Plan B Forum

Posted: **Sun Mar 31, 2013 9:39 pm**

A police officer is suing a petrol station owner after apparently tripping on a kerb on his property when called to reports of a suspected break-in.

PC Kelly Jones, 33, says she injured her leg and wrist at the filling station in Thetford, Norfolk, on 25 August last year.

She was not available for comment. Petrol station owner Steve Jones said he found the case "shocking".

Police said the claim appeared to be "instigated privately" by the officer.

Mr Jones said PC Jones tripped and fell and that he helped her up, but did not think she was hurt.

A letter to the business from solicitor Pattinson Brewer states PC Jones went to the Nunns Bridges garage at 00:20 BST.

It said she went towards a gap in the fencing near a jet wash area in order to access the rear of the premises.

She did not know there was a section of high kerbing and tripped and fell.

PC Jones injured her left leg and right wrist and went to the West Suffolk Hospital, the letter added.

The claim alleges the petrol station was at fault for failing to ensure PC Jones was "reasonably safe", making no attempt to light the area or warn her about the step.

The letter also alleges the business failed to display any warning signs or carry out a risk assessment.

Mr Jones said he did not think he could have done any more to make things safe for the officer.

"I think the kerb was fairly visible - as visible as any kerbs on the road she had already walked over to get here," he said.

"When I got this letter I was anxious and worried.

"It's left a sour taste in my mouth.

"Times are quite hard for the industry and it seems everywhere we turn someone wants a piece of us - whether it's rates people, credit card companies, shoplifters, or people driving off without paying.

"This is the final straw."

Paul Ridgway, chairman of the Norfolk Police Federation, said it had been made aware of the incident soon after it happened.

He said regardless of the federation's view on any member's claim, a claim is forwarded to a solicitor to see whether there is any merit in it.

He added: "All members of the public, regardless of what profession, can claim litigation against people and against private firms - that's why everyone has insurance.

"It's not common, I appreciate that, but the claim has come in and we've honoured the officer's wishes by putting it through to the solicitor."

Norfolk Police said it had been unaware of the claim, adding: "We have a duty of care to any officer injured whilst on duty, to support their continued health and well-being and fitness to return to work.

"Officers can, in addition, receive further support from their staff association, as well as pursuing private treatment."

Posted: **Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:15 pm**

Walking while not paying attention is the crime that should be prosecuted.

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:01 pm**

Kerb 'trip' police officer urged to drop compensation claim

A police and crime commissioner has called on a police officer to withdraw her compensation claim against a petrol station after she tripped on a kerb.

PC Kelly Jones says she was injured at the petrol station at Thetford, Norfolk, and her solicitors have been pursuing a claim against its owners.

Norfolk PCC Stephen Bett urged her to do "the right thing" and withdraw it.

PC Jones could not be contacted for comment but her solicitors are expected to issue a statement later on Tuesday.

Calls for her to drop the legal action follow claims by the Daily Mirror that her father had persuaded her to withdraw the case.

Law firm Pattinson and Brewer wrote to Steve Jones, owner of the Nuns' Bridges filling station, after PC Jones tripped while attending reports of a break-in at about 00:20 BST on 25 August.

The claim alleges the petrol station failed to ensure PC Jones was "reasonably safe", making no attempt to light the area or warn her about the step.

Mr Bett said he believed PC Jones, 33, should withdraw her legal action as soon as possible.

"In my mind, that would be the right thing to do and, judging from what people have been telling me, what the public would want to see," he said.

He said PC Jones' reported behaviour in bringing the claim "leaves me cold".

"Police officers, like other members of the emergency services, accept that when they join up they may have to put themselves in danger in order to do their job," he said.

"It is appalling to think that rather than putting the public first, there are some who see the possibilities of taking their own legal action to benefit financially."

"Of course, there are officers who deserve to receive help when they are injured in the course of duty and the public would readily support this. PC Jones, I suspect, is not one of them."

Labour MP Keith Vaz, chairman of the Commons home affairs committee, said he was writing to Home Secretary Theresa May asking for "urgent clarification" over the issue.

He said he had initially thought the story was an April Fool's joke, and that PC Jones' claim could deter people from calling the police.

