Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
Incompetent police officer
I think it is a jolly good idea that a member of the public must ensure that the Police are safe to do their job. I think she deserves a 100 grand and not the 50 she is suing for.
Just like if a police officer comes into your home, it then becomes their place of work so the laws apply. On the garage forecourt it was poorly lit, with no notices of 6 inch high kerbs in a dark environment. No problem here from me with regards to her compensation claim. :thumbup:
Just like if a police officer comes into your home, it then becomes their place of work so the laws apply. On the garage forecourt it was poorly lit, with no notices of 6 inch high kerbs in a dark environment. No problem here from me with regards to her compensation claim. :thumbup:
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Just like if a police officer comes into your home, it then becomes their place of work so the laws apply.
No it doesn't. HASAWA doesn't apply in your own home.
Rogue if a police officer came into your home it does become their place of work, and that would apply to any professional that entered your home to do a job of work.
Quote by starlightcouple
Just like if a police officer comes into your home, it then becomes their place of work so the laws apply.
No it doesn't. HASAWA doesn't apply in your own home.
Rogue if a police officer came into your home it does become their place of work, and that would apply to any professional that entered your home to do a job of work.
Well I hope you have your disclaimers on hand...for the police, fire service , ambulance service, as I guess you will be expecting them to sign before entering your property and that will before they deal with that , fire or suspected heart attack.
Quote by Mr-Powers
Well I hope you have your disclaimers on hand...for the police, fire service , ambulance service, as I guess you will be expecting them to sign before entering your property and that will before they deal with that , fire or suspected heart attack.
Sorry Powers.........I do not make the rules or the laws.
Quote by starlightcouple
Just like if a police officer comes into your home, it then becomes their place of work so the laws apply.
No it doesn't. HASAWA doesn't apply in your own home.
Rogue if a police officer came into your home it does become their place of work, and that would apply to any professional that entered your home to do a job of work.
Star,
from Section 4 of the HASAWA 1974
"Section 4: Places a duty on those in control of premises, which are non-domestic and used as a place of work, to ensure they do not endanger those who work within them. This extends to plant and substances, means of access and egress as well as to the premises themselves."
The critical point is non-domestic.
I am not relinquishing the duty of an employer to have done due diligence and done risk assessments and method statements for all forseeable risks.
Quote by starlightcouple
Well I hope you have your disclaimers on hand...for the police, fire service , ambulance service, as I guess you will be expecting them to sign before entering your property and that will before they deal with that , fire or suspected heart attack.
Sorry Powers.........I do not make the rules or the laws.
So no disclaimers then? You takes your chances!
Quote by Rogue_Trader
Just like if a police officer comes into your home, it then becomes their place of work so the laws apply.
No it doesn't. HASAWA doesn't apply in your own home.
Rogue if a police officer came into your home it does become their place of work, and that would apply to any professional that entered your home to do a job of work.
Star,
from Section 4 of the HASAWA 1974
"Section 4: Places a duty on those in control of premises, which are non-domestic and used as a place of work, to ensure they do not endanger those who work within them. This extends to plant and substances, means of access and egress as well as to the premises themselves."
The critical point is non-domestic.
I am not relinquishing the duty of an employer to have done due diligence and done risk assessments and method statements for all forseeable risks.
Well then Rogue, based on your evidence the petrol station owner has not got a case to answer? Do you not think her Solicitors would not know of these laws for their client?
Quote by starlightcouple
Just like if a police officer comes into your home, it then becomes their place of work so the laws apply.
No it doesn't. HASAWA doesn't apply in your own home.
Rogue if a police officer came into your home it does become their place of work, and that would apply to any professional that entered your home to do a job of work.
Star,
from Section 4 of the HASAWA 1974
"Section 4: Places a duty on those in control of premises, which are non-domestic and used as a place of work, to ensure they do not endanger those who work within them. This extends to plant and substances, means of access and egress as well as to the premises themselves."
The critical point is non-domestic.
I am not relinquishing the duty of an employer to have done due diligence and done risk assessments and method statements for all forseeable risks.
