Police officer 'sues garage burglary victim'

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Velour_Fog**

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-21987343

A police officer is suing a petrol station owner after apparently tripping on a kerb on his property when called to reports of a break-in.

PC Kelly Jones, 33, says she injured her leg and wrist at the filling station in Thetford, Norfolk, on 25 August last year.

She was not available for comment. Petrol station owner Steve Jones said he found the case "shocking".

Police said the claim appeared to be "instigated privately" by the officer.

Mr Jones said PC Jones tripped and fell and that he helped her up, but did not think she was hurt.

A letter to the business from solicitor Pattinson Brewer states PC Jones went to the Nunns Bridges garage at 00:20 BST.

It said she went towards a gap in the fencing near a jet wash area in order to access the rear of the premises.

She did not know there was a section of high kerbing and tripped and fell.

PC Jones injured her left leg and right wrist and went to the West Suffolk Hospital, the letter added.

The claim alleges the petrol station was at fault for failing to ensure PC Jones was "reasonably safe", making no attempt to light the area or warn her about the step.

The letter also alleges the business failed to display any warning signs or carry out a risk assessment.

Mr Jones said he did not think he could have done any more to make things safe for the officer.

"I think the kerb was fairly visible - as visible as any kerbs on the road she had already walked over to get here," he said.

"When I got this letter I was anxious and worried.

"It's left a sour taste in my mouth.

"Times are quite hard for the industry and it seems everywhere we turn someone wants a piece of us - whether it's rates people, credit card companies, shoplifters, or people driving off without paying.

"This is the final straw."

Paul Ridgway, chairman of the Norfolk Police Federation, said it had been made aware of the incident soon after it happened.

He said regardless of the federation's view on any member's claim, a claim is forwarded to a solicitor to see whether there is any merit in it.

He added: "All members of the public, regardless of what profession, can claim litigation against people and against private firms - that's why everyone has insurance.

"It's not common, I appreciate that, but the claim has come in and we've honoured the officer's wishes by putting it through to the solicitor."

Norfolk Police said it had been unaware of the claim, adding: "We have a duty of care to any officer injured whilst on duty, to support their continued health and well-being and fitness to return to work.

"Officers can, in addition, receive further support from their staff association, as well as pursuing private treatment."

Police suing the public if they fall over? Better not call them then, if that's what might happen.

**Avatar 720**

Looking at the picture in the report, I can see why there aren't any bobbies on the beat anymore; they'd all break their legs attempting to walk onto the pavement.

That curb is about as hard to see as an elephant hiding behind a lamppost. The only possible way I can think that it was missed is that Creed accidentally hid it.

**George Spiggott**

Norfolk?

**Velour_Fog**

But I don't think any individual in the police should be allowed to sue a member of the public for what happened to them at work. Just doesn't seem right to me. It's kind of like a fireman suing for getting burnt while putting out a house fire. I know that's not a great... analogy(?), but you must get what I mean.

**Kovnik Obama**

Skarwael wrote:
But I don't think any individual in the police should be allowed to sue a member of the public for what happened to them at work. Just doesn't seem right to me. It's kind of like a fireman suing for getting burnt while putting out a house fire. I know that's not a great... analogy(?), but you must get what I mean.

A better analogy would be that the person who's house is on fire neglected to tell the firemen that he was a survivalist and had a nasty habit of puting tripwires at random in his house.

**Salad_Fingers**

And one wonders why confidence in the police is at an all time low here

**4oursword**

This woman must be actually stupid.

**Howard A Treesong**

Really, I think that if injured in the course of your job, you seek compensation and sick support from your employer. If they think liability lies with a third party for injuring one of their employees, they should take the case to them independently. The idea that an employee is injured in the course of their everyday job then directly sues the third party, eg. a customer (closest comparison for the police), doesn't seem at all right to me.

Either something is very wrong here or she's an idiot. There's a step here that's been missed out. My suspicion is that she doesn't have much of a case and her employer has told her so. If her employer has refused to give her sick support or care for her properly, she should sue them. The fact that she isn't and is looking to sue elsewhere suggests to me that she's grasping at straws.

**azazel the cat**

Kovnik Obama wrote:
Skarwael wrote:
But I don't think any individual in the police should be allowed to sue a member of the public for what happened to them at work. Just doesn't seem right to me. It's kind of like a fireman suing for getting burnt while putting out a house fire. I know that's not a great... analogy(?), but you must get what I mean.

