Snow on the way back- UK Government advise to house holders on clearing obstructions
Clearing snow and ice from pavements yourself
The Uk government have responded to the issue of exposure to claims for householders who clear snow from their premises. The information appears on the Direct.gov site and is helpful in reassuring house holders.
An extract of the site is set out below.
Likewise the Irish government throught the attorney general’s office have publicised similar notices.
Clearly these publications address some silly stories which appeared in the media.
The guidance does not excuse careless behaviour e.g. trying to clear snow with boiling water which subsequently freeses and causes an accident or pipe leakages on public paths which cause accidents.
Likewise care should be taken in clearing snow & ice not to cause a tripping hazard!
Basically the law endorses & protects sensible behaviour.
Here’s hoping we don’t see a return to the chaos we experienced in December!!
Extract from UK Direct Gov site;
There’s no law stopping you from clearing snow and ice on the pavement outside your home or from public spaces. It’s unlikely you’ll be sued or held legally responsible for any injuries on the path if you have cleared it carefully. Follow the snow code when clearing snow and ice safely.
The snow code – tips on clearing snow and ice from pavements or public spaces
Prevent slips
Pay extra attention to clear snow and ice from steps and steep pathways – you might need to use more salt on these areas.
If you clear snow and ice yourself, be careful – don’t make the pathways more dangerous by causing them to refreeze. But don’t be put off clearing paths because you’re afraid someone will get injured.
Remember, people walking on snow and ice have responsibility to be careful themselves. Follow the advice below to make sure you clear the pathway safely and effectively.
Clear the snow or ice early in the day
It’s easier to move fresh, loose snow rather than hard snow that has packed together from people walking on it. So if possible, start removing the snow and ice in the morning. If you remove the top layer of snow in the morning, any sunshine during the day will help melt any ice beneath. You can then cover the path with salt before nightfall to stop it refreezing overnight.
Use salt or sand - not water
If you use water to melt the snow, it may refreeze and turn to black ice. Black ice increases the risk of injuries as it is invisible and very slippery. You can prevent black ice by spreading some salt on the area you have cleared. You can use ordinary table or dishwasher salt – a tablespoon for each square metre you clear should work. Don’t use the salt found in salting bins - this will be needed to keep the roads clear.
Be careful not to spread salt on plants or grass as it may cause them damage.
If you don’t have enough salt, you can also use sand or ash. These won’t stop the path icing over as well as salt, but will provide good grip under foot.
Take care where you move the snow
When you’re shovelling snow, take care where you put it so it doesn’t block people’s paths or drains. Make sure you make a path down the middle of the area to be cleared first, so you have a clear surface to walk on. Then shovel the snow from the centre of the path to the sides.
Offer to clear your neighbours’ paths
If your neighbour will have difficulty getting in and out of their home, offer to clear snow and ice around their property as well. Check that any elderly or disabled neighbours are alright in the cold weather. If you’re worried about them, contact your local council.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Nl1/Newsroom/DG_191868
Paul Tracey
Litigation Solicitor
05/01/2011
Bull, the whole Bull and nothing but the Bull?
An interesting case came before the Small Claims Court last week in Wexford.
The dispute arose in relation to the sale of a Bull. The Bull, a limousine bull was sold by one farmer to another at a mart for €1,220.00. The Bull later turned out to have only one defended testicle.
The Plaintiff sued on the basis that what he had purchased was not a genuine “breeding bull”.
The matter came before the District Judge and made for some interesting, if not, comical, exchanges between the parties. Apparently, the Plaintiff was asked by Judge Buchalla as to whether his claim was that he had not received a perfect specimen. The Plaintiff indicated no and that it was not a genuine breeding bull. The debate then seemed to then circle whether a bull with these characteristics constituted a genuine breeding bull.
The Defendant commented in the case “there are plenty of animals, including Humans out there with one testicle and I am sure they are doing the job!”
The Judge agreed with the Defendant and dismissed the case.
The Small Claims Court deals with commercial disputes between parties where the amounts claimed are relatively modest. In certain cases, they are referred to court for hearing. The system provides a cost effective method by which disputes can be resolved.
Paul W Tracey Solicitors
December 2010
Fruit Farm fined for injury to worker
The Fruit Farm, Dawn Farm Foods was fined €65,000.00 at Naas Circuit Court on the 26th November 2010 arising out of an accident at one of it’s factories.
It appears that the incident related to an employee whose arm became entangled in some machinery. The worker suffered an amputation of the mid forearm as a result of this incident.
The fine shows the increasing seriousness in which the Court treats Breach of Statutory Duty to provide a safe place of work to employees.
Paul W Tracey
Woman receives €65,000.00 compensation following injuries sustained in car fire.