Well then Rogue, based on your evidence the petrol station owner has not got a case to answer? Do you not think her Solicitors would not know of these laws for their client?
Petrol Station is a total different affair, as per Section 4 "Non-Domestic", petrol station comes in to the category as non-domestic and therefore does apply, so the owner has a duty of care to all members of the public, 3rd parties and visiting work people to ensure it is compliant with the HASAWA 1974.
I was making the comment regarding your point about a persons home and thereby visiting tradespersons would be subject to the same laws and its clear they wouldn't be.
Sex God
Quote by starlightcouple
Rogue if a police officer came into your home it does become their place of work, and that would apply to any professional that entered your home to do a job of work.
No domestic dwelling is covered by the auspices of the HASAWA. If the HASAWA applied to domestioc dwellings then no person would ever be saved from fire as the firefighters would have to stay outside.
The attending emergency services must carry out there own risk assessment and ensure that they undertake activities commensurate with that assessment.
Every police officer is issued with a torch, so if this PC has failed to risk assess and implement a safe system of work, (ie turn the bloody torch in so she can see where she is going) she has not ensured her own safety.
Quote by Trevaunance
Rogue if a police officer came into your home it does become their place of work, and that would apply to any professional that entered your home to do a job of work.
No domestic dwelling is covered by the auspices of the HASAWA. If the HASAWA applied to domestioc dwellings then no person would ever be saved from fire as the firefighters would have to stay outside.
The attending emergency services must carry out there own risk assessment and ensure that they undertake activities commensurate with that assessment.
Every police officer is issued with a torch, so if this PC has failed to risk assess and implement a safe system of work, (ie turn the bloody torch in so she can see where she is going) she has not ensured her own safety.
I made those comments yesterday Trev, which was.....................?
Sex God
Let's not lose sight of the fact that this individual KNEW it was dark and KNEW she was in an area not set up for 'customers' to use. Therefore she should have taken extra care of her OWN safety. She didn't - she fell. Tough.
Exploring dark corners of outside places is part of her job. Why did she not get the torch from her car? I'm pretty sure a torch would be a standard part of the police equipment. She chose not to supply herself with appropriate safety equipment. Tough.
I really can;'t see any claim standing up in court, But the police have got better things to spend their time and money on. I assume she is hoping for a nice out of court settlement and preferably an easy way out of her job with a nice little handout. If I was her boss I'd be spending a bit of time exploring her financial background.
Exploring dark corners of outside places is part of her job. Why did she not get the torch from her car? I'm pretty sure a torch would be a standard part of the police equipment. She chose not to supply herself with appropriate safety equipment. Tough.
I really can;'t see any claim standing up in court, But the police have got better things to spend their time and money on. I assume she is hoping for a nice out of court settlement and preferably an easy way out of her job with a nice little handout. If I was her boss I'd be spending a bit of time exploring her financial background.
Very interesting exchange here... and no one slagging the others off... feels almost grown up!
I think Foxlady makes a useful point as does Rogue Trader which goes to the heart of this issue.
If the garage owner has done his risk assessments - as he would be required to do to safe guard you or I if we went to his garage - he will not have a claim to answer...... if however the premises were "defective" and would have presented a hazard to you, or me or Rogue or Trev or anyone else on his premises as a customer of his business then he is probably going to be found to have breached the duty of care he owed to all members of the public ...and that will include a police officer attending in the course of his / her duty.
The point is that the duty of care owed to the police by the garage owner is not a higher duty of care than the one he owes to the general public ...BUT it is not a lower one either!
I think Foxlady makes a useful point as does Rogue Trader which goes to the heart of this issue.
If the garage owner has done his risk assessments - as he would be required to do to safe guard you or I if we went to his garage - he will not have a claim to answer...... if however the premises were "defective" and would have presented a hazard to you, or me or Rogue or Trev or anyone else on his premises as a customer of his business then he is probably going to be found to have breached the duty of care he owed to all members of the public ...and that will include a police officer attending in the course of his / her duty.
The point is that the duty of care owed to the police by the garage owner is not a higher duty of care than the one he owes to the general public ...BUT it is not a lower one either!