"It's absolutely essential we clarify the guidelines because this kind of case will put people off ringing the emergency services and indeed have implications for every single person who may ring up 999 and ask for assistance," he said.

"I'm writing to the home secretary to ask her whether there are any guidelines, and if there aren't any guidelines I think it's important that we have them."

PC Jones' claim is backed by the Police Federation but not Norfolk Constabulary.

Norfolk's chief constable Phil Gormley said he was "disappointed personally and professionally" by the claim.

"Policing is a contact sport, as is life on occasions. You can't eliminate all risk," he said.

"I'm not saying be cavalier but one of the things when I was a lot younger that attracted me to the police service was that level of excitement and, on occasions, risk."

Mr Gormley said he had noticed a "compensation culture" that was "corrosive".

"You only have to sit in an accident and emergency department and all around you in many places there are encouragements to sue people," he said.

"It breeds defensive organisations and it generates a lot of bureaucracy."

The Home Office said it did not comment on individual civil claims.

Posted: **Tue Apr 02, 2013 10:18 pm**

Hey Gob. Do you remember how a policewoman parts her hair?

"And then you stand up straight again and say 'ello, 'ello, ello! What's goin' on 'ere then?"
"Oh. Does it look better in uniform?"

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 7:24 pm**

The hysterical, knee-jerk and ignorant reaction to a straightforward run-of-the-mill personal injury claim is just the sort of attitude that will keep insurance companies highly profitable and the culpably negligent free from any accepting responsibility for their acts resulting in injury.

There is nothing in the least outrageous about this case. The property owner called Officer Jones onto his premises in order to aid him in securing his business. It was after midnight in an admittedly unlit area of the property that contained a patent tripping hazard hidden by darkness -- a hazard which the officer would have no reason to know about but the property owner surely would have. It is undebatable that a commercial property holder who invites someone onto his property for the benefit of his business has a duty to ensure that the premises are free from hazardous conditions, or to at least provide some warning of any existing hazard. If he fails to meet this duty he is negligent and liable for whatever harm ensues. What is the big frickin deal about this??? (Other than the British tabloid press, of course?)

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 8:59 pm**

There is nothing in the least outrageous about this case.

I'm sorry Sue, but that's the sort of conclusion that only a personal injury lawyer could reach....

For most "normal" people, (ie, non-personal injury attorneys...

) this:

"Police officers, like other members of the emergency services, accept that when they join up they may have to put themselves in danger in order to do their job," he said.

and this:

He said he had initially thought the story was an April Fool's joke, and that PC Jones' claim could deter people from calling the police.

"It's absolutely essential we clarify the guidelines because this kind of case will put people off ringing the emergency services and indeed have implications for every single person who may ring up 999 and ask for assistance," he said.

and this:

Norfolk's chief constable Phil Gormley said he was "disappointed personally and professionally" by the claim.

"Policing is a contact sport, as is life on occasions. You can't eliminate all risk," he said.

Pretty well sums it up....

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:22 pm**

Not going to be much fucking cop at catching crims if she finds a kerbstone too fucking taxing.

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:43 pm**

"Somebody's trying to break in through the back door...but wait, I think there may be a puddle on the front step that hasn't been mopped up...better take care of that first before I call the police so I won't get sued..."

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 9:47 pm**

Lord Jim wrote:
"Police officers, like other members of the emergency services, accept that when they join up they may have to put themselves in danger in order to do their job," he said.

That's just stupid. If they're riding in a patrol car and they are struck by another vehicle, does that mean they must forgo any claim for injuries because by becoming a cop they "signed up for danger"? Does that mean I can be as negligent and irresponsible as I want as long as I only injure cops and firefighters? That is incredibly bad public policy.

Lord Jim wrote:
He said he had initially thought the story was an April Fool's joke, and that PC Jones' claim could deter people from calling the police.

"It's absolutely essential we clarify the guidelines because this kind of case will put people off ringing the emergency services and indeed have implications for every single person who may ring up 999 and ask for assistance," he said.

Again, stupid. "Help I'm being murdered but don't come to my house because I'm afraid you'll trip on my negligently maintained property and sue me." Please.

Lord Jim wrote:
Norfolk's chief constable Phil Gormley said he was "disappointed personally and professionally" by the claim.

