Another one for Sue

[Gob]

A pensioner has won the right to compensation from English Heritage after he fell into a moat at a historic castle because there were no warning signs.



Ian Taylor suffered serious head injuries when he stepped off a 12ft sheer drop at Carisbrooke Castle, on the Isle of Wight, while trying to take photographs.

The 69-year-old sued English Heritage, claiming that they should have told visitors about the danger, and a panel of top judges has ruled that the charity must pay damages.

Lawyers for English Heritage warned that the decision reinforces Britain's 'compensation culture' and could lead to a plague of unattractive signs around historic monuments.

Mr Taylor, a retired engineer, was visiting Carisbrooke with his wife and grandchildren at the time of the accident in April 2011.

He walked away from his family to take photos and was descending a steep grass path when he lost his footing and was 'propelled' over the sheer face of the bastion wall into the moat.

'He was not seen or heard of for 10 minutes or so, and was then seen to be lying in the moat unconscious', the court was told.

Mr Taylor, from East Grinstead, sued English Heritage and the charity was found 50 per cent liable for his injuries by a judge last year.

Judge David Blunt QC said the sheer drop into the moat from the bastion wall would not have been visible, and ruled that English Heritage were to blame for not putting up a warning sign.

Challenging the decision at the Court of Appeal, Derek O'Sullivan QC, for English Heritage, said the body viewed the case as 'extremely important'.

Mr Taylor's victory in court would 'fuel the popular conception that this country is in the grip of a compensation culture', he argued.

Sensible people could assess risks for themselves and owners of historic sites would be forced into 'an unduly defensive approach', Mr O'Sullivan said.

He argued that the case will lead to 'an unwelcome proliferation of unsightly warning signs', telling visitors about 'obvious risks'.

However, the Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, said there was nothing obvious about the threat posed by the vertical drop into the moat.

The judge, sitting with Lords Justice McFarlane and Beatson, accepted that English Heritage and others faced 'difficult borderline decisions' about when to put up warning signs.

But, in Mr Taylor's case, the absence of a sign meant 'reasonable steps' had not been taken to keep him safe.

Lord Dyson added: 'The decision in this case should not be interpreted as requring occupiers like English Heritage to place unsightly warning signs in prominent positions all over sensitive historic sites'.

[RayThom]

All of this could have been avoided if only the Carisbrooke Castle Keepers kept the moat filled with water. Mr. Taylor may very well have drowned thereby negating his chance of filing a frivolous law suit.

I can only hope English Heritage has learned from their mistake.

[Bicycle Bill]

All of this could have been avoided if only the Carisbrooke Castle Keepers kept the moat filled with water. Mr. Taylor may very well have drowned thereby negating his chance of filing a frivolous law suit.

I can only hope English Heritage has learned from their mistake.

For once I agree with RAYThOM.  Fill the moat.  And then post "no swimming" (or "no trespassing") signs.
If an interloper falls in and survives, he can then be charged in turn.

-"BB"-

[Lord Jim]

All of this could have been avoided if only the Carisbrooke Castle Keepers kept the moat filled with water.

Don't forget the alligators...

[Sue U]

What is your problem? Two courts (trial and appellate) spelled it out pretty clearly:

Judge David Blunt QC said the sheer drop into the moat from the bastion wall would not have been visible, ...

***
... Master of the Rolls, Lord Dyson, said there was nothing obvious about the threat posed by the vertical drop into the moat.

The judge, sitting with Lords Justice McFarlane and Beatson, accepted that English Heritage and others faced 'difficult borderline decisions' about when to put up warning signs.

But, in Mr Taylor's case, the absence of a sign meant 'reasonable steps' had not been taken to keep him safe.

Lord Dyson added: 'The decision in this case should not be interpreted as requiring occupiers like English Heritage to place unsightly warning signs in prominent positions all over sensitive historic sites'.

Seriously, what are you all bitching about?

[Gob]

Us becoming like you?

[Lord Jim]

This whole thing could have been avoided if they had only painted the "steep grass path" a bright safety yellow...

