Schoolboys left injured after playing near rail line to sue over 'psychological trauma'

[Dr_Paul]

'Section 1(5) states that the occupier’s duty of care can be discharged if reasonable steps are taken to warn of any danger or to reduce the risk of the child being in danger. However, putting down traps and allurements (something which attracts a child onto the land) on the land can adversely affect the landowner’s position in the case of trespassing children because the presence of a trap actually increases the risk that children will be attracted by a danger and this in turn increases the level of precautions an occupier ought to take. [My emphasis]

For some kids, and I'm sure this applies to most of us when we were young, rolling stock and locomotives in a fenced-off yard are most definitely an 'allurement'. If these Bescot kids say they're railway enthusiasts and claim that the landowner had placed some 'allurements' in the yard, they might get away with it, and maybe even get some compensation on the grounds that the landowner made their access easier by not repairing the fence. Let's see if their lawyers try this kind of argument.

 

[LAX54]

I think the fence ought to have been fixed really, since an animal could've very well crossed those tracks and got itself killed or injured. I mean I have little sympathy for these thirteen year old lads. I don't care if the fence was broken, it should be common sense not to trespass on the railways. Having said that, the legality of the duty of care is set out, and hopefully it'll prompt Network Rail or whoever owned the yard to get that fixed, since it's a requirement by law. I mean you can argue the law should be changed since some people see this duty of care as the act of a nanny state to protect the idiots of this country, but it's kind of irrelevant to the case we've got here. Unfortunately I've little faith anyone will really learn from this incident, so I doubt anything will change at all really.

And as fast as you fix the fence, they break it down again, it happens everyday, plus of course an animal does not need a hole in the fence, of course the Railway does now put 6 foot high metal fencing, but it seems that is wrong too, as it 'spoils the view ' lol

Let it go to Court and maybe it will them that get the fine, AND the Parents too

 

[221129]

Is this not also the family and incident that are working with the rail industry in their latest safety campaign?! Beggars belief!

 

[Bantamzen]

Children ( and 13 year old's are children) have less good mechanisms for judging or assessing danger. While they may know electric is dangerous they may have no idea how their actions are dangerous. People here are experts but people in the real world especially children, are not.

I'd disagree with this point. Most 13 years will know perfectly well the dangers of things such as live electric wires, what they often won't do is believe anything bad will happen to them, which to my mind is something entirely different. Teenage bravado is often brought on through peer pressure, and so whilst they will understand the risks of certain dangerous situations they will feel emboldened enough to try things out regardless when part of a group.

 

[CeeJ]

As someone who, as an 11-year-old, jumped over a third-rail to retrieve a football, you'd think kids knew better not to touch the overhead lines. At the same time, the kid may not have realised how close he actually was to the overhead line - distances can be distorted standing at the bottom!

DB Cargo should've fixed the fence, it's negligent of them not to. I hope an our of court settlement is reached, as inevitably it's the parents who also have to look after their severely injured/traumatised children.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I don't think we know enough about the children; they could be perfectly "normal" 13 year olds fascinated with locos and rolling stock and larking around etc like most of us their age; they could have mild learning disabilities and thus be "vulnerable" children (who probably shouldn't have been let out by themselves anyway); they could be "tanked up" on alcopops or some other mind-altering beverages and daring one another to do silly things - we just don't know. Did their parents know where they were up to before this unfortunate incident happened?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Recognising that this thread is about the family taking legal action and Bescot being an 'active' Yard it is worth recalling an incident at Allerton in 2009. A boy of a similar age was electrocuted after climbing on a disused wagon at a closed depot (at the time) but the wires were still live.

EWS (as was) were fined £180,000 plus almost £60,000 in costs after prosecution by the ORR. The case only concluded in 2012.

 

[Panupreset]

There was an incident at Goodmayes this morning on the GEML. A person tried to take a shortcut accross the running lines and was hit by a train. Understand the individual lost both legs but has survived.

On the basis of #15, should any non stopping train proceed at caution through a platform?

 

[AlterEgo]

I think it is an irritating world when people frequently spout strawman arguments.

There was absolutely nothing in that post which suggests the poster has more sympathy for animals than children.

You missed the bit where it said "I have little sympathy for these thirteen year old lads" then, immediately after saying the hole should have been closed in case an animal died.