Cry me a fucking river about your disappointment. If you ended up with a bimalleolar fracture and ORIF I'm sure making a claim for compensation would be the least of your disappointments.

Lord Jim wrote:
"Policing is a contact sport, as is life on occasions. You can't eliminate all risk," he said.

Policing is not a sport of any kind. It's a job that people work and get paid for. And no one is even trying to "eliminate all risk," but when risks result directly from someone's negligence and end up injuring people, the negligent party should be held responsible. Aren't you lot always shouting about taking responsibility for the consequences of one's own poor choices?

All people have to do is take reasonable care for the safety of themselves and others; why should anyone get a free pass for causing injuries to emergency services personnel?

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:31 pm**

It said she went towards a gap in the fencing near a jet wash area in order to access the rear of the premises.

Just how exactly was Mr. Jones supposed to know from what direction the police would enter his property when they responded to the call? (Presumably the location that was selected was chosen precisely because it was relatively remote, which would give the responding officer the best chance of getting the drop on the miscreant while minimizing risk to herself. )

Should Mr. Jones have been required to reconnoiter the entire perimeter of his property and send the police a map and photographs of where anything one might conceivably trip over was located before an officer was dispatched? What if she'd tripped over an oil can? (This is a garage, after all) Would that have created a legitimate basis for her complaint?

The letter also alleges the business failed to display any warning signs or carry out a risk assessment.

"Warning signs" and a "risk assessment" for a curb that from the photo looks to be about six inches at most, typical height for any curb encountered just about anywhere in an urban or suburban environment?

I'm sorry but if you want to describe something as "stupid", that would certainly seem to qualify...

making no attempt to light the area or warn her about the step.

I'm guessing that the fact that the area wasn't lit up with flood lights was probably apparent to PC Jones when she entered it....

Again, Mr. Jones had no way of knowing how she would enter the property. And on top of that, it wasn't even a "step" just a typical height curb; why should anyone even be expected to warn anyone of something, (let alone a police officer answering a break in call who should have been acting with caution to begin with) as typical and mundane as that?

Again, stupid....

The only one who failed to exercise "reasonable care" here was PC Jones....

And she has now compounded that failure, by failing to exercise "reasonable good judgement" in bringing this preposterous lawsuit...

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:44 pm**

Suppose the police were to respond to a break-in call...

And after they entered the home, an officer slipped on a child's toy or tripped over a footstool in the darkened living room....(the living room being dark because the family was cowering upstairs, hoping to avoid the intruder....)

In order to avoid a lawsuit, should the folks in the home have been expected to tidy up and turn on all the lights in the house before calling the police? Give the police the precise location of every child's toy and piece of furniture in the living room? Post warning signs?

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:48 pm**

Lord Jim wrote:Just how exactly was Mr. Jones supposed to know from what direction the police would enter his property when they responded to the call?

He was right next to her. It's right in the OP: "Mr Jones said PC Jones tripped and fell and that he helped her up." If he had bothered to say so much as "Watch your step, there's a curb over here," he'd have discharged his duty.

"Warning signs" and a "risk assessment" for a curb that from the photo looks to be about six inches at most, typical height for any curb encountered just about anywhere in an urban or suburban environment?

Yes, you paint the curb yellow or another bright color contrasting the pavement (obviously not done in this case) so you can see the difference even in dim light. This is not rocket science, it's pretty standard procedure, especially for people owning business premises.

making no attempt to light the area or warn her about the step.
I'm guessing that the fact that the area wasn't lit up with flood lights was probably apparent to PC Jones when she entered it....

Again, Mr. Jones had no way of knowing how she would enter the property. And on top of that, it wasn't even a "step" just a typical height curb; why should anyone even be expected to warn anyone of something, (let alone a police officer answering a break in call who should have been acting with caution to begin with) as typical and mundane as that?

And again, he was STANDING RIGHT THERE and could have JUST SAID, "WATCH IT, THERE'S A CURB THERE."

The only one who failed to exercise "reasonable care" here was PC Jones....

Yeah, by doing her job and coming to the assistance of some knucklehead who can't be bothered to keep his business premises reasonably safe and doesn't have the common courtesy to even say "Look out, there."

