General Chat

True Janey. I only know that since it has been legal to advertise the service our compensation culture has taken over, hence the continual bleat of 'can't do this that or the other.... Health and safety'.

Yes, there is always the chance of somebody suing one for something, even if there is no chance they will win!

No win no pay, what's called "contingency fee" - you only pay the fee as a percentage of what you win, if you don't win it's nothing - was actually illegal until quite recently. It was illegal when I was in practice. It's called either "maintenance" or "champerty" -- I think champerty, maintenance is when a lawyer pursues an action that they have in an interest in, rather than in the client's interest. ... Maintenance I guess, bearing the cost of the action for a champertous purpose.

Heh, as an Ontario court said:

# Champerty is a subspecies of maintenance. Without maintenance, there can be no champerty.
# Champerty requires an improper purpose on the part of the alleged champertor. This purpose may include, but is not limited to, officious intermeddling or stirring up strife.
... the public's attitude towards such fees has changed and that many have recognized that rather than hindering the administration of justice, contingency fees enhance it by promoting access to justice.

That's the thing. You do something to make things better -- people who can't afford lawyers' fees but have genuinely been wronged and deserve to get compensation -- and there's always someone who will use it to make things worse.

Kind of like shovelling the pavement and having somebody sue you. ;)

Sounds reasonable to me too Janey but there are some clever no win no pay claims lawyers around.

As I was saying, it is not the job of "govt" to say who is or is not liable for anything. It is up to the courts, and until the courts decide a particular case, nobody can say what the courts would say in that case, let alone another case.

The statement "courts would not be expected 'to find individuals who clear pavements liable for injuries, provided this is done in a reasonable manner'" sounds perfectly reasonable to me, knowing a bit about tort law as I do, without being an expert in negligence.

Why doesn't it to anybody else?

I put this on another thread. Not sure I would have confidence in "govt advice"

And off the back of media reports warning homeowners that clearing or gritting pavements make them liable for accidents on the patch, Gloucestershire County Council has said this is not the case.

A spokesman said Government advice suggested courts would not be expected “to find individuals who clear pavements liable for injuries, provided this is done in a reasonable manner”.

Haha, Oz a more snowy country. ;)

It just seemed to me that what you had was the council's response to people whining that they might get sued if they tried to clear the pavements (nice excuse for doing nothing).

The council couldn't say absolutely that they would *not* get sued -- it's up to the courts to decide lawsuits, and anybody can sue anybody for anything, after all -- but they tried to reassure people that the chance of a lawsuit succeeding was minimal, unless you really had done something negligent.

I put this up days ago but no one seemed interested except our friends in more snowy countries!

and we on the west coast of Canada are much much warmer than Florida or Texas!

Today's temperature here could get as high as 13C, which would be a record for the day.



weird!

And Now it is snowing in Florida? Big freeze there today.

Global Warming????

Gail

Meanwhile, we in Vancouver have temperatures above 10C, and rain




and the Winter Olympics start in a little over a month!


Hi Liz
xx


Janey, sorry you've had to work so hard especially as his PM'ness has prorogued Parliament!



sylvia

Hi Janey, a quick response as o.h.will be about in a mo, his turn for the early shift at work!

Years ago all the neighbours went out and helped clear pathways, younger ones helping oldies etc and no one ever thought about suing then either, it's just this new compensation culture coupled with health and safety gone mad that has caused everyone to leave things alone and say 'it's not my job!'
Hope you stay upright, it wasn't funny when I slipped and hit my head, it hurt!
Hope it hasn't frozen outside, the rain all day yesterday washed away a lot of the white stuff but the icy stuff is slower in going away and if it refreezes it will be hellish to drive on or walk on.

take care
Lizxxx

Howdy Purple!

No.1, here, always clears the sidewalk (pavement) in front of our two houses when there's been a big snowfall, if our nice neighbour hasn't done in front of where we live first, if it looks like the ploughs are going to be a while. We're on an unimportant little street in the downtown area. But the sidewalk ploughs do get to us within a day, this being Ontario and us having a huge municipal fleet of the things.

I don't think anyone here who does that has ever imagined being sued!

n

Oh my, how I've missed it! I've been so busy with the work that the government here churned out in December before all the MPs went off for holidays that I haven't had time to sleep or bathe (it's okay, I finally got a shower last night, you can stop pinching your nose). So I drop in this weekend, having had 10 hours' sleep!! last night, and I see


"All this because we joined the Common Market and are part of the EU"


Unbelievable. How I've missed my GR giggles!


It seems fairly obvious to me that the council in the original article was trying to tell people they don't need to worry about being sued unless they do something quite stupid. That's generally how life works, eh?

We have been hearing about your weather on television all the way over here. It sounds like a fairly mild version of what we live with for several months a year, of course - but we have to be equipped to deal with it.

