Lake sued can this be right

stikflote · Jan 29, 2011

a angler sued Decoy lakes and won, it alleged he hurt his foot on arrival,but fished fro 9am to 4pm then presumedly drove home.

After three weeks he contacted fishery to ask if they had insurance,and said he thought he had broken his foot on platform ,he did not put it in accident book did not tell any one at fishery till three weeks later,yet won his case. even tho judge said he knew nothing about fishing
i dont know of any fisheries that have accident books , i ve fished plenty that have very poor platforms, this is likely to put prices up again

waggy · Jan 29, 2011

I suppose it all depended on how he exactly hurt his foot and how he was able to demonstrate how that was so.
It probably had nothing to do with fishing per se .

stikflote · Jan 29, 2011

Waggy,
bloke claims he slipped on platform when he arrived ,and he didnt tell anyone

Lord Paul of Sheffield · Jan 29, 2011

That's today's British justice in action - comit 450 offences and finally you get 3 months jail - punch some idiot who has been making your life a miserty for years and get 18 months

tigger · Jan 29, 2011

Lord Paul of Sheffield said:
punch some idiot who has been making your life a miserty for years and get 18 months

Tell me about it but in my case it was a few idiots :wh

Just shows the judge must live in another world with all the other judges

Mithrandir · Jan 29, 2011

Another stunning import from the US of A. "no such thing as an accident, somebody will have to pay"

Sueing is a past time in the States, now we seem to have jumped on the "Money solves everything" bandwagon.

Maybe the lake owners should sue the angler for "reckless endangerment" by doing such a risky thing as WALKING on his two legs, that is such an unstable posture, maybe they should risk assess this and decide that all anglers at the lake should be wrapped in cotton wool, crawl on all fours and not leave the soft play area set up next to the level surface of the car park.

I hate this litigation culture. Did the dopey idiot not look where he was walking, if so he should not be allowed out of house, the world has all sorts of slip hazards and it our choice to take that risk or not.

OK, rant over for now.

Wobbly Face (As Per Ed) · Jan 29, 2011

If wood platforms are used then they become slippy so most places put chicken wire over the top to act as grip. Other platforms etc become slippy due to loads of Canada Geese cr*p.
I feel sorry for Decoy lakes as this was not reported to them at time of incident and the idiot carried on fishing.
Need to put signs up, "Fishing At Own Risk, Fishery Not Liable For Trips, Slips and Falls. Any injuries Or Incidents To Be Reported Immediately".
Did it not say what the idiot caught? Perhaps he had a good day, or a bad one and wanted his ticket money back.

stikflote · Jan 29, 2011

NOit not say what he caught , but surely after three weeks befor saying anything, he could have done it anywhere, i have a relative who cut herself badly at work she did not put it accident book ,cut became infected causing time off and hospital visits, firm refused to have anything to do with it because it was not reported ,or in book,

tho i wouldnt expect a fishery to have accident book

tigger · Jan 29, 2011

I would imagine if the club had lots of money they could have afforded to hire a top lawyer who would without doubt got them off and turned the whole thing round. It's all down to money as it's just a big game in the courts !

richiekelly · Jan 29, 2011

how can he have been injured if he fished all day? no sense no feeling? my youngest son was prosecuted for breaking someones nose,it didnt matter that the lad was one of 5 surrounding him,what a country we live in and its getting worse[or is it me getting older and older? no wonder there are people trying to have an accident just to claim compensation.

chav professor · Jan 29, 2011

There are many things I hate about our country - this is one of them. we are told what to think, how to behave, where we can smoke, etc etc etc

the bloke who claimed is probably an out of work scrounger who we all work so hard to support - Sorry speechless...................

andreagrispi · Jan 29, 2011

This has set a bit of a precident.

The issue relates to Common Law Duty of Care/Neighbourhood Duty of Care. The owner/land owner must ensure that an individual/visitor must not suffer harm; injury; loss. Trouble is - a fishery is full of significant risks (especially after rain; frost ect) which are difficult to control or make safe.

