DB Cargo guilty of safety breach at Tyne Yard leading to life changing injuries for 13 year old

47271 · 6 Oct 2018

I pass Tyne Yard on a regular basis and I do remember the old box and thinking that the site was badly neglected, I didn't realise that this incident was the immediate cause of demolition.

A further point - surely if the yard was easily accessible to trespassers then that meant that they could just as easily stray onto the main line, wouldn't that in itself have caused pressure to have been applied to DB?

RailUK Forums

swt_passenger · 6 Oct 2018

47271 said:
I pass Tyne Yard on a regular basis and I do remember the old box and thinking that the site was badly neglected, I didn't realise that this incident was the immediate cause of demolition.

A further point - surely if the yard was easily accessible to trespassers then that meant that they could just as easily stray onto the main line, wouldn't that in itself have caused pressure to have been applied to DB?

The problem I was thinking of was that even if the entire perimeter of such a yard was secured to the absolute highest standards you’d still be able to walk in FROM the mainline. Unless they have gated siding access, like for example the former Eurostar depot at North Pole. If you are prepared to walk far enough you’ll always be able to get into such a yard somehow. Away from built up areas you don’t generally see security fencing.

Bantamzen · 7 Oct 2018

DarloRich said:
Sorry. You are incorrect. Again. The law has been in place for at least 40 years. That has not changed the requirement to secure your property as far as reasonably practicable to protects people from harm. They don't have to take any extra steps. They just have to take steps of the kind manifestly not taken here.

This is easily discovered by a simple.
Google search.

You keep referring to the law, and I do not dispute this. However that is not my point. Please re-read my comments about how society has changed and how people take less responsibility for their actions, and that of their children.

TUC · 7 Oct 2018

DarloRich said:
While you are, of course, entitled to express this view it merely highlights your shocking ignorance of the law of this country. The laws in question are ones which have not changed for many many years but that won't stop the usual wibble

But that does not get away from the double standards that are applied to the railway rather than the road. There is nothing to stop someone walking down a slip road onto a motorway other thsn signs warning them not to. Why should the railway be any differebt?

SilentGrade · 7 Oct 2018

swt_passenger said:
The problem I was thinking of was that even if the entire perimeter of such a yard was secured to the absolute highest standards you’d still be able to walk in FROM the mainline.

But in that case DB would not be liable as they’d taken the appropriate steps to prevent harm? The law as I understand it is about taking the appropriate action to mitigate the relative risk. Something DB clearly didn’t do.

The potential risk of somebody entering the main line from the middle of the countryside is relatively low and so there is no need for the security fencing seen in built up areas where the risk is much greater.

Re 4/4 · 7 Oct 2018

But that does not get away from the double standards that are applied to the railway rather than the road. There is nothing to stop someone walking down a slip road onto a motorway other thsn signs warning them not to. Why should the railway be any differebt?

Highways are specifically excluded from the Occupiers Liability Act 1984. Motorways are technically "Special Roads" but I imagine there's separate legislation for this case - for one thing it's illegal to walk on a motorway (or a railway, for that matter).

Also, as I'll show in a quote below, in this specific case the kids got in through a route where there weren't even any warning signs.

The problem I was thinking of was that even if the entire perimeter of such a yard was secured to the absolute highest standards you’d still be able to walk in FROM the mainline

If that's what had happened, I'm sure the court would have taken it into account. But in this specific case, the argument that DBS had not taken reasonable safety measures hinged on how the kids actually got in, namely:

The investigation also showed that there was not a single fence or gate stopping people leaving a public bridleway – which passed the childrens' homes in Birtley – and walking onto the yard. Furthermore, there was no security patrol and no warning signs to deter trespassers at their point of entry.

It also seemed like everyone knew that children were doing this all the time:

The court heard that DB Cargo (UK) Ltd was fully aware that the site attracted trespassers, shown by the presence of graffiti on buildings, fly tipping and vandalism, and reports of drinking and drug taking there. One of the four children told investigators that for a period ‘she used to go every day’.

mpthomson · 7 Oct 2018

TUC said:
But that does not get away from the double standards that are applied to the railway rather than the road. There is nothing to stop someone walking down a slip road onto a motorway other thsn signs warning them not to. Why should the railway be any differebt?

Highways aren't run by an operating company are they? They're completely different to railways in this regard. You're comparing apples and oranges.

eslcma · 7 Oct 2018

This is a sad incident. Unfortunately it's one of many up and down every year, the majority I believe occurring on the mainline. Following an incident in Wakefield in 2016 I read that there was no obligation for warning signs, the ORR only suggested installing them after the incident.

TUC · 7 Oct 2018

mpthomson said:
Highways aren't run by an operating company are they? They're completely different to railways in this regard. You're comparing apples and oranges.