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 10:51 pm**

Lord Jim wrote:Suppose the police were to respond to a break-in call...

And after they entered the home, an officer slipped on a child's toy or tripped over a footstool in the darkened living room....(the living room being dark because the family was cowering upstairs, hoping to avoid the intruder....)

In order to avoid a lawsuit, should the folks in the home have been expected to tidy up and turn on all the lights in the house before calling the police? Give the police the precise location of every child's toy and piece of furniture in the living room? Post warning signs?

No, because a child's toy in a home or a footstool in a living room would not constitute unreasonably dangerous and defective conditions of property. (Furthermore, it's a home not a business place, and many jurisdictions make a further distinction on those grounds.)

Posted: **Wed Apr 03, 2013 11:02 pm**

Sue, maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where the article it indicates he was "standing right next to her"....

Mr Jones said PC Jones tripped and fell and that he helped her up

He could very easily have heard her fall, or seen her after she fell, from somewhere else on the property, and then come to her aid....

And why in that case he wouldn't have yelled, "LOOK OUT FOR THAT CURB!" might have been because it didn't occur to him that a police officer answering a break-in report would fail to exercise sufficient caution to notice it, or it could have been because he was distracted by the fact that his property was being broken into, and he was more focused on that person's whereabouts....

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 2:30 pm**

Lord Jim wrote:Sue, maybe I'm missing it, but I don't see where the article it indicates he was "standing right next to her"....

Mr Jones said PC Jones tripped and fell and that he helped her up
He could very easily have heard her fall, or seen her after she fell, from somewhere else on the property, and then come to her aid....

First, it's a small property (you can see it right here) (love Google Street View), so it is extremely unlikely he was any significant distance from her. Moreover, I will bet dollars to donuts that the station owner had specifically directed her into that area, since he almost certainly told her where the evidence of any break-in would be.

Lord Jim wrote:And why in that case he wouldn't have yelled, "LOOK OUT FOR THAT CURB!" might have been because it didn't occur to him that a police officer answering a break-in report would fail to exercise sufficient caution to notice it, or it could have been because he was distracted by the fact that his property was being broken into, and he was more focused on that person's whereabouts....

Which is why he should have painted the damn curb in the first place. If he didn't want to spend the money on paint, he could have told everyone headed into that area in the dark to watch their step, and that probably would have been enough to avoid liability. Impractical? So spend 10 bucks on a can of paint. Or install a firckin' light bulb. The point is exactly that if he is unavailable or incapable or too distracted to provide a personal verbal warning of the hazard, there are other simple and cheap ways to avoid injury -- or at least avoid liability, if he had made just some minimal effort to make the premises safe. Why shouldn't his liability insurer -- to which he pays premiums exactly for such circumstances -- compensate the losses it specifically has been paid to cover?

If you want to look at this case from a purely economic perspective, because the officer was injured on the job she will be entitled to workers comp and perhaps temporary disability benefits, and as a public employee those payments will come directly from the taxpayers. Why should the taxpayers bear the burden of the business owner's negligence? If the officer is successful in her personal injury case, the public employees' workers comp fund will have a right to repayment of its expenses out of her settlement/judgment. Think about who should ultimately get stuck with the costs.

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:12 pm**

Ummm...a cursory tour of the surrounding area in Google Street View shows that almost none of the curbs (or kerbs) around there are painted. Maybe everyone in that neighborhood just expects that people will watch their step? (Or maybe every night all the streets are littered with scores of fallen pedestrians, and you just can't see it because the Google car went through during the day...)

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:35 pm**

I will bet dollars to donuts that the station owner had specifically directed her into that area,

Well, that's an interesting theory...

Do you figure he was in communication with her over her police radio, or did he shout it out to her when she arrived, while he believed a break-in was in progress?

Which is why he should have painted the damn curb in the first place.

I meant to address that point of yours earlier...

I was just out in front of our house, (it's garbage and recycle day, so I was putting the bins out) and I looked up and down our street, and we've got 4-6 inch curbs up and down the street, on both sides, between the street and the sidewalk, as far as the eye can see...

