75ZT Community

Madness.

I chap round the corner from where I live is being sued... for not putting out warning signs to make passers by aware that he was washing his car with a pressure washer, the car being wholly parked on his own drive.

Call me cynical, but if I was walking along the street and didn't spot the large plumes of watery mist associated with pressure washing in time to cross to the other side of the road, I'd consider myself unsafe to be in the street without supervision

It's a sad state that we've got to when common sense amounts to nothing.

By whom is he being sued?

Unreal - time to emigrate I think

Er, who is being sued by and why exactly?

H&S tightening up was certainly needed BUT things have most certainly gone too far. Perhaps the legal profession has an extremely vested interest. 'No win no fee' they cry so, provided the lawyers will take it on then the chancer has no risk.

Now then:

Call me cynical, but if I was walking along the street and didn't spot the large plumes of watery mist associated with pressure washing in time to cross to the other side of the road, I'd consider myself unsafe to be in the street without supervision

I don't think I would cross over the road so I feel insulted - where's the Yellow Pages so as to find a solicitor

Tourerfogey wrote:Er, who is being sued by and why exactly?

The car owner is being sued by one of the local low-life scum who was on his way for his Subutex so could probably be excused for not having his eyes open.

Apparently, he was touched by a few wayward mist droplets owing to the slight breeze and this constitutes a breach of the car owner's duty of care. Quite what effect this heinous and dangerous assault would have had other than to infinitesimally reduce the stench from the individual concerned is not known.

I might add that there is a perfectly adequate foot-path on the other side of the road and I also think it worthy of note that the "injured party" was once seen on CCTV, deliberately crossing a busy road in the city centre specifically so that he could "accidentally" trip over in a small imperfection in the paving which was in the process of being dealt with by the local authority's contractors on the opposite side of the carriageway.

thats sounds like a load of horse droppings ...

raistlin wrote:

Tourerfogey wrote:Er, who is being sued by and why exactly?

The car owner is being sued by one of the local low-life scum who was on his way for his Subutex so could probably be excused for not having his eyes open.

Apparently, he was touched by a few wayward mist droplets owing to the slight breeze and this constitutes a breach of the car owner's duty of care. Quite what effect this heinous and dangerous assault would have had other than to infinitesimally reduce the stench from the individual concerned is not known.

I might add that there is a perfectly adequate foot-path on the other side of the road and I also think it worthy of note that the "injured party" was once seen on CCTV, deliberately crossing a busy road in the city centre specifically so that he could "accidentally" trip over in a small imperfection in the paving which was in the process of being dealt with by the local authority's contractors on the opposite side of the carriageway.

Yes I worked that much out but what disasterous effect did this have upon him to entitle him to claim compensation? What can they possibly award him other than the cost of a towel to dry himself?

Payment for Shock, unrecognised substance (water) hitting him making him panic that he may become clean in uneven areas.

Tourerfogey wrote:Yes I worked that much out but what disasterous effect did this have upon him to entitle him to claim compensation? What can they possibly award him other than the cost of a towel to dry himself?

Absolutely no idea, but he's got a firm of ambulance chasers to take it on I understand.

I went to hospital the other night, and couldn't believe that there were so many flyers for 'no win no fee' firms all over the place, what a sad state of affairs that these things have even got into an NHS hospital now. Me and my mate picked up dozens and flung them all in the bin!

I keep getting text messages about claiming £3,500 for the accident that I have had. I must be losing my memory because I cannot remember an accident.

All seems very skewed. Watched one of those police things last night and some of the crimes were dealt with by a warning. Then you get this chap, I know it is a civil affair, whereby he gets taken to court unless his insurers decide that it is cheaper to pay up than what the legal costs will be.

Having worked in health and safety I can pretty much say that it is indeed the ambulance chasers that lead to the creation of what can be seen as restrictive and ridiculous rules and guidelines.

Many a risk assesment has been written that makes the given task almost impossible and causes the industry to be ridiculed.
Very few of the "rules" that the daily mail are so fond of publishing have actually been made up by the HSE and are often the result of mis-interpretation by management within the company or organisation in question.

For example there never has or ever will be a HSE restriction on school conker competitions, Morris dancing is not illegal (although some might say it should be! ), ice cream toppings have not been banned because of slips and trips, pancake races are legal and it is perfectly ok to put a plaster on a child's cut or graze, yes , some children are allergic to substances within the plaster and it is the responsibilty of the parent to inform the school or carer of this and for one or the other to make some suitable plasters available.