The hole should have been closed so children didn't die or get hurt. The death or injury of a child is much more shocking and a cause for concern than that of an animal.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Pure speculation IMO but the courts could acknowledge the children were trespassing but find DBC did not exercise proper duty of care and reduce the damages reflect the childrens' recklessless - but then to muddy the waters, they are minors.... I can see this getting rather messy

 

[WelshBluebird]

Recognising that this thread is about the family taking legal action and Bescot being an 'active' Yard it is worth recalling an incident at Allerton in 2009. A boy of a similar age was electrocuted after climbing on a disused wagon at a closed depot (at the time) but the wires were still live.

EWS (as was) were fined £180,000 plus almost £60,000 in costs after prosecution by the ORR. The case only concluded in 2012.

I'd say a closed depot and a discused wagon are a bit different to an in use yard. There is no excuse for leaving dangers still around when a place is disused. A working railway is a totally different kettle of fish.

Children ( and 13 year old's are children) have less good mechanisms for judging or assessing danger. While they may know electric is dangerous they may have no idea how their actions are dangerous. People here are experts but people in the real world especially children, are not.

Sorry but at 13, unless you have disabilities that prevent cognition etc, you know a live railway yard is a dangerous place. Sorry but you do.
If you don't, well the parents have totally failed.

but the key case is from 1972.................

I'm not saying the law and previous cases don't apply. Just getting fed up of posts like your one I've just quoted saying kids don't know the dangers. All I can say is rubbish. If you are 13 and don't know that going onto an in use railway yard is dangerous, then you need some serious help. Children are children, and yes they may get attracted to activities that are risky, and they may not quite think through all the consequences, but to claim that a 13 year old cannot be expected to know a live railway is dangerous and could end up with them getting injured or killed, sorry but at 13 you do know that.

 

[Bromley boy]

There was an incident at Goodmayes this morning on the GEML. A person tried to take a shortcut accross the running lines and was hit by a train. Understand the individual lost both legs but has survived.

On the basis of #15, should any non stopping train proceed at caution through a platform?

I wouldn’t have thought so.

That scenario (presumably an adult taking what is very obviously a stupid risk) would likely fit within the volenti non fit injuria defence.

There was a case recently of someone who lost both legs after running alongside a moving train looking for a ticket they had left on board, and falling down the gap. They tried to sue the TOC/NR and the case was dismissed, IIRC.

 

[mmh]

Trespass on the railway is very definitely a crime.

Whoops, of course it is, thank you. I feel quite stupid for not thinking of it while on a railway forum!

 

[mmh]

I'd say a closed depot and a discused wagon are a bit different to an in use yard. There is no excuse for leaving dangers still around when a place is disused. A working railway is a totally different kettle of fish.

It feels a bit irrelevant whether the yard is in use or not - how does the public know if it is, and what difference should it make to them?

I'm not saying the law and previous cases don't apply. Just getting fed up of posts like your one I've just quoted saying kids don't know the dangers. All I can say is rubbish. If you are 13 and don't know that going onto an in use railway yard is dangerous, then you need some serious help. Children are children, and yes they may get attracted to activities that are risky, and they may not quite think through all the consequences, but to claim that a 13 year old cannot be expected to know a live railway is dangerous and could end up with them getting injured or killed, sorry but at 13 you do know that.

There's enough evidence in statistics to suggest that while young people will likely understand the railway is dangerous they might not appreciate how dangerous. They'll know a moving train is dangerous but will they know they can be electrocuted without touching the wire? (Which is what happened in this incident) How many adults would?

 

[Bletchleyite]

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/schoolboys-left-injured-after-playing-14950055

Extraordinary.

Should be laughed out of Court, charged costs and prosecuted for trespass on the railway. Idiots.

Would they also play on a busy A-road despite those not being fenced?

They should also bring back the hard-hitting anti-trespass videos from the 1980s. Taught me properly, certainly.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The hole should have been closed so children didn't die or get hurt

It should, but equally children should be taught not to prat about on the railway and accompanied by an adult if they cannot be trusted not to do so, whether there is a fence or not.

I can't recall as a kid anyone who thought it sensible to do so. It's a small minority, often those whose parents pay no attention to what they are doing.

 

[DarloRich]

Should be laughed out of Court, charged costs and prosecuted for trespass on the railway. Idiots.

Would they also play on a busy A-road despite those not being fenced?

or, you know, the courts could follow the long standing case law that sets out a duty of care. That case dates from 1972, hardly a time when "elf & safety" ran rampant.