[Scooter]

They could have done something - they are practically inviting people to propel themselves over the edge. Even if your eyes are fixed on where you're going, by the time you realize the drop is in front of you, momentum might prevent you from stopping in time.

[No Greater Fool]

Whatever happened to look where you're walking or walk where you're looking? Just another demonstration of our species devolution.

[Scooter]

He walked away from his family to take photos and was descending a steep grass path when he lost his footing and was 'propelled' over the sheer face of the bastion wall into the moat...Judge David Blunt QC said the sheer drop into the moat from the bastion wall would not have been visible

[MajGenl.Meade]

He walked away from his family to take photos and was descending a steep grass path when he lost his footing and was 'propelled' over the sheer face of the bastion wall into the moat.

'He was not seen or heard of for 10 minutes or so, and was then seen to be lying in the moat unconscious', the court was told.

"Where'd dad go?"
"Shut up and stand still. He's taking our picture"
"Oh OK"

Ten minutes later.......

[Big RR]

Of course it may have been a photo of the castle or landscape and not of the family...

[MajGenl.Meade]

But it's not funny that way. I was imagining the old walking backwards joke

[Big RR]

It's still pretty funny, only the joke of the guy walking with the camera in his face rather than looking where he was walking.

[BoSoxGal]

Is there any tort on earth that you believe in Gob? Probably just the ones of which YOU were victim, right?

[Sue U]

Us becoming like you?

Being me is pretty good. I imagine even only being like me is not so bad.

Whatever happened to look where you're walking or walk where you're looking?

First of all, who said he wasn't looking? The story says he was "descending a steep grass path when he lost his footing and was 'propelled' over the sheer face of the bastion wall into the moat." He may very well have been looking, but anyone can slip on a steep grass path, and the topography was such that it both hid and increased the actual danger. As Scooter pointed out, even if your eyes are fixed on where you're going, by the time you realize the drop is in front of you, momentum might prevent you from stopping in time.

Second of all, "Why didn't he look where he was walking" is the defense in virtually every fall case, and while it may sound reasonable, the fact is that is not how humans actually work. No one watches their feet when they walk, or even the five or ten feet (of distance, not body parts) in front of them; people are generally looking farther ahead or around themselves. And in the context of a tourist site where people are expected to be admiring the view and taking pictures, the reasonable expectation is that that is where they will be looking -- not for obscured fall hazards.

Finally, the trial court split liability 50/50, finding both Mr. Taylor and English Heritage responsible for the accident in equal parts. I am assuming that in this particular jurisdiction that means that whatever the damages, English Heritage will pay only 50%. In some jurisdictions, a 50/50 split means no recovery at all for the injured party.

But it's not funny that way. I was imagining the old walking backwards joke

Not sure I find anything funny about plummeting 12 feet off a wall, ending up with serious head injuries and then being mocked and ridiculed for successfully seeking that those who bear liability under the law are held accountable, according to their proven share of responsibility.

Sorry not sorry if I seem rather humorless about this; I see far too many cases of injured claimants being denied justice because people treat personal injury cases like some kind of joke or scam.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Not sure I find anything funny about plummeting 12 feet off a wall

Me either. The "funny" image I had was the chap backing up to take the family photo and the family standing posing for 10 minutes before noticing he wasn't there.

That's not what happened. There's nothing wrong in finding a humorous side to something that didn't happen.

[Big RR]

I agree with Meade, and gallows humor always can be found (which is what I am aiming for). Sure, there's nothing funny with a person being seriously injured, but then I'm poking fun at the way a situation may have occurred, not at his injuries. FWIW, I'm perfectly willing to defer to the court on this as the jury or judge heard the testimony and saw the evidence.

[Bicycle Bill]

Sue, I'm in the same boat/mindset along with Big RR and Meade.  I too was envisioning something like these examples:
(and this is just the tip of the iceberg)

-"BB"-

[Gob]

They should Sue!! Obviously no one put up a big warning sign warning them to look where they were going, and and pained yellow lines all over, well.. everything!!!!