A better analogy would be that the person who's house is on fire neglected to tell the firemen that he was a survivalist and had a nasty habit of puting tripwires at random in his house.

No, that's a terrible analogy because a reasonable person would not anticipate tripwires, and thus the homeowner could be at fault. A reasonable person would, however be expected to both see and navigate a street kerb. The proper analogy would be the firefighter situation, and failing to inform them that the house contained walls and stairs.

**kronk**

The curb wasn't painted yellow! Ehr My Gerd!! Sue!

Sue like it owes back child support!

**Avatar 720**

kronk wrote:
The curb wasn't painted yellow! Ehr My Gerd!! Sue!

Sue like it owes back child support!

Up next on Jeremy Kyle - "I tripped and now I am pregnant with the pavement's baby, but it refuses to believe it's the father."

**Steve steveson**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Really, I think that if injured in the course of your job, you seek compensation and sick support from your employer. If they think liability lies with a third party for injuring one of their employees, they should take the case to them independently. The idea that an employee is injured in the course of their everyday job then directly sues the third party, eg. a customer (closest comparison for the police), doesn't seem at all right to me.

Either something is very wrong here or she's an idiot. There's a step here that's been missed out. My suspicion is that she doesn't have much of a case and her employer has told her so. If her employer has refused to give her sick support or care for her properly, she should sue them. The fact that she isn't and is looking to sue elsewhere suggests to me that she's grasping at straws.

Her employer, the police, would have gven her full sick pay. However that would not cover additional costs. Your employer could sue for the loss dirctly to them, I.e sick pay. They could not sue for any other costs. Say she had to pay for additional child minding or taxies if she was unable to drive.

I don't see what is wrong with her taking the business to court. If they were negligent then they should be responsible for the injury, if not then she will lose and have to pay costs. It looks like she tripped over the curb because it was dark. If that was negligent on his part for not putting adequate lighting up or hers for entering the area I don't know but I think it's silly to say she should not have a right to sue under any circumstances.

It always amazes me how many people have strong opinions on civil cases without any understanding of UK law.

**Eggs**

Police officers are issued with torches because they can reasonably be expected to end up in dark situations. I work for the fire service, and everyone in my crew are issued with torches. If they trip over anything, its because they weren't looking where they are going.

We regularly go into derelict, smoke logged buildings, that have floorboards ripped up so people can steal the copper pipes for scrap. No one in my service has ever fallen through or hurt themselves, because they are careful.

**Albatross**

Salad_Fingers wrote:
And one wonders why confidence in the police is at an all time low here

Is it? Citation needed.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Steve steveson wrote:

I don't see what is wrong with her taking the business to court. If they were negligent then they should be responsible for the injury, if not then she will lose and have to pay costs. It looks like she tripped over the curb because it was dark. If that was negligent on his part for not putting adequate lighting up or hers for entering the area I don't know but I think it's silly to say she should not have a right to sue under any circumstances.

It always amazes me how many people have strong opinions on civil cases without any understanding of UK law.

There is no grounds for Delict as all she did was trip over the curb, if she sues anyone it should be the person or people that had the curb built there.

Norfolk Police said it had been unaware of the claim, adding: "We have a duty of care to any officer injured whilst on duty, to support their continued health and well-being and fitness to return to work

The Police force are admitting they owe a duty of care to her so why aren't they getting sued as part of this?

And exactly how high does a "High Curb" stand?

**Eggs**

Have we really reached the point at which we need to warn police officers, every time they are faced with something they might trip over? If so, please make us extinct now.

**Salad_Fingers**

Albatross wrote:
Salad_Fingers wrote:
And one wonders why confidence in the police is at an all time low here

Is it? Citation needed.

I believe the last IPCC report showed that those who have had contact with the police and where happy with things fell from around 28% to around 20%, however out of those that where happy a rise from 67% to 76% would call themselves very happy, the later are often statistics politicians like to point out. However it was good to see a rise in the confidence of those from and ethnic background

However all that is slightly irrelevant to my point, as any decent statistical evidence has not been produced for the 2012 period, meaning the figures that show a slight rise in the general confidence in the police force fail to take into account... Its also worth taking into account as Theresa May herself admitted police confidence is measured by government bodies not through independent means, so we should never be surprised things generally look alright.