Pictures of what they do with the snow in Canada just to make you jealous. ;) Ottawa and Montreal:

http://www.westmountexaminer.com/imgs/dynamique/articles/gros/snow_removal_crew.jpg

http://media.canada.com/idl/otct/20081112/121337-46381.jpg

http://www.themonitor.ca/imgs/dynamique/articles/gros/MoWestSnowDeficit3.jpg

They take it away in trucks!!

Oh, ha, my image google found this blog about snow in that city, Ottawa, with lots of good pix and commentary:

http://nachosatmidnight.com/2009/12/11/my-first-ottawa-snowfall/

Well there will be even less snow cleared now, or roads gritted anyway with the stocks of grit and salt and sand etc so low. How typical of our country to get it wrong again, surely they should have ordered more before Christmas while there was still time, it's not as it we weren't warned about the weather!

Take care folks

Lizx

Quite a few years back, a friend lived in a small street in Southampton.
At the first snowfall, they were all out clearing the snow from the pavement - then they all received a leaflet from the Council through the door advising then not to clear the snow, as, if they didn't keep it perfectly clear, and someone slipped, they would be liable.
So it seems, once you've started clearing it, you have to continue.
May also explain why councils are selective in which roads they clear -
I wonder how many side roads inhabited by local councillors are clear?

To shovel or be shovelled, sue or be sued, that is the question.

So, if you try and think you have done it right and you have not, then you could be libel. You shovel you first spade full of snow, like anywhere else, you admit liability. This is like a "Beware of the dog", sign as soon as it is put in place you have admitted liability. Council needs to back up its people and take out insurance on households willing to do some shovelling, not leave them wide open to the courts.

Gail

I have copied this from my local newspaper as I thought it might help clarify things for us all.
Lizx

Help clear pavements - but you could be sued


Council chiefs today urged the public to lend a hand in tackling the snow and ice from pavements as Norfolk braces itself for further snow - but warned they could face legal action if they make matters worse.
DAN GRIMMER
08 January 2010 06:11



Council chiefs today urged the public to lend a hand in tackling the snow and ice from pavements as Norfolk braces itself for further snow - but warned they could face legal action if they make matters worse.

Norfolk County Council says its winter workforce is often tied up with gritting prioritised main roads during the cold snap, which means pavements are further down the list of work.

But councillors have called for community spirit to help beat the freeze and urged people, including householders and shopkeepers, to clear freshly-fallen snow from paths and pavements before it turns into treacherous ice.

Councillors said many people were reluctant to lend a hand because of “unfounded worries” they could be sued if somebody slipped and fell on an area they had tried to clear.

Adrian Gunson, cabinet member for planning and transportation, said: “We really do want to get the message out that people can take community spirited action to make public areas safer.

“By taking sensible steps such as sweeping newly-fallen snow from pavements outside shops or houses before it can compact into ice, they won't make themselves liable for any slips or falls that might happen afterwards.

“Of course they have got to use a bit of common sense and make sure they don't inadvertently make things worse. With temperatures so low, pouring a kettle of boiling water on to a frozen pavement would be very ill-advised because it would soon freeze.”

Council officers say people who clear snow from paths would only be liable in the case of an accident if the claimant could prove they did not take reasonable care in what had been done.

That means they are unlikely to be liable if they only partially cleared the snow, but could be if they did something which made it worse.

Solicitor Gordon Dean, a former city and county councillor, who has offices in Norwich and Great Yarmouth, said people would not usually face being sued for accidents after removing snow.

He said: “I certainly can't make a fortune from people slipping on the pavements. It doesn't work like that. Generally the council is right in that people who clear them won't be liable.

“However, if you do clear the footpath it is a question of whether you make it worse. If there's black ice under the snow and you clear the snow to reveal it you might make it much more dangerous so you would be liable. But there is no harm in using some grit or shovelling freshly fallen snow off the pathway.”

Retired university lecturer Valerie Hardman broke her leg when she slipped in St Matthew's Road in Thorpe Hamlet in the week before Christmas.

Mrs Hardman, who lives off St Leonard's Road, said: “I wondered which department or officials made the decision not to grit that road - what the council's policy is. If they thought they would save money, it won't, because of the cost to the NHS and the extra benefits people will need if they are off work because of an accident.”

She backed calls for the community to use grit boxes to clear paths and said: “I see no reason why, if there's no legal impediment, why grit boxes can't be at strategic locations and the community could be mobilised to use the grit.”

Elsewhere, North Norfolk District Council, has faced public criticism about its failure to grit council car parks and seafront zig-zag paths in the first cold snap and said it did not do so on the advice of insurers.

Council spokesman Nick Manthorpe said: “Our insurers advised us that unless we could guarantee full and faultless gritting of our property, like car parks and the accesses to the prom in Cromer, we would be liable if anyone had a slip.

“We realised that we wouldn't be able to keep our 40-or-so car parks totally clear, and all the time. You can't completely grit a car park if there are any cars parked on it, for instance.”