You may find that fishery owners will close a water until the environmental factors are at a level where slips; trips ect are unlikely or they run the risk of numerous civil claims if an injury occurs.

Ray Daywalker Clarke · Jan 29, 2011

Well the easy way around this for all waters is simple.

All you need is a simple sign that states, Anglers fish at their own risk, and the fishery is not resposible for any those or damage to any person or any goods.

You see signs like this in most car parks and now in childrens playgrounds, for this very reason, some will do anything to get a few quid. I am not saying this guy didnt hurt himself, BUT, weeks after, i would have asked for him to prove he did it at the fishery, and i would refuse to make any form of payment, until he could give such proof, court order or not.

The fishery should take this to a higher court, this can not be right.

waggy · Jan 29, 2011

Personally, I'd like to see the full judgement and the evidence offered by both sides before I was drawn into an opinion. Doesn't do to jump to conclusions unless you want to risk looking like a prize chump. All we have to go on is an Angling publication report and that tells very little of significance with any bearing on culpability.

kevin o connor · Jan 29, 2011

A commonly held belief is that putting up a sign which says "fishing at own risk" or Owner does not accept responsibility for injuries, means that the owner cannot be held responsible for injuries. this is not true. An owner cannot offload his responsibility simply by putting up a sign. This applies in car parks, fisheries, in fact any private property that is open to the public.

waggy · Jan 29, 2011

chav professor said:
There are many things I hate about our country - this is one of them. we are told what to think, how to behave, where we can smoke, etc etc etc

the bloke who claimed is probably an out of work scrounger who we all work so hard to support - Sorry speechless...................

But what does that all have to do with some one having a little accident?
Told what to think? How to behave? I thought you were a teacher.
As for smoking - smoking addicts can go and force their foul excrescences onto the traffic in the fast lane of the M25.
Such muddled prejudices. I'm confused.

Ray Daywalker Clarke · Jan 29, 2011

kevin o connor said:
A commonly held belief is that putting up a sign which says "fishing at own risk" or Owner does not accept responsibility for injuries, means that the owner cannot be held responsible for injuries. this is not true. An owner cannot offload his responsibility simply by putting up a sign. This applies in car parks, fisheries, in fact any private property that is open to the public.

You will find that kind of sign in just about any public place, and you try and win a case in court with a sign like that, why do you think the Council use them and are doing so more and more, it is a warning.

Just like a mine field that says, mine field keep out, what do you do ????

geoffmaynard · Jan 29, 2011

I'd like to hear what Windy makes of this. Or anyone else who has legal training.

kevin o connor · Jan 29, 2011

The sign does not hold water in a court of law. What about someone who cannot read, did not see the sign etc. The idea is to make people think that they have no recourse to law in the case of an accident. If only one person does not take a legitimate case because of the sign, it will have served it's purpose.

S-Kippy · Jan 29, 2011

Interesting one this. The "duty of care" under H&S Law and its associated "risk assessments" as I understand it requires whoever to reduce risk "so far as is reasonably practical". Now I guess "reasonably practical" depends on what you do/are doing & where you are. Maybe the court thought that it was "reasonably practical" for the fishery to do something about slippery platforms...a bit of chicken wire maybe ? I dunno...maybe the mere installation of the platform upped the ante. If it had been a natural bank then I suspect "reasonably practical" under the Law would have been interpreted differently.

It sounds a bit like the old snow thing. Leave your drive uncleared and if the postman slips its down to him....clear it and he slips and its down to you.

Either way this is bollox if he just slipped on a platform....but if the platform was in a poor/dangerous state and he slipped then its an entirely different matter. For example if you had to cross a rickety old wooden bridge with slats missing and you fell I think you'd be perfectly entitled to make an issue of it. By building the bridge the landowner has created a responsibility for himself to maintain it in a safe condition. If he doesn't or can't be arsed and an accident arises as a result then I think he is potentially liable.

Lake sued can this be right

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Banned

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Content Editor

Well-known member

Well-known member