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

[GB]

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

Um no, not necessarily. They may well have to go to court to plead their case but if they can prove they have done all that they reasonably can then there is certainly no guarantee of a conviction.

 

[pt_mad]

Duties are owed to trespassers by landowners in certain situations. The below article (written by ambulance chasing lawyers) summarises:

http://www.lindermyers.co.uk/child-personal-injury-claim/
The 1984 Act states that the occupier of premises may be found liable to a trespasser if it can be established that he did in fact owe the trespasser a duty of care.
Under section 1(3) this duty of care to a trespasser will arise if the occupier is:

• aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists
• knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in or may come into the vicinity of the danger:

In that case, is Network Rail as a landowner supposed to put signs along the whole of the line saying 'Danger, trains run at high speed, danger of death' every 200 yds as a duty of care to trespassers?

'Know that a trespasser is in danger or come into the vicinity of danger'? Yeah 25000v of danger if you choose to trespass, and 125mph trains may appear around bends suddenly without warning of approach

I've never heard a family whose relative has passed away due to stepping out in front of a train, sueing the railway on the grounds they have liability as it's a dangerous place for example? Has this ever happened?

 

[pt_mad]

'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.

This is crazy, a train in a yard is not a trap that has been placed there or an allurement. If the kids interpret it as that that's their own decision and interpretation. Sweets in a shop are an allurement to kids but do we excuse shop lifting because the shop owner should have locked the sweets behind display glass?

 

[DarloRich]

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.

I agree they know it is dangerous. I maintain what they can not do as well as adults is grade is the risk. They might know electricity can jump but they might not be able to appreciate just how much or how easily or how much damage the electricity can do.

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.

i didn't mess around on the railway but I did trespass in places I shouldn't when I was a kid. I bet we all did.

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.

so as a kid you never lied to your mum about where you were going? BTW I went to Scouts. it was fun. Still lied to my mum about where I was going from time to time.

 

[DarloRich]

In that case, is Network Rail as a landowner supposed to put signs along the whole of the line saying 'Danger, trains run at high speed, danger of death' every 200 yds as a duty of care to trespassers?

'Know that a trespasser is in danger or come into the vicinity of danger'? Yeah 25000v of danger if you choose to trespass, and 125mph trains may appear around bends suddenly without warning of approach

I've never heard a family whose relative has passed away due to stepping out in front of a train, sueing the railway on the grounds they have liability as it's a dangerous place for example? Has this ever happened?

This is crazy, a train in a yard is not a trap that has been placed there or an allurement. If the kids interpret it as that that's their own decision and interpretation. Sweets in a shop are an allurement to kids but do we excuse shop lifting because the shop owner should have locked the sweets behind display glass?

May I suggest you read the legislation and case law. It is clear you do not understand it.

 

[cactustwirly]

I do hope BTP will also be bringing charges?

The BTP don't bring in charges, the CPS do, and it depends on whether the CPS believe there is enough evidence.

 

[8089]

Between this and the child hanging his head over the edge of the Trowbridge platform, I'm reminded of a clip from Police Stop 2 where children were caught on camera playing chicken under a motorway bridge, whilst a speeding car in front of the police video car was fast approaching them. The kids were picked up and Graham Cole delivered this classy response from one of the parents to the police.

"Haven't you got more important things to do?"

 

[WelshBluebird]

I agree they know it is dangerous. I maintain what they can not do as well as adults is grade is the risk. They might know electricity can jump but they might not be able to appreciate just how much or how easily or how much damage the electricity can do.

And I maintain it doesn't take a particularly clever 13 year old to realise that a railway yard is a not a good place to be messing around in and maybe that they shouldn't do it.

i didn't mess around on the railway but I did trespass in places I shouldn't when I was a kid. I bet we all did.

Again, there is a difference between being in places you shouldn't be and messing about and causing a nuisance in a place you shouldn't be.
And then there is an even bigger difference between those things, and having the gall to blame and sue the owner of the premises if you manage to do something dangerous and injure yourself.

so as a kid you never lied to your mum about where you were going? BTW I went to Scouts. Still lied to my mum about where I was going from time to time.

Again, massive difference.

 

[MDB1images]

What it would do is determine how much they pay out, if the damage to the fence was 1 minute old(I know-very unlikely)or had been repeatedly repaired recently /as quickly as practicable the fine they'd get would be substantially less than if it was 1 month old(from a H&S point of view).

 

[Dr_Paul]

This is crazy, a train in a yard is not a trap that has been placed there or an allurement. If the kids interpret it as that that's their own decision and interpretation. Sweets in a shop are an allurement to kids but do we excuse shop lifting because the shop owner should have locked the sweets behind display glass?