I'm not saying the law and previous cases don't apply. Just getting fed up of posts like your one I've just quoted saying kids don't know the dangers. All I can say is rubbish. If you are 13 and don't know that going onto an in use railway yard is dangerous, then you need some serious help. Children are children, and yes they may get attracted to activities that are risky, and they may not quite think through all the consequences, but to claim that a 13 year old cannot be expected to know a live railway is dangerous and could end up with them getting injured or killed, sorry but at 13 you do know that.

They might know an activity is dangerous but they do not have the ability/skills to process that risk in the way an adult does. There is plenty of scholarly articles on line supporting this point. Why not look for some.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They might know an activity is dangerous but they do not have the ability/skills to process that risk in the way an adult does.

Hence parental responsibility. If you let your kid out on their own, you as a parent need to know their level of responsibility and whether it is appropriate for you to let them do the thing on their own that they are doing and what level of supervision they might need, and you, as a parent, are responsible for any misdeeds they may happen to get up to.

 

[DarloRich]

Hence parental responsibility. If you let your kid out on their own, you as a parent need to know their level of responsibility and whether it is appropriate for you to let them do the thing on their own that they are doing and what level of supervision they might need, and you, as a parent, are responsible for any misdeeds they may happen to get up to.

I am going down the park to play football mum.

OK off you go. Take care crossing the road

Right lads iItold my mum I am off to the park - lets go and nose about that train yard we can get in by that hole in the fence we found the other day!

Your view kind of collapses in the face of the real world!

Pure speculation IMO but the courts could acknowledge the children were trespassing but find DBC did not exercise proper duty of care and reduce the damages reflect the childrens' recklessless

that is precisely what will happen IMO

( however the fact they are children will reduce the reduction so to speak)

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am going down the park to play football mum.

OK off you go. Take care crossing the road

Right lads iItold my mum I am off to the park - lets go and nose about that train yard we can get in by that hole in the fence we found the other day!

Your view kind of collapses in the face of the real world!

Rubbish. A parent who puts the effort in knows their child and can manage risk because of that knowledge. The parent knows to a pretty decent level if they can trust they are going to do what they say.

I don't have my own, but in Scouting we spend plenty of time training them up so we can let them do stuff with very loose supervision. We don't just take them at face value.

 

[MDB1images]

If a hole existed in the fence then whatever the rights and wrongs of the case become irrelevant.
Whoever owned the fence will expect to be hit financially.

 

[mmh]

Should be laughed out of Court, charged costs and prosecuted for trespass on the railway. Idiots.

Because they've not suffered enough, or for what other reason?

Would they also play on a busy A-road despite those not being fenced?

They should also bring back the hard-hitting anti-trespass videos from the 1980s. Taught me properly, certainly.

They have. http://www.youvstrain.co.uk/hubbard (link is to a first-hand story of a 16 year old's electrocution, with a link to a reconstruction don't-do-it video which is more graphic than any of the 80s ones I can remember)

 

[WelshBluebird]

It feels a bit irrelevant whether the yard is in use or not - how does the public know if it is, and what difference should it make to them?

It makes a difference because if you leave a disused but still dangerous depot lying around with easy access, I'd personally suggest that is pretty careless at best, and negligent at worst.

There's enough evidence in statistics to suggest that while young people will likely understand the railway is dangerous they might not appreciate how dangerous. They'll know a moving train is dangerous but will they know they can be electrocuted without touching the wire? (Which is what happened in this incident) How many adults would?

Really? It isn't difficult to find out electricity arcs and doesn't require touch.
13 year olds know about lightening don't they?
Hell network rail themselves have lesson plans for KS3 (which is the age group in question) and one of the things they address is the fact electricity can jump and doesn't need physical contact. I don't have the time to go through other KS3 lesson plans online, but I would be surprised if the concept isn't taught at that age (or before).

Even regarding that, once again, it does not take that particular knowledge to know a railway yard is dangerous and you shouldn't be messing around there.

They might know an activity is dangerous but they do not have the ability/skills to process that risk in the way an adult does. There is plenty of scholarly articles on line supporting this point. Why not look for some.

Na sorry, I was a 13 year old kid once. I knew well enough that going on an railway property was dangerous and so I didn't do it.
13 year olds know that.

If a hole existed in the fence then whatever the rights and wrongs of the case become irrelevant.
Whoever owned the fence will expect to be hit financially.

And if it is found that the fence had just been fixed but someone had made a new hole before whoever owns the fence could realistically fix it again?
Our railways are fenced for the most part. Are we saying that if someone cuts a whole in the fence somewhere, then NR should be expected to fix it before anyone can use it for access (so immediately as soon as the whole is made) and then continue fixing it whenever the whole is cut again (as usually happens in cases like this where a hole is fixed, 5 minutes later a new one is cut). The only way that would be possible is if NR posted staff every 100m or so across the network!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Because they've not suffered enough, or for what other reason?