The High Court recently made a significant award of damages to a lady arising from an accident in which her car went on fire. The court heard that the car went on fire after recently being serviced. The case, brought by a motorist against the Opel Garage alleged that the garage serviced her four year old Opel Astra Coupe. It was also alleged that because the oil filter housing was left loose, this lead to oil leaking into the exhaust pipe and caused the fire.
The court was told that liability was admitted in the matter and the case proceeded as an assessment as to damages.
The incident involved the Plaintiff and a family member who were driving in Dublin when they realised that smoke was emerging from the inside of their car. The Plaintiff received an award of €40,000.00 in general damages to date and €20,000.00 for damages into the future along with out of pocket expenses at €5,638.00.
Paul W Tracey Solicitors
December 2010
Flight Attendant wins toxic cabin air case
A flight attendant has successfully sued East West Airlines (Australia) after she fell ill from breathing 2toxic” air on aeroplanes. Joanne Turner was taken ill during a flight from Sydney to Brisbane in 1992 on a British built BAE 146 aircraft when smoke infiltrated the cabin.
Mr. Turner, who was five months pregnant at the time, developed a long term respiratory condition. She became embroiled in a ten year legal battle against the airline and in September, finally won a landmark case in the Australian High Court and won £84,000 in compensation.
Cabin fumes are caused by warm compressed air supplied directly from the engines which is mixed inside the aircraft with re-circulated air. The valves in the engine designed to keep the oil and air separate are not completely effective and let a certain amount of oil into the air. If a large amount of oil mixes with the hot compressed air, fumes or smoke can enter the cabin.
The Aerotoxin Association, based in the UK says it had been known for many years that long term inhalation of toxic fumes in the confines of a jet can cause serious health problems, and think contaminated cabin air could lead to “aerotxic syndrome” in thousands of passengers and crew members every year.
Aerotoxic Syndrome is not officially recognised and many medical practitioners are unaware of the condition, so sufferers are often diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple chemical sensitivity, viral infections or depression.
Paul W Tracey
Personal Injury Solicitor
December 2010
BLOG- Twitter and Internet Ban for Jurors ?
Speaking at a recent event in London, the Lord Chief Justice indicated that Jurors must stop using the internet to research cases that they are involved in hearing.
The Chief Justice went on to say in a speech that the Jury system relied on evidence provided in Court.
The defendant has to have the right to hear and challenge and the suggestion was that if Jurors were carrying out their own research, that research could be inaccurate or false, leading to a mistrial.
The Chief Justice warned that allowing the public or reporters to use Twitter during court cases “is likely to increase the potential for prejudicial material to become available on the internet”.
He concluded that ultimately, the openness of the trial process upon which we all rely could be damaged.
It is a regular part of many jury actions where Jurors were asked to disregard media sources such as radio, television and internet.
These comments are believed to be the first relating to directions as to the use of Twitter and the Internet by jurors!
Dated the 23rd November 2010
Speed Cameras the battle for credibility continues!
The recent introduction of speed cameras into Dublin comes from the extensive use of cameras throughout the UK.
A recent battle has broken out between two pressure groups in this area as to the effectiveness of their use and indeed, the merit of cameras.
The situation has become quite polarised in England with a prominent road safety group known as Roadpeace coming into direct conflict with a group known as Tax Payer’s Alliance.
A recent review of Roadpeace refers to a report presented by the Tax Payer’s Alliance this year which challenges the effectiveness of speed cameras.
The main basis upon which the Tax Payer’s Alliance (TPA) argues their case is that the costs of the speed cameras far exceed their value.
In an aggressive response to this argument, Roadpeace quote a number of convincing statistics.
They refer to the Department of Transport Road Casualties and Deaths statistics for the year 2009.
This report states that road deaths have fallen to 2,200, 12% down on the previous year.
This is the lowest number of deaths ever recorded and contributed to another milestone for Roadpeace.
That study concluded that when cameras were introduced, they resulted in: -
- Reduction of 100 fatalities per annum (1745 killed and 4230 personal injury collisions in 2004)
- Reduced speeding by 74% at new fixed camera sites and 18% drop at new camera sites.
- Overall the proportion of vehicles speeding excessively fell by 91% at fixed camera sites and 36% at mobile camera sites.
- 2.7-1 benefit to society from the avoiding injuries in excess of 285million to enforcing costs of about £96 million.
The statistics prepared by Roadpeace are quite impressive and seem to have put paid to the argument of the TPA.
One interesting comment to be noted is the fact that the significant improvements appear to have occurred where the cameras are fixed and not mobile.
It will be interesting to see what statistics the Gardai and the RSA produce after the mobile camera units have been in place for some time in Ireland.
Will similar pressure groups step forward to argue against these cameras?