I was being a little sarcastic in my post... I was pointing to what might be a legal loophole and from that the possible obtaining of an absurd verdict if the case went to court.

 

[WelshBluebird]

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.

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.

This is going to sound pretty blunt - but tough.
If you trespass, do something dangerous, get injured doing that dangerous thing and then whinge and try to sue the owners of the premises - and your defense is "oh I didn't know electricity was dangerous" then you need to get laughed out of court. Adult or 13 year old child. The people who try that are the same people who will be making everything else's lives hell while the parents react with fake shock and go "oh but my little darlings would never do that".

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.

And when that is broken?
There is only an amount of effort you can realistically expect any organisation to put into things like this.
The way I see it, and I accept this may not be the law, is that if the organisation has made reasonable attempts to ensure the fence around the property is maintained, then that is good enough.[/QUOTE]

 

[pt_mad]

Seems that it may be the current ease of bringing cases to court, no win no fee etc, that may be responsible for these type of cases keep coming up.

When someone does something wrong, they should take responsibility for the consequences. Like we do in our life, with the law, criminal law, our driving and our jobs.

What about a burglar if they burgle your house. Can they sue for damages if something happens? Recent case law suggests no after that man was killed by the homeowner and no charges were brought.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

You don't need to know what electricity does to know that you don't trespass on the railway, full stop.

 

[Bletchleyite]

so as a kid you never lied to your mum about where you were going?

I'm sure I did at some point, but I never went on a railway yard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

"Haven't you got more important things to do?"

That kind of parent leads me towards the view that I tend towards that up to a certain age (14 or 15 maybe?) the adult(s) deemed to be in charge of a young person at any given time should be convicted of any offence they commit while under that person's charge. We need to do something to force those parents to take their responsibility seriously.

And I say that as someone who is quite often in charge of 30+ young people on a Scout activity.

 

[pemma]

So they are going to admit trespassing in a rail yard? Oh boy, NR's or the owner's lawyers could have an absolute field day with this one!

Do you recall the incident when a boy was killed when he climbed on top of a train at Allerton depot (when it belonged to DB Schenker) and got electrocuted? There was a blame game going on with Network Rail blaming DB Schenker for not maintaining the fence (which was damaged and allowed the boy to access the depot) and DB Schenker blaming the occupier of the land adjacent to the depot for the fence.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Do you recall the incident when a boy was killed when he climbed on top of a train at Allerton depot (when it belonged to DB Schenker) and got electrocuted? There was a blame game going on with Network Rail blaming DB Schenker for not maintaining the fence (which was damaged and allowed the boy to access the depot) and DB Schenker blaming the occupier of the land adjacent to the depot for the fence.

I've gone past Edge Hill depot countless times in the 1990s and early 2000s and most of the time the gate was open, let alone anything involving a fence.

 

[Master29]

There`s a great big gap at Selsey Bill. It`s called the South Coast. How many 14 year olds chuck themselves off of that knowing of the danger. I knew playing on railways was a danger it at 14 end of. How stupid do people have to be. Yeah of course all kids love adventure and who never lied to their parents in younger days but this sit`s uncomfortably as a "we didn`t know" type of thing.

 

[paddy1]

Outrageous! Kids who won't accept responsibilty for their actions and parents who won't accept responsibility for their kids appaling criminal behaviour. Typical! Make easy money by any means other than hard work and graft. The parents should be apologising to the rail infrastructure owners for theirs and their kid's irresponsibility. Hopefully if this ever does get to court that the parents will lose, be made liable for the court costs and face heavy financial penalties as punishment for their greed.

 

[DarloRich]

Again, there is a difference between being in places you shouldn't be and messing about and causing a nuisance in a place you shouldn't be.
And then there is an even bigger difference between those things, and having the gall to blame and sue the owner of the premises if you manage to do something dangerous and injure yourself.

Seems that it may be the current ease of bringing cases to court, no win no fee etc, that may be responsible for these type of cases keep coming up.

When someone does something wrong, they should take responsibility for the consequences. Like we do in our life, with the law, criminal law, our driving and our jobs.

What about a burglar if they burgle your house. Can they sue for damages if something happens? Recent case law suggests no after that man was killed by the homeowner and no charges were brought.

and yet the key case in this area dates from 1972. Did people not take responsibility in 1972? Experts here profess that it is only in recent years that 'elf and safety has gone mad and destroyed common sense.....................