The 2011 riots
Plebgate (the police effective lying)
The selling of stories to the press
The lack of CPS action on charges against police officers
High profile cases where police have failed to disclose evidence
Retention of DNA

These i think these will amongst other things (beating of women in custody etc) have had a corrosive effect on the public confidence and we will see that in the next round of statistics, certainly it would seem the case in the circles i move in which are far from anti police.

**Albatross**

Salad_Fingers wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Salad_Fingers wrote:
And one wonders why confidence in the police is at an all time low here

Is it? Citation needed.

I believe the last IPCC report showed that those who have had contact with the police and where happy with things fell from around 28% to around 20%, however out of those that where happy a rise from 67% to 76% would call themselves very happy, the later are often statistics politicians like to point out. However it was good to see a rise in the confidence of those from and ethnic background

However all that is slightly irrelevant to my point, as any decent statistical evidence has not been produced for the 2012 period, meaning the figures that show a slight rise in the general confidence in the police force fail to take into account... Its also worth taking into account as Theresa May herself admitted police confidence is measured by government bodies not through independent means, so we should never be surprised things generally look alright.

The 2011 riots
Plebgate (the police effective lying)
The selling of stories to the press
The lack of CPS action on charges against police officers
High profile cases where police have failed to disclose evidence
Retention of DNA

These i think these will amongst other things (beating of women in custody etc) have had a corrosive effect on the public confidence and we will see that in the next round of statistics, certainly it would seem the case in the circles i move in which are far from anti police.

So it's your opinion? Cool, say that. Don't present it as a fait accompli.

**KalashnikovMarine**

I smell a stupid. So does workman's comp not exist in Britain?

**Steve steveson**

Hlaine Larkin mk2 wrote:
Steve steveson wrote:

I don't see what is wrong with her taking the business to court. If they were negligent then they should be responsible for the injury, if not then she will lose and have to pay costs. It looks like she tripped over the curb because it was dark. If that was negligent on his part for not putting adequate lighting up or hers for entering the area I don't know but I think it's silly to say she should not have a right to sue under any circumstances.

It always amazes me how many people have strong opinions on civil cases without any understanding of UK law.

There is no grounds for Delict as all she did was trip over the curb, if she sues anyone it should be the person or people that had the curb built there.

Norfolk Police said it had been unaware of the claim, adding: "We have a duty of care to any officer injured whilst on duty, to support their continued health and well-being and fitness to return to work

The Police force are admitting they owe a duty of care to her so why aren't they getting sued as part of this?

And exactly how high does a "High Curb" stand?

The person who put built the curb could be considered negligent but so could the owner in a case like his. As an example a business that fails to war of a low citing or unexpected obstruction on the floor would be negligent, not nessaceraly the person who built those. For them to be negligent you would have to prove that they did not make the business aware of the risk. Very difficult when the building in question could be many years old.

An employer dose owe a duty of care but if they had taken every reasonable precaution to ensure her safety they would have fulfilled this. It would be needed to prove that they could reasonably be aware that the business owner could have been negligent in his actions (not that I am saying he was. In the words of Homer Simpson "that is for the courts to decide") . If they were negligent she would have the choice of who to sue, the business or the employer. Most people would try the business first as there is less risk of damaging the employer employee relationship.

**Seaward**

You weirdos need to learn how to spell curb.

**AduroT**

Eggs wrote:
I work for the fire service, and everyone in my crew are issued with torches.

That's one way to ensure job security I guess.

**Seaward**

AduroT wrote:
Eggs wrote:
I work for the fire service, and everyone in my crew are issued with torches.

That's one way to ensure job security I guess.

It's Britspeak for 'flashlight.'

**Eggs**

I've never understood flashlight - if its flashing, you're doing it wrong.

**AduroT**

Seaward wrote:
AduroT wrote:
Eggs wrote:
I work for the fire service, and everyone in my crew are issued with torches.

That's one way to ensure job security I guess.

It's Britspeak for 'flashlight.'

I know, I've watched enough old school Who's Line to know most of the freaky Britisms, but funnier if I pretend otherwise.

**Frazzled**

4oursword wrote:
This woman must be actually stupid.

Only if she doesn't get any money. Then she's stupid. If she gets money, the legal system is stupid.*

*Don't worry, our legal system is stupid too.