One would feel that this would be unlikely bearing in mind the carnage which has occurred on Irish Roads and the high level of backing that the AA have provided to the use of speed cameras.
Comments welcome!
Paul Tracey
Personal Injury Solicitor
Dated the 23rd November 2010
WORLD DAY OF REMEMBERANCE FOR ROAD TRAFFIC VICTIMS
I recently came across a site which gave details of Global Road Deaths.
The site run by Roadpeace, the UK based charity records that since January 2010, there have been 1,125,261 road deaths worldwide. Staggering isn’t it!
The charity has also organised the “World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims” which was held on the 21st November 2010.
The day in particular focuses on the overall scale and individual devastation caused by road deaths and injuries and the impact on families and communities around the World.
Almost 4,000 people are killed and many hundreds of thousands injured on the roads throughout the World every day. Many have to cope with the bereavement or effects of injuries and become part of a large community affected by tragedies on our roads.
The concept for the remembrance goes back to 1993 and was organised by Roadpeace and adopted by the United Nations in 2005 as a response to road victims for public recognition.
In light of the serious number of accidents in Ireland, there is certainly a case for a similar initiative to be adopted here in Ireland.
On the World Day of Remembrance for Road Traffic Victims, we mourn the estimated 1.3 million people who lose their lives on the world’s streets and highways each year, and we renew our resolve to prevent further deaths,” U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement. “Many tragedies can be avoided through a set of proven, simple measures that benefit not only individuals and families but society at large.”
Earlier this year, the U.N. General Assembly declared the first-ever “Decade of Action for Road Safety,” providing an opportunity for global action. Ki-moon has called on all nations, international agencies, civil society organizations, and businesses and community leaders to ensure that the decade leads to real improvements. Governments have been directed to release their national plans May 11, 2011. The U.N. Road Safety Collaboration is encouraging measures to make roads and vehicles safer, improve the behavior of drivers and pedestrians, and enhance emergency services.
“If we all take these and other simple measures, we can give real meaning to this observance, thereby honoring the memory of the victims in the best way possible: with action to spare the lives of others,”
“My hope is that all governments and relevant stakeholders will make public their plans for the decade on May 11,” Krug said in a statement. “Those who have been directly affected by road traffic crashes and their families will have a vital role to play throughout the decade. This annual World Day of Remembrance will offer a place for the voices of these victims and for their families. They guide us in all that we do
Paul Tracey
Personal Injury Solicitor
Ireland
23nd November 2010
CYCLISTS NEED TO SEE THE LIGHT !
The recent change of the clock and the onset of the winter season has brought out the usual challenges for cyclists in Dublin.
An interesting article appeared in the Irish Times last week when a pedestrian complained that he has observed a number of cyclists colliding with cars. Whilst welcoming the arrival of Dublin Bikes, he commented that “many cyclists persist with cycling without any kind of lights”.
Legally cyclists put themselves & others at risk by not using lights & high visability clothing.
The basic safety equipment which is incorporated on the Dublin Bike Scheme are worth looking at as a ‘marker’ for safety standards.
Paul Tracey
Solicitor
22nd November 2010
‘Good Samaritan’ award of €80,000 for personal injuries confirmed.
The decision of a recent case referred to as “The Good Samaritan” case, involving a member of the public who came to the assistance of a security guard in Dunnes Stores receiving compensation of € 80,000 was upheld by the Supreme Court.
The man who came to the assistance of a security officer received severe injuries, including facial injuries.
The case was originally heard in the High Court and damages were awarded on the basis that the security arrangements in place were substandard with only one security guard being responsible for the entire premises.
The case was heard back in June 2002 when the Plaintiff, Mr. O Neill was shopping in the shopping centre in Thurles. He came across a security guard who was apprehending an individual in the store. The Plaintiff,, saw the security guard struggling and helped the him try and restrain a youth while a second youth kicked and pulled at the both the men.
It appears that one of the assailants used a motor bike chain and struck Mr. O Neill in the face.
In revewing the case, a Supreme Court confirmed that the original High Court was entitled to conclude that the absence of anyone to assist the Security Guard on the day in question was unreasonable.
The security guard had to seek assistance from a member of the public and the need for an extra security guard was caused by the negligence of the department store.
The court indicated that the situation was entirely foreseeable.
The comments are interesting in the context that it centres not so much on the “Good Samaritan” took compensation but rather focuses on the adequacy of the security system in place which lead to the injuries sustained by the Plaintiff.
The case will remind proprietors of shops and supermarkets of the need to carry out an appropriate risk assessment, in particular to how their business is run and secured and it would appear that, an adequate risk assessment, if not carried out and funded, could lead to a claim for compensation.
Paul W Tracey Solicitor
22nd November 2010