Health and Safety rules and guidelines are often used as an excuse for managements lack of understanding of the task in question as they of course don't have to do it.
The damn ambulance chasers have caused many ,many problems. I don't doubt that some of the claims are genuine but to be honest most complex industrial accidents end up being dealt with by "real" lawyers and not warehouse solicitors trying to get their feet on the ladder after graduation.

My risk assesments were drawn from my experience and talking to those that had direct contact with the task.

We tore down 10 747's, two buildings, dozens of other aircraft all involving heavy machinery, heights, crush,fall,slip , trip etc. and aside from me standing on a nail which was my own fault:mrgreen: there were no accidents.

We all have a duty to keep ourselves safe and others around us or affected by our actions and in the case of the idiot who got himself wet, he failed to cross the road and "ignored" the warning signs put out by the car owner. The owner by the sounds of it showed due care. However, if he hadn't then the scum would never have walked on his side of the road as he was after all just washing his car, how ridiculous is that?

Unfortunately, these ambulance chasers bend the rules in the opposite way to the restrictive manner in which some management do and try to find a rule that has been broken however weak that link might be. The rubbish they can come out with is beyond belief.

Of course, as well as the ambulance chasers it is also in the interest of H&S consultants to encourage as much red tape as possible so it secures them an income.

PaulT wrote:Of course, as well as the ambulance chasers it is also in the interest of H&S consultants to encourage as much red tape as possible so it secures them an income.

This could be the case in some instances but many are secured an income simply by being in a position to clearly advise what is required by assessing the situation fully and avoid making an ill informed, restrictive blanket RA.
Some of these people work hard to ensure that a company can get on with running itself without wasting time. You don't read about that of course.

3M had a terrible policy at some of their sites a few years back. They would make every single site visitor watch a 30 minute induction video and sign to say they had, now this was fine if you were turning up to fix the roof or similar and were going to be there all day but they had AA/RAC patrols watching tv when they were there to fix a car, suppliers who were only delivering flowers and plants for the maintenance team, car valeters, buffet caterers etc.
It wouldn't have been too bad if they "did" you once a year but it was every visit.

The RAC and AA refused to go to a few of their sites unless the cars were pushed out onto the road.

I don't know if they altered it but that was a great example of absolutely terrible H&S management.

There was a case locally between a school caretaker and the local Education Authority. The Caretaker had fallen off a step ladder and suffered a back or leg injury (can't remember which). Even though he had been given the relevent H&S document to read and sign he still managed to screw the Education Authority because he managed to convince the court that he had only been given the H&S document to sign and had not been given time to actually read it; nor had he been given any specialist training in using a stepladder - this guy was in his late 50s and apparently had 'never before in his life used a stepladder' and therefore should have had training.

Let's just hope that other countries go as loopy on H&S as the UK. Otherwise in a war there will be the UK troops filling out RAs whilst overrun by the enemy

We recently had our H&S assessment at work, head office coming up with more quality ideas. Hot drinks are not allowed on the shop floor or on the counter as you might spill your drink and scald a child, yourself or a customer and you might spill your drink on the till and break it. You might also drop your cup creating a scald risk, and the risk of cutting someone on a sherd of cup. So we're only allowed bottles of water with a sports cap on the counter. Which is fine but to get from the staff room to the warehouse and office you need to walk along the shop floor, this was frowned upon but given the layout of our shop was made acceptable so long as you went straight from the staff room and into the warehouse.

Also the step ladders which passed 2 previous H&S assessments and were even declaired safe to use when Spar took over have been banned from use as there are no rubber feet on them. Along with 2 metal kick stools (the spring loaded wheels had lost their spring, which I thought was a good thing as it wont move when you stand on it) have had to be replaced with 2 new plastic ones. Which if you gently tap to move it a few feet, it flys all the way down the aisle taking out toddlers, koala bears, pandas and causes global warming due to wind resistance, so we can't kick the kick stools.

Items that are going to consumed, ie packs of pops, boxes of cereals, crisps etc. must be stored on shelves to prevent attracting rodents and to stop them from nibbling away at them. When Spar first took over a mouse managed to get into a box of crisps on the top shelf and make himself a home, they got disposed of, bait stations installed. When it was a Costcutter there were mousetraps under the warehouse shelves and at one point a cat was "hired" and lived in the warehouse for a few weeks. It was only the pet food the mice were interested in so it got put in a metal chest and the mouse problem went away and Sirrel was found a new home.

Further to this, The car owner has received another letter from Bodgit and Scarper, stating that they can no longer represent the plaintiff in the issue. Presumably they've done a little background research into their ex client

That's good news Paul.