Pour encourager les autres.

Though to be fair as it's the parents who are sueing (having already been negligent in not knowing what their kids were up to) some way of hitting the parents might be preferable.

 

[mmh]

Your view kind of collapses in the face of the real world!

Quite. When I was a kid there was a "short cut" across the local railway line where the fence had been pulled back which must have saved all of 2 minutes against using a bridge. I think I only used it once, when I was with other kids - being quite a timid and scared kid I wouldn't have done it on my own. Did my parents think I could be trusted not to do something like that? Of course.

I don't think this world where kids are so well brought up they never do anything wrong exists outside the minds of adults who can't picture that a kid would ignore one of their instructions.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I'll also add that at least in my experience, the type of kid who would be messing around on railway property is also likely to be the type of kid causing grief for the local area in terms of anti social behaviour etc.
Of course that doesn't mean they deserve to be injured, but it does give an idea of the type of people we are talking about (and also usually the type of people the parents are too - the phrase "my little darling" comes to mind). Most kids do not mess about on the railway, so all this talk about "kids don't realise the risks" is just rubbish, because most kids do.

I don't think this world where kids are so well brought up they never do anything wrong exists outside the minds of adults who can't picture that a kid would ignore one of their instructions.

There is a difference between "never do anything wrong" and this. We aren't talking about taking a shortcut over a local line. We are talking about specific trespass onto a railway yard and them messing about there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Most kids do not mess about on the railway, so all this talk about "kids don't realise the risks" is just rubbish, because most kids do.

And it's my observation that the kind of parents whose kids do prat around on railway yards are those who, of an evening, get themselves tanked up and don't concern themselves with where their kids are. Not the kind of parents who bring their kids up properly - i.e. to know that you just don't go somewhere like that, end of, and if they were to find out that the kid had, even for a short time, there would be VERY serious consequences indeed beyond any injury that may also occur.

I'm going to venture the view that this was most probably not the first time they had been there.

 

[MDB1images]

If a hole existed (be it 1 day, 1 month or 1 minute)the owner will know they are going to be fined.

And if it is found that the fence had just been fixed but someone had made a new hole before whoever owns the fence could realistically fix it again?
Our railways are fenced for the most part. Are we saying that if someone cuts a whole in the fence somewhere, then NR should be expected to fix it before anyone can use it for access (so immediately as soon as the whole is made) and then continue fixing it whenever the whole is cut again (as usually happens in cases like this where a hole is fixed, 5 minutes later a new one is cut). The only way that would be possible is if NR posted staff every 100m or so across the network!

 

[Bromley boy]

And it's my observation that the kind of parents whose kids do prat around on railway yards are those who, of an evening, get themselves tanked up and don't concern themselves with where their kids are. Not the kind of parents who bring their kids up properly - i.e. to know that you just don't go somewhere like that, end of, and if they were to find out that the kid had, even for a short time, there would be VERY serious consequences indeed beyond any injury that may also occur.

I'm going to venture the view that this was most probably not the first time they had been there.

“Scummers” is the word you’re looking for, I believe.

 

[mmh]

Really? It isn't difficult to find out electricity arcs and doesn't require touch.
13 year olds know about lightening don't they?

I honestly do think you're crediting people with more knowledge and understanding than many will have. Lots of adults won't equate lightning with "real" electricity.

Hell network rail themselves have lesson plans for KS3 (which is the age group in question) and one of the things they address is the fact electricity can jump and doesn't need physical contact. I don't have the time to go through other KS3 lesson plans online, but I would be surprised if the concept isn't taught at that age (or before).

Quite likely, I'm far too old to know! If they do, that's great - although a fair few kids are either not much good at school or won't pay attention.

And if it is found that the fence had just been fixed but someone had made a new hole before whoever owns the fence could realistically fix it again?
Our railways are fenced for the most part. Are we saying that if someone cuts a whole in the fence somewhere, then NR should be expected to fix it before anyone can use it for access (so immediately as soon as the whole is made) and then continue fixing it whenever the whole is cut again (as usually happens in cases like this where a hole is fixed, 5 minutes later a new one is cut). The only way that would be possible is if NR posted staff every 100m or so across the network!

If there's a blackspot which is repeatedly broken like that then you could stop replacing the, say, chain link fence and put up something more sturdy instead.