.

The answer, of course, is "all of the above," plus what I see as my duty to educate people about the civil justice system -- particularly when there is so much misinformation, disinformation and uninformed opinion out there. I thought this case presented a very good teaching tool because fall-down cases are notoriously difficult to win in front of a jury (as the knee-jerk reactions here demonstrate), yet encompass the significant elements of public policy developed over the last 800 years of common law -- with the added bonus that this case involves a public employee as the plaintiff. (When a public entity is the defendant, there are also interesting policy choices.) This case is by no means a "slam dunk" on either side, and it raises fair questions of what we expect of people in our society.

The goal of the law is avoidance of injury, and when an injury does occur, fixing responsibility for the costs of that injury (both economic and non-economic). The general rule is that as between a person who has neglected a responsibility and a person who is innocently injured as a result, the person neglecting his responsibility should properly bear the costs of loss. Of course, that is a convenient fiction, because the fact is that an injured person is going to be the one who suffers regardless; we have no mechanism to undo a bodily injury and its consequences. But as a society we have decided that the next best thing is payment of money as some measure of compensation for injury. It's a pretty sucky exchange, but that's all we've got.

The law seeks to avoid injury by imposing a duty on people to act with due care for the safety of others. What constitutes due care is largely a matter of opinion of the community (represented by jurors), as informed by relevant standards and what is considered reasonable when looking at the totality of the circumstances.

In premises cases like this one, most jurisdictions impose different levels of care on a property owner depending on the status of the person who might be injured on the property. The owner owes the highest duty of care to those he invites onto the property ("invitees"), a lesser duty to those who merely have permission to be on the property ("licensees") and the least duty to trespassers. (My jurisdiction abolished these distinctions 20 years ago, opting for a single more general negligence standard.) There is often a further distinction between business/commercial premises and private/residential premises, often heightening the duty of care for commercial property holders and lessening the burden for homeowners -- even providing immunity in some circumstances.

The owner of a commercial property has a duty to inspect, maintain and repair the premises, remediating any dangerous or defective condition on the property for the benefit of all those lawfully on the premises. If a dangerous or defective condition has not been or cannot be remediated, the property owner has a duty to warn about that condition -- especially where a danger is hidden, obscured or otherwise not open and obvious.

In this case, we start off by recognizing that the commercial property owner owes the highest duty of care to everyone who may be lawfully on the premises -- which plainly includes the police officer. He is required to inspect the property to find any hazard and remediate it -- whether by physical repair or by providing a warning.

So the first real question in the case is, "Is there a hazardous condition on the property?" You can only answer that by determining what the standards are for such a property. Here, it universally recognized that curbing in pedestrian traffic areas on business properties presents a tripping hazard. Furthermore, it is recognized that the standard curb height is about 6 inches (plus or minus about half an inch), and that curbs and other surface elevations of 4 inches or less are especially hazardous, producing a high incidence of tripping. (BTW, curbs over 8 inches in height present a significantly higher risk of falling from them.) So the generally recognized safety standards I cited above -- along with hundreds of other similar publications -- say that curbs on business properties in areas expected to be regularly used by pedestrians should be painted in high-contrast color, particularly safety yellow, to provide a visual warning readily seen in almost all lighting conditions; moreover, if the curb is 4 inches or less in height, or 8 inches or more, it should either be removed or reworked to meet the 6-inch standard.

In addition, in this case it was admitted that the area in which the officer tripped on the curbing was unlighted, which may have obscured the fact that there was a curb there at all, especially considering the lack of contrast between the curbing and adjacent paving materials. The lack of adequate lighting in the area is another consideration of whether the property was reasonably maintained to avoid the potential for injury.

So it is clear that the curbing was not painted, as generally accepted standards specify; it may have been an improper height (hard to tell from the photo); and it was plainly in a darkened area of the property. The property owner plainly knew of these conditions and had adequate time to remedy them, and beyond failing to provide visual warnings and adequate lighting he also failed to give any verbal notification of the hazard. On these facts it is easy to conclude that the property owner failed to meet his duty of care in keeping the premises safe and was therefore negligent.

Now, you might also consider whether the police officer failed to act with due regard for her own safety when she entered the darkened area. Was it reasonable for her to proceed under the circumstances, or should she have taken some precaution? If any of her own actions were unreasonably dangerous and contributed to the injury, then she might be assessed a share of comparative negligence. It is for the fact-finder (jury) to decide what percentage of responsibility the property owner and the officer each should bear for the injury if it was produced by the combined negligence of both.

Some have suggested that police, firefighters, etc. should be barred from making personal injury claims. But this would be colossally bad public policy. In the first instance, the duty to keep a business property free from safety hazards is intended to inure to the benefit of everyone; property owners have a duty FIRST to make the premises safe regardless of who is (lawfully) on the property. Second, if property owners have this duty, why should they get a free pass for injuring public servants when they would certainly be liable for injury to anyone else resulting from the same hazard? Why should a police officer be automatically denied redress where others could have it, and why should a negligent proprietor escape responsibility for the consequences of his unreasonably dangerous acts and omissions? The claim that citizens would be discouraged from calling for police assistance is a ludicrous red herring; it would be more accurate to say that people would be discouraged from taking jobs in public service if they knew they were giving up their legal rights just by doing so.

[oldr_n_wsr]

As I said before, most curbs I have encountered on public and private property have not followed any of the advice. You would think at the very least that our municipalities would cover their asses.

[Sue U]

You would think at the very least that our municipalities would cover their asses.

You might think that, but you'd be wrong. Public entities are immune from suit under the doctrine of Sovereign Immunity, unless the legislature provides otherwise through a tort claims act. When such claims are allowed, the standard of care is usually much higher than ordinary negligence, and often there is some sort of threshold for the severity of injury that must be met. Public entities often have complete immunity for acts that are considered planning and design, or discretionary allocation of government resources.

BTW, I just looked out my office window and can see a KFC across the highway, where the curbing at the pedestrian entrance is painted bright safety yellow.

[Gob]

Shame on them.

[Sean]

That's not even KFC's corporate colours...