Sex God
Quote by foxylady2209
Let's not lose sight of the fact that this individual KNEW it was dark and KNEW she was in an area not set up for 'customers' to use. Therefore she should have taken extra care of her OWN safety. She didn't - she fell. Tough.
Exploring dark corners of outside places is part of her job. Why did she not get the torch from her car? I'm pretty sure a torch would be a standard part of the police equipment. She chose not to supply herself with appropriate safety equipment. Tough.
Sorry Foxy, but I have to correct you slightly for the highlighted part.
I know this particular garage and I was last a customer there about four weeks ago. If any of you would like to search google maps for 172 bury road, Thetford you will see the garage. It's now operated by someone else but apart from that nothing else has changed. As you face the garage from the A134 you can see the car wash area to the right of the garage. It was in this area, between the two sloped fence panels at the rear end of the wash area that the PC tripped over the kerb that defines the edge of the car wash. So it is an 'area set up for customers'.
You will also notice a number of street lights in the area and I can personally testify to there being enough light for a rather drunken me to wander through the area several times at silly o clock in the morning in recent weeks!
You will also notice a number of street lights in the area and I can personally testify to there being enough light for a rather drunken me to wander through the area several times at silly o clock in the morning in recent weeks!
If Trev is right that there is enough light to identify the "hazard" (and a court agrees) then this silly case is going to be thrown out and she will not receive compensation... the problem is that public liability insurers generally lack the back bone to fight ill concieved claims....in reality the probability is that her lawyer will claim a sum - say £35,000 and the insurers will decided to settle at say £15,000 rather than risk losing in court ...
the result is that the officer who makes a spurious claim is rewarded for her bare faced cheek ... and everyone else pays just a little bit more when they come to renew their insurance!
I hope that in this case the insurers fight the claim and have it thrown out ... but i wouldn't be too confident that they will !
Jack
If Trev is right that there is enough light to identify the "hazard" (and a court agrees) then this silly case is going to be thrown out and she will not receive compensation... the problem is that public liability insurers generally lack the back bone to fight ill concieved claims....in reality the probability is that her lawyer will claim a sum - say £35,000 and the insurers will decided to settle at say £15,000 rather than risk losing in court ...
the result is that the officer who makes a spurious claim is rewarded for her bare faced cheek ... and everyone else pays just a little bit more when they come to renew their insurance!
I hope that in this case the insurers fight the claim and have it thrown out ... but i wouldn't be too confident that they will !
Jack
Quote by Green_Fox_71
If Trev is right that there is enough light to identify the "hazard" (and a court agrees) then this silly case is going to be thrown out and she will not receive compensation... the problem is that public liability insurers generally lack the back bone to fight ill concieved claims....in reality the probability is that her lawyer will claim a sum - say £35,000 and the insurers will decided to settle at say £15,000 rather than risk losing in court ...
the result is that the officer who makes a spurious claim is rewarded for her bare faced cheek ... and everyone else pays just a little bit more when they come to renew their insurance!
I hope that in this case the insurers fight the claim and have it thrown out ... but i wouldn't be too confident that they will !
Jack
Well we all know Trev is right, but there is a team of injury claim lawyers ready and waiting to pounce. THEY obviously think she has a case as otherwise they would not have taken it on would be my guess.
I saw a video the other night of this petrol station and the kerb in question, and it does beggar belief that she could not see it, maybe it was her additional weight that was the problem, to heavy to negotiate the kerb properly and sensibly?
:twisted: Sex God
A somewhat belated reply, but never mind. The PC involved in this case has her law suit claiming she didn't want to be labelled a money grabber.
Too late love, way too late.
Too late love, way too late.
i live in thetford now and use this garage. It's friendly and welcoming and how this stupid officer can abuse her position is beyond me. She's done it before and sued for an accident at work and had a payout so perhaps she's ripping us off because she can!
If i ever need to use the police perhaps i shall insist on them doing a risk assessment before they visit.
If i ever need to use the police perhaps i shall insist on them doing a risk assessment before they visit.