They're not, and I recognise that different legislation applies to diffetent industries, but there does seem to be something illogical and unfair about such different standards applying. The question should be what is the appropriate response to a risk, not which industry it takes place in,

NSEFAN · 7 Oct 2018

TUC said:
They're not, and I recognise that different legislation applies to diffetent industries, but there does seem to be something illogical and unfair about such different standards applying. The question should be what is the appropriate response to a risk, not which industry it takes place in,

The public cross roads and interact with traffic/cars almost every day, in one way or another. A child is exposed to roads from a fairly young age, so they learn pretty quickly how to behave safely, and it's reasonable to assume this of them. Cars also pose little risk unless they are moving; there's certainly not supposed to be exposed HV cables around them within grabbing distance.

On the other hand, most people don't work trackside and only ever interact with trains in a passenger environment. Those who do work trackside are given special training and safety gear, so they know how to behave and what hazards to look out for. On the other hand, a member of public (especially a child) may vaguely know that trains can be dangerous (maybe by being hit by one) but may not fully appreciate what's dangerous and what's not (they may not realise just how dangerous the OHLE is, or even what it's for). This is why we let people just walk down the street, but need staff to usher pax to safety when an official detrainment is necessary.

falcon · 7 Oct 2018

ForTheLoveOf said:
I have sympathy with the lad involved, given the life-changing injuries he received. Whether or not he was in the wrong to be there (he undoubtedly was, and he almost certainly knew that he was), at the end of the day society is now going to have to provide support to an individual for the rest of his life, possibly amounting to £100,000s of lost wages, benefits needed, emotional losses to family etc.

Merely from a logical perspective I see that it is pointless to argue that people should fend for themselves, since it is society that has to deal with the consequences if fencing etc. is not properly installed and maintained.

In my view, the law is correct insofar as it attaches an obligation on occupiers to protect the general public, including trespassers, from harm. Given the significant loss to society and to individuals if this is not done properly, I do not object to attaching criminal liability (i.e. prosecution and a fine) to a failure to do this. In other words, I think that such a liability is plainly justifiable on public policy grounds.

However, where I disagree with the current position of the law is that I do not think the estates or families of trespassers, or the trespassers themselves, should be entitled to damages if they cause a self-inflicted injury. I think the bad PR, fine etc. that are associated with the prosecution that will no doubt result in most such cases, is enough disincentive to encourage occupiers to take reasonable precautions. It almost seems a sort of windfall that damages be awarded for a self-inflicted injury. Yes, undoubtedly the families and the individuals will come to great cost as a result, however unless there is some hidden danger (e.g. if no-one knew that overhead electrics were lethal, or the trains themselves were somehow electrified at 25kV), I do not see that you should recover any losses from what you have knowingly inflicted yourself.

In other words, I think society should be protected from having to deal with the aftermath of unprotected hazards. But individuals should not be compensated if they knowingly cause themselves injury.

But this thread is nothing to do with a self inflicted injury!

DarloRich · 7 Oct 2018

Bantamzen said:
You keep referring to the law, and I do not dispute this. However that is not my point. Please re-read my comments about how society has changed and how people take less responsibility for their actions, and that of their children.

I read each of your posts thanks. The issue is they are pointless. The law is all that matters not your views. Those laws haven't changed regardless of your views on them or society. I also take issue with your assertion that people took responsibility more in the glorious past. They didn't. They simply had no means of enforcing a breach. Now normal people do.

DarloRich · 7 Oct 2018

TUC said:
But that does not get away from the double standards that are applied to the railway rather than the road. There is nothing to stop someone walking down a slip road onto a motorway other thsn signs warning them not to. Why should the railway be any differebt?

Your point is nothing more than whataboutery

ForTheLoveOf · 7 Oct 2018

falcon said:
But this thread is nothing to do with a self inflicted injury!

I don't think there's any other way of describing the injuries sustained in this case. The lad was not mentally impaired in such a way that he couldn't understand that what he was doing was wrong and dangerous. He simply didn't care, and now he and society have suffered the consequences.

eslcma · 7 Oct 2018

What happens if Network Rail have a yard and this sort of thing happens?

furnessvale · 7 Oct 2018

Re 4/4 said:
Also, as I'll show in a quote below, in this specific case the kids got in through a route where there weren't even any warning signs.

The law only requires that trespass warning signs are displayed at the nearest passenger station.

For example, in the case of a location such as Tebay, that would be Oxenholme and/or Penrith.

ForTheLoveOf · 8 Oct 2018

furnessvale said:
The law only requires that trespass warning signs are displayed at the nearest passenger station.

For example, in the case of a location such as Tebay, that would be Oxenholme and/or Penrith.

One very old and arcane law to do with railway trespass requires this. You can still be prosecuted for trespass under other laws that do not require this, and the Occupiers Liability Act applies notwithstanding signage.

eldomtom2 · 8 Oct 2018

eslcma said:
What happens if Network Rail have a yard and this sort of thing happens?

