75ZT Community

From AOL News :

The mum and dad of a baby killed by a falling lamp post have vowed to sue the engineer who they say caused their son's death.

Kate and Christopher Hollis are furious that a coroner ruled that their son Tommy's death the day before his first birth was an accident.

Engineer Kevin Elmore admitted mistakenly sawing through the lamp post that killed Tommy, thinking it was an old tramline.

Tommy was crushed in his buggy as his nanny pushed him across a road near construction works in Chiswick, west London.
Kate and Christopher accused coroner Elizabeth Pygott of 'compounding their grief' by banning their lawyer from asking key questions, calling council witnesses or cross-examining the workman.

They had asked Mrs Pygott to give the jury the option of an unlawful killing or open verdict.

But the coroner said the only possible verdict was accidental death because there was not enough evidence to support anything else.

Engineer Mr Elmore told the inquest he wished he could have died instead of Tommy. He was excused from answering questions and left in tears.

The inquest heard workmen were under pressure from Hounslow council to complete a road project.

Tommy's mum, Kate, 40, said: "We did not expect our anguish to be compounded by the coroner's decision to exclude questions and evidence that may lead us to understand better how Tommy was killed."

A lawyer for the couple said: "Legal action will be pursued against those responsible for the death of Tommy Hollis."


To clarify a little: what the engineer did was to cut through what he thought was an old tramline under the ground a little distance away from the lampost not realising that it was a horizontal stay running from the post itself. An honest mistake, albeit with tragic consequences.

My question is this: The parents are sueing the engineer, presumeably in the hope of receiving monetary compensation. Why? That is not going to bring their child back. What good will it actually do? Will they be able to enjoy spending the money?

I am not criticising the parents here, nor do I underestimate the immense effect of their loss but I just don't see this action as achieving anything productive or positive.

I understand where they're coming from. For their son to die and it be recorded as an accident is just horrible. A beautiful healthy boy dead from something that could have been so easily prevented and they're been stopped from being able to blame someone is horrible. Someone is to blame here and I don't believe the judge should have stopped them finding out who, perhaps it's the council who should pay? But the only course open to the parents now is to sue the engineer, perhaps in doing that they may find out who's really at fault.

Firstly I dare say the No Win No Fee vultures have descended upon them.

As to be easily preventable from what I have read the method of securing the lampost was extremely unusual, i.e. very very rare. So presumably as the stay was linked to the tram line the engineer therefore cut it as perhaps anyone of us would have done on the basis that it was only part of the tram line.

Perhaps if anyone is to blame it is the original designer.

I feel sorry for the parents but think this course of action may compound their grief, especially if no compensation is awarded.

And 'who should pay' - is it always a question of how much for whatever it might be?

I understand their grief. Unfortunately what happened did so because of the actions of others...be it the designer, the training of the engineer who cut it, the engineer who actually cut the stay, the council for putting the contractors under too much pressure to 'get the job done' and hence things were rushed...it was an avoidable accident..it was also probably a one in a trillion occurrence.

Ironically, at the end of the day, if it had fallen on somebody's car you can bet the owner or their insurers would be looking for recompense! The fact is, it was left in a dangerous state and it killed somebody. I think I would want a bit more than 'accidental death' too! Not sure sueing the engineer is the way to achieve this though.

All opinions on the procedures in this sad case, including 'learned' guesses, are somewhat previous. Consider the purpose of the inquest. The coroner was right I think, it is not a trial. Although called a Coroners' Court it is not a court of law in the normally accepted sense. Its purpose is entirely to determine the cause of death. Even if the cause of the demise may be reasonably seen to be as a result of the actions of an individual, that may not be investigated nor witnesses to the event be required to give testimony to that effect. The coroner is there not to apportion blame or responsibility and will direct a limited verdict. Of course the coroner has great powers and may make recommendations of investigation or review by relevant agencies. Witnesses may be called, but only to testify to what actually happened. At least, that is my unqualified, lay, understanding of the procedures of the court.

I fully understand the reasons for the Coroners verdict. As I said in my opening post, what I find difficult to comprehend is what suing, presumably for monetary compensation, is going to acheive.

Yes, take your point. Maybe money is not the deceased parents' primary objective. I suspect the coroner made no recomendation regarding the need for police investigation into whether there was a case to answer by the local authority on grounds of negligence. It could be the police or CPS have expressed no interest in pursuing the matter, although it is difficult on the face of it to understand why, and the family see this as the only way to highlight what they see as a gross injustice by officialdom. Must say I do sympathise with them. It seems reasonable to assume that in the absence of an investigation or review, then nothing may be done to safeguard the future. Little gets more attention than the threat of public view of internal affairs and if sueing is all that works then that's all that counts.

I assume that the HSE carried out an investigation

Jumper wrote:Yes, take your point. Maybe money is not the deceased parents' primary objective. I suspect the coroner made no recomendation regarding the need for police investigation into whether there was a case to answer by the local authority on grounds of negligence. It could be the police or CPS have expressed no interest in pursuing the matter, although it is difficult on the face of it to understand why, and the family see this as the only way to highlight what they see as a gross injustice by officialdom. Must say I do sympathise with them. It seems reasonable to assume that in the absence of an investigation or review, then nothing may be done to safeguard the future. Little gets more attention than the threat of public view of internal affairs and if sueing is all that works then that's all that counts.

Exactly what I meant but more eloquently put. If my son died a needless death I'd be pulling whatever stunts necessary for some person or organisation to be held accountable.