Im a police officer and tripped on a kerb, must sue someone!

“inadequate lighting”

Perhaps carry a torch then and look where you are going?

Or refuse to answer the 999 call ‘cos it might be dangerous.

It would be cheaper for the insurers for the police to help the burglars load up their car with stuff from the shop rather than chase them away and sue because their clumsy and weren’t watching where they’re going.

“There was very little to draw this raised section to our client’s notice an as our client proceeded towards the gap, she was unaware of this step up.

“As such she was caused to trip and fall, thereby sustaining personal injury.”
so it was dark and they could not see where they were going but they decided to proceed on anyway and it is the garage owners fault. 😕
surely this is an employer thing as they were expected to search somewhere in the dark as part of their normal duties and one were provided with training and PPE such as a torch for said duty.If not employer thing surely.
Is it not blindingly [ what a pun] that you cannot see in the dark

Ignoring that Jesus wept must we all su just because we can etc

The trouble is the police don’t seem to cover their employees in the case of accident son the job so if the officer looses out by being off work and not paid their only opportunity of recompense is to go after someone with insurance.

This does seem completely wrong and based on what was in the article (which may not be completely accurate) I can’t see this going very far. The claim is ridiculous and I hope the judge throws the case out and awards punitive costs against the claiment, discouraging others from making similar baseless claims. I also hope she gets disciplined for bringing her employer into disripute as this sort of behaviour from a serving officer is going to massively turn the public against the police.

The trouble is the police don’t seem to cover their employees in the case of accident son the job so if the officer looses out by being off work and not paid their only opportunity of recompense is to go after someone with insurance.

Are you saying the police don’t get sick pay?

Personal injury claims have been declining for years. Tabloid headline inaccuracy shocker!

The trouble is the police don’t seem to cover their employees in the case of accident son the job so if the officer looses out by being off work and not paid their only opportunity of recompense is to go after someone with insurance.

Are you sure about that ?

stumpyjon – Member
The trouble is the police don’t seem to cover their employees in the case of accident son the job so if the officer looses out by being off work and not paid their only opportunity of recompense is to go after someone with insurance.

Utter utter tosh.

An ill informed stupid opinion on STW? Well I never….

A day early?

(I sincerely hope)

I always thought police officers carried torches as a matter of course. I always carry a flashlight of some sort, I often need one at work, and parking in a village at night, where there’s no street lights, coming out of the pub it’s useful for avoiding various stones and kerbs edging the green, so if I can carry one, why isn’t a serving officer, working at night, using a torch? Yet another glaring example of common sense being thrown out of the window, which, if I was the judge, I’d do with this utter waste of court time. 🙄

For your information, and to put a slightly different angle on this but no, Police officers are not covered by their employer for injuries sustained on duty. From personal experience, you’re basically on your own.

Without wishing to open up the debate here, the Police Authority, or Crime Commisioner invests nothing whatsoever in the health or well-being of their staff. Many have screening processes to ensure they’re fit for operational duty on their recovery, but there is nothing in place to compensate injury other than what you or anybody else has.

From the other thread from someone who obviously has first hand experience of the issue.

Utter utter tosh.

An ill informed stupid opinion on STW? Well I never….

An employer can’t be held responsible for something that happened on someone else’s property, especially private property. Whilst they may get sick pay if the injury is sufficient to cause long term problems and have financial implications then the ‘victim’ has to seek compensation from the property owner. Not sure what the case is here but that covers this bit.

The trouble is the police don’t seem to cover their employees in the case of accident son the job so if the officer looses out by being off work and not paid their only opportunity of recompense is to go after someone with insurance.

To put into some form of context. The person is at a property walking down the stairs, the stair carpet is loose causing them to lose their footing injuring them. Because of this injury they go beyond their employers sick pay and require some financial reimbursement, you can’t expect their employer to pay up as it’s beyond their control. This is why we’re expected to do risk assessments on arrival of an incident.

This is why we’re expected to do risk assessments on arrival of an incident.

contributory negligence then, if the officer in question has received formal recorded risk assessment training they should be in for an arse kicking and no payout.

contributory negligence then, if the officer in question has received formal recorded risk assessment training they should be in for an arse kicking and no payout

No idea I’m no expert in it.

check out the pictures in the paper and the cop is a little overweight so probably couldnt see the kerb as thier belly was overhanging it..

check out the pictures in the paper and the cop is a little overweight

UK getting more like USA every day!

This thread is a clusterfuzzle of woefully misinformed bollocks.

contributory negligence then, if the officer in question has received formal recorded risk assessment training they should be in for an arse kicking and no payout.

Stumpyjon, without saying too much – I’m being thoroughly looked after by my employer currently, and know many other people who were injured whilst on duty (some more serious than others). I work for two of the largest forces in the country and they’ve been nothing short of spectacular when it comes to such things.

It’s pretty much one of the of the only perks, in fact.

The principle of contributory negligence was established in law in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. It deals with cases in which an injury is caused by the actions of two or more parties. In essence, the Act states that in these situations the liability must be divided between the parties, and that this should be done in a way that is commensurate with the blame attached to each of those parties. It follows that the liability for any damages awarded must also be divided in the same way

Contributory negligence can be used as a defence in cases where both the defendant and the claimant are to blame for the injury. The most common situations in which this might apply are those where the claimant has failed to abide by the statutory requirements that apply to them (for example carrying a risk assessment before entering a premises), while the defendant was also at fault, for example by failing to provide adequate safety measures or sufficient warning signs etc. If this claim is upheld by the court, the defendant can suggest that any damages awarded to the complainant should be reduced by an amount that represents the portion of the blame assumed by the employee.

and

Proceeding against employees: HSWA s7
An employee may commit an offence if he contravenes the general duties imposed by s7(a) and 7(b) by failing:

to take reasonable care for the health and safety of himself and other persons who may be affected by their acts or omissions at work (s7(a)); and
as regards any duty or requirement imposed on his employer or any other person by or under any of the relevant statutory provisions, to co-operate with him so far as is necessary to enable that duty or requirement to be performed or complied with. (s7(b));
Section 7 places important duties on the employee irrespective of the obligations on the employer. Furthermore, it should be noted that the section is intended to protect not only fellow employees but other persons who may be affected by the employee’s actions, and imposes a duty of cooperation in the performance of duties and requirements placed on any person, not just his employer.

The duty imposed under Section 7(a) is expressed in terms that are commonly used in civil law, rather than criminal law. Although there is no case law to assist in the interpretation of “reasonableness” in this context, the extent to which the risk could/should have been foreseen will be an important factor in defining the existence of the duty.

The duty under Section 7(a) is restricted to acts or omissions “at work”, which is defined in Section 52(1) HSWA.

The requirements of Section 7(b) are limited to “relevant statutory provisions” as defined in S53 HSWA, so that they cannot be used in relation to a failure to comply with legislation which does not fall in that category, for example the Road Traffic Act.

Konabunny- kindly explain where I’m wrong? The HSE have historically and will prosecute the individual for failing to comply with their duties under HASAWA. unlikely in this case, but does happen.

You do wonder how her fellow police officers will treat her from now on.