I fail to see any reason why they would or should be treated any differently.

Elecman · 8 Oct 2018

eslcma said:
What happens if Network Rail have a yard and this sort of thing happens?

They would be prosecuted in the same way

RLBH · 8 Oct 2018

DarloRich said:
That has not changed the requirement to secure your property as far as reasonably practicable to protects people from harm.

The point is, I think, that definitions of 'as far as reasonably practicable' have changed over time.

Granted in this case the precautions taken to secure property would appear to have been somewhere between lax and non-existent, but there does seem to be a perception that measures once considered acceptable may no longer be, whilst measures that would not have been considered reasonably practicable in the past now are.

Elecman · 8 Oct 2018

furnessvale said:
The law only requires that trespass warning signs are displayed at the nearest passenger station.

For example, in the case of a location such as Tebay, that would be Oxenholme and/or Penrith.

Most track access gates I’ve used also have trespass warning signs onnthem ascwell as the ussual this gate must be kept closed and locked signs.

Jonny · 8 Oct 2018

furnessvale said:
The law only requires that trespass warning signs are displayed at the nearest passenger station.

For example, in the case of a location such as Tebay, that would be Oxenholme and/or Penrith.

However, it is a good idea to install 'repeater' signage at other locations. Also it helps to avoid any doubt, and any argument as to "reasonably practicable".

Or, if some lawyer tried to re-define station to include facilities such as Tyne Yard and/or track access points. I would not put it past some of them, they are serpentine enough.

swj99 · 8 Oct 2018

Bantamzen said:
The law does require companies to ensure the safety of visitors and now trespassers..............

Thin edge of the wedge............

Sad but true. We now have to legislate against ignorance. Some teenagers are clued up enough to realize when they're putting themselves in danger, but some are impressionable and of low intelligence, and as such, are easily led. Maybe if all of the four bridges had been fenced off, the verdict would have been different, and the court may have found that the company had done enough ensure the safety of visitors and trespassers. I accept that even if the place was fenced off very well, with plenty of signs warning of the danger, the most determined will still gain entry, but at least then the company responsible for the site will be more easily able to satisfy a court that it has taken steps to discharge its duty.

I haven't got time to read through several pages of this now, but it seems to me that the frequency of this kind of tragedy could be reduced through education and awareness. There aren't all that many things which are as potentially dangerous as going near live power cables, trespassing in disused quarries, cycling on motorways, and various other things which seem obvious to most of us, but maybe not to all, but which can result in death or serious injury. Plenty of adults claim not to know the dangers of live electricity, or the fact that the OHLE and 3rd rail is live all the time, not just when a train is in the vicinity, so teach kids about it. It would be as easy as teaching people to add 1+1. I'm aware that people go into schools to warn students about dangers like this, but honestly, anyone could teach this stuff. It shouldn't need a railway professional to spend their valuable time away from their normal work trying explain it. Schools could do it themselves, and dispel some of the myths.

4069 · 8 Oct 2018

furnessvale said:
The law only requires that trespass warning signs are displayed at the nearest passenger station.

Which law would that be?

duffield · 8 Oct 2018

Bantamzen said:
The law does require companies to ensure the safety of visitors and now trespassers. But where does it end? Full, trespasser-proof, totally unbreakable perimeter fencing at yards and depots? Then when the law rules that trespassers injured or killed on live lines is unlawful?

Thin edge of the wedge I fear. Once upon a time we were taught not to trespass on the railway because we might die, now the law makes it increasingly difficult to operate because we have taken responsibility away from the trespassers. Madness.

This particular case really has nothing to say that relates to the 'thin end of the wedge'. It's so clear-cut that it would almost certainly have resulted in the same verdict many decades ago - the fact that you could walk from a public bridleway into the depot with no fence or gate of any type makes it a no brainer.

As for "But where does it end? Full, trespasser-proof, totally unbreakable perimeter fencing at yards and depots? Then when the law rules that trespassers injured or killed on live lines is unlawful?"

This is not going to happen. The law requires *reasonable* steps, not *impossible* or ridiculously disproportionate steps be taken. And *reasonable* will most likely be related to similar depots which do not have missing fences/gates. Trespassers (non-suicidal) die on railway lines fairly frequently but Network Rail doesn't get prosecuted or sued, because typically reasonable, practical steps have been taken to prevent them and it's accepted by the law that you cannot stop determined trespassers (e.g. the recent grafitti related deaths). Failure to even *attempt* to fence off a depot from an adjoining Public Bridleway shows clearly you have not taken reasonable steps to deter (not prevent) trespass.