The BTP don't bring in charges, the CPS do, and it depends on whether the CPS believe there is enough evidence.

and if it is in the public interest to prosecute

I was being a little sarcastic in my post... I was pointing to what might be a legal loophole and from that the possible obtaining of an absurd verdict if the case went to court.

but they wont need a legal loophole of any sort.

Outrageous! Kids who won't accept responsibilty for their actions and parents who won't accept responsibility for their kids appaling criminal behaviour. Typical! Make easy money by any means other than hard work and graft. The parents should be apologising to the rail infrastructure owners for theirs and their kid's irresponsibility. Hopefully if this ever does get to court that the parents will lose, be made liable for the court costs and face heavy financial penalties as punishment for their greed.

Could i make a suggestion you read a little before spouting?

 

[pt_mad]

and yet the key case in this area dates from 1972. Did people not take responsibility in 1972? Experts here profess that it is only in recent years that 'elf and safety has gone mad and destroyed common sense.....................

Elf and safety does seem to have gone a bit mad with the amount of litigation we hear of. People sueing McDonalds for the coffee being too hot? There's no win no fee ads all over the TV on the digital channels.

That's fine if society wants that. But it means the risk to all of us of litigation as soon as we do anything will be potentially limitless, because now, even people committing criminal acts on private property are wanting to bring forward cases for damages. And yet at the same time there are other civilised countries where passengers can ride on top of trains, fall off, and then the next day it still happens all over again with no legal action. We don't have a happy medium we have the extreme at one end of the scale.

Mostly we hear about individuals sueing companies or businesses for compensation for not taking due care and yet at the moment the individuals themselves don't always have to take responsibility for their part of the blame.

How long until you can't have your front gardens a certain way for fear of trespassers coming onto your property, or being 'lurred' in by something attractive and then hurting themselves?

 

[DarloRich]

Elf and safety does seem to have gone a bit mad with the amount of litigation we hear of. People sueing McDonalds for the coffee being too hot? There's no win no fee ads all over the TV on the digital channels.

That's fine if society wants that. But it means the risk to all of us of litigation as soon as we do anything will be potentially limitless, because now, even people committing criminal acts on private property are wanting to bring forward cases for damages. And yet at the same time there are other civilised countries where passengers can ride on top of trains, fall of and for, and then the next day it still happens all over again with no legal action.

Mostly we hear about individuals sueing companies or businesses for compensation for not taking due care and yet at the moment the individuals themselves don't always have to take responsibility for their part of the blame.

How long u til you can't have your front gardens a certain way for fear fear of trespassers coming onto your property, or being 'lurred' and then hurting themselves?

the key case here is from 1972. It is clear you have no understanding of this issue.

 

[SWTCommuter]

Could i make a suggestion you read a little before spouting?

Perhaps Paddy1's use of italics was to indicate the satirical nature of his post?

 

[DarloRich]

Perhaps Paddy1's use of italics was to indicate the satirical nature of his post?

perhaps!

 

[eastdyke]

Anybody who thinks that Health and Safety legislation is part of a mad society when it comes to 'the railway' would do well to reflect on the list of H&S prosecutions successfully brought by ORR since 2006. It's a somewhat sobering list:
http://orr.gov.uk/rail/health-and-s...t/our-enforcement-action-to-date/prosecutions
The list includes the incident at Allerton Depot and at least one other relating to deficient fencing.

 

[pt_mad]

the key case here is from 1972. It is clear you have no understanding of this issue.

Whether case law dates to 1972 or not, I said I felt health and safety has gone a bit mad and I feel it has. Thats a matter of everyone's individual opinion.

Was there no win no fee in 1972?

 

[DarloRich]

Whether case law dates to 1972 or not, I said I felt health and safery has gone a bit mad and I feel it has. Thats a matter of everyone's individual opinion.

Was there no win no fee in 1972?

No but you still had the same rights. No win no fee simply makes it easier for people of modest means to enforce those rights

However the point remains: the key case governing this situation dates from 1972. Hardly the elf and safety gone mad era.

Edit - I would also point out the examples you suggest of potential litigation are simply preposterous

 

[aylesbury]

Plenty of prevention work is carried out in schools and they probably saw it ,but the base fact is they should not have been there.Children are a different kettle of fish nowadays as soon as they become teens they think they are invincible and don't need to be told anything so to actually make them listen.its difficult

 

[221129]

The BTP don't bring in charges, the CPS do, and it depends on whether the CPS believe there is enough evidence.

Can't see how they can cite lack of evidence in this case.

 

[bussnapperwm]

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.

You don't need to know what electricity does to know that you don't trespass on the railway, full stop.

Well said. Agree with you on all counts