And despite the fact that I don't see a speck of yellow paint anywhere, in the 14 years we've lived here, I can't recall ever seeing anyone (day or night) doing a Dick Van Dyke number trying to negociate that challenging obstacle...(yes, hard to believe, I know...but my hand to God, it's the truth)

In fact in my 53 years on this planet, I'm having a hard time recalling ever having seen anyone do a pratfall over a four inch curb....(including a number of occasions where I and others in my company were chemically challenged, and such things might have been expected...)

And this, despite the near complete absence of yellow paint....

As a matter of fact, the only time I've ever seen yellow paint on a curb is either on a commercial street in front of businesses to indicate a "loading zone" to warn people off from parking there, or in a parking lot, to indicate that parking is either not permitted along that stretch of curb, or that it's reserved for someone in particular...(in those cases the yellow is usually accompanied by bright red lettering explaining the specific protocol involved)

On no occasion, ever, anywhere, have I encountered yellow paint on a curb the purpose of which was to convey the message:

"Yo there! This is four inch curb! Please remember to lift your foot so you don't land on your face!"

Which is apparently the sort of warning you believe Mr. Jones should have felt obligated to provide here....

Of course Sue, we could just be having a cultural difference here...

Maybe that's the type of warning folks require to successfully navigate curbs in Camden....

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 3:58 pm**

It's like the "watch for the gap" on the LIRR. The LIRR spent millions to lessen the gap between the train and the platform, meanwhile most who fell into that gap (where it had always said "Watch your step") were either drunk or could not bother to look down and see where they were walking (or were not aware of their surroundings). My mom always said, "watch your step" and while I have not "always" heeded her advice, in the back of my mind, it was always there to make sure I did not injure myself.

If you cannot be aware of your surounding shile walking, you might want to consider another form of locomotion. Then you can complain about not enough access ramps for your wal-mart scooter.

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:02 pm**

Lord Jim wrote:[ was just out in front of our house, (it's garbage and recycle day, so I was putting the bins out) and I looked up and down our street, and we've got 4-6 inch curbs up and down the street, on both sides, between the street and the sidewalk, as far as the eye can see...

And despite the fact that I don't see a speck of yellow paint anywhere, in the 14 years we've lived here, I can't recall ever seeing anyone (day or night) doing a Dick Van Dyke number trying to negociate that challenging obstacle...(yes, hard to believe, I know...but my hand to God, it's the truth)

It's a question of reasonable expectations. Most people realize that there is a difference in elevation between a sidewalk and a street that necessitates a curb, and so expect to find one where they meet. Most people approaching a fence line on private property would have no reason to expect to find a curb a few feet away from that fence, which from the limited view of the photograph does not serve any apparent purpose. It's dark, it's unlit, and it's unreasonable to expect that a person is going to be looking down at their feet for every step they take, rather than, for example, looking around to see if they can sight the suspect that the property owner wants you to apprehend.

Posted: **Thu Apr 04, 2013 6:12 pm**

If you want to look at this case from a purely economic perspective

Well actually, I look at this from the perspective of what should be expected of a police officer responding to an emergency call...

because the officer was injured on the job she will be entitled to workers comp and perhaps temporary disability benefits, and as a public employee those payments will come directly from the taxpayers.

Which is exactly as it should be....

If a police officer, or a fire fighter or EMT, or any other publicly employed emergency responder is injured in the course of performing their duties, (even one who is injured due to a failure to exercise reasonable caution and awareness of their surroundings, like PC Jones) then their taxpayer provided compensation should bear the costs...those are risky jobs; I don't begrudge them that....

It's a small price for the public to pay, if in exchange that means that the public can count on calling for police, fire or EMT responses for legitimate reasons, without the fear of being sued when they do so....

Disallowing lawsuits of this sort is not only the right thing to do from a commonsense standpoint, but also as a matter of overall public safety....

Oh, I forgot about this one:

"Help I'm being murdered but don't come to my house because I'm afraid you'll trip on my negligently maintained property and sue me." Please.

Well you've got me there....

In that case, the person would probably throw caution to the winds, and be willing to risk a lawsuit in exchange for having their life saved by the police...

Which of course in a case like that, should never even be a consideration.

Plan B Forum

UK Police need kerbing.

UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.

Re: UK Police need kerbing.