DarloRich · 8 Oct 2018

duffield said:
This particular case really has nothing to say that relates to the 'thin end of the wedge'. It's so clear-cut that it would almost certainly have resulted in the same verdict many decades ago - the fact that you could walk from a public bridleway into the depot with no fence or gate of any type makes it a no brainer.

As for "But where does it end? Full, trespasser-proof, totally unbreakable perimeter fencing at yards and depots? Then when the law rules that trespassers injured or killed on live lines is unlawful?"

This is not going to happen. The law requires *reasonable* steps, not *impossible* or ridiculously disproportionate steps be taken. And *reasonable* will most likely be related to similar depots which do not have missing fences/gates. Trespassers (non-suicidal) die on railway lines fairly frequently but Network Rail doesn't get prosecuted or sued, because typically reasonable, practical steps have been taken to prevent them and it's accepted by the law that you cannot stop determined trespassers (e.g. the recent grafitti related deaths). Failure to even *attempt* to fence off a depot from an adjoining Public Bridleway shows clearly you have not taken reasonable steps to deter (not prevent) trespass.

A very sensible post that the more feverish posters would do well to absorb

AM9 · 8 Oct 2018

ForTheLoveOf said:
... However, where I disagree with the current position of the law is that I do not think the estates or families of trespassers, or the trespassers themselves, should be entitled to damages if they cause a self-inflicted injury. I think the bad PR, fine etc. that are associated with the prosecution that will no doubt result in most such cases, is enough disincentive to encourage occupiers to take reasonable precautions. It almost seems a sort of windfall that damages be awarded for a self-inflicted injury. Yes, undoubtedly the families and the individuals will come to great cost as a result, however unless there is some hidden danger (e.g. if no-one knew that overhead electrics were lethal, or the trains themselves were somehow electrified at 25kV), I do not see that you should recover any losses from what you have knowingly inflicted yourself.

In other words, I think society should be protected from having to deal with the aftermath of unprotected hazards. But individuals should not be compensated if they knowingly cause themselves injury.

Even with adults, I don't think it can be assumed that such injuries are "self-inflicted". They may well be as a result of trespass and unauthorised activities, but I doubt that anybody would knowingly take a risk with exposed live high-voltage cables. I don't know the location in question, but if the yard was unguarded enough for children to play there, it may have been assumed that the wires in it weren't energised. Similarly, not all adults are aware of high voltage risks - evne when there are signs just warning them away.

Bantamzen · 8 Oct 2018

AM9 said:
Even with adults, I don't think it can be assumed that such injuries are "self-inflicted". They may well be as a result of trespass and unauthorised activities, but I doubt that anybody would knowingly take a risk with exposed live high-voltage cables. I don't know the location in question, but if the yard was unguarded enough for children to play there, it may have been assumed that the wires in it weren't energised. Similarly, not all adults are aware of high voltage risks - evne when there are signs just warning them away.

I can remember not too long ago there being footage of kids around the same age playing chicken with trains at Fitzwilliam. Shall we assume that they didn't understand the risks of being hit by hundreds of tons of metal travelling anything up to 90-100mph? I'm sorry but with respect 13-14 year olds are perfectly capable of understanding the risks, and often do just that for "the buzz". Whether they chose to or not is down in part to how they are brought up, some kids will be aware that they would get into serious trouble with their parents or worse. Others won't care.

As we have established, companies will have to continually enhance their anti-tresspass measures further where there is any kind of risk, perhaps sometimes to extremes depending on the quality of the ambulance chasers. Or parents could teach their kids to stay away....

AM9 · 8 Oct 2018

Bantamzen said:
I can remember not too long ago there being footage of kids around the same age playing chicken with trains at Fitzwilliam. Shall we assume that they didn't understand the risks of being hit by hundreds of tons of metal travelling anything up to 90-100mph? I'm sorry but with respect 13-14 year olds are perfectly capable of understanding the risks, and often do just that for "the buzz". Whether they chose to or not is down in part to how they are brought up, some kids will be aware that they would get into serious trouble with their parents or worse. Others won't care.

As we have established, companies will have to continually enhance their anti-tresspass measures further where there is any kind of risk, perhaps sometimes to extremes depending on the quality of the ambulance chasers. Or parents could teach their kids to stay away....

Well in this case, not untypical of successful prosecutions, an organisation, (deemed in law to be responsible for facilities under it's control) has failed to comply with the law and consequently exposed itself to claims for damages. The incident would not have happened had the quite reasonable safety standards been met. I hope that any forthcoming court action will prevent similar loss/damage to lives by dissuading other outfits from adopting such lax attitudes.

furnessvale · 8 Oct 2018

4069 said:
Which law would that be?

BTC Act 1949 sec 55(3) which is still the primary legislation used by BTP to prosecute trespassers.

DB Cargo guilty of safety breach at Tyne Yard leading to life changing injuries for 13 year old

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member