Chemin

Policewoman sues for tripping on a kerb. Funded by CCC

Recommended Posts

If a member of the public had fallen over at the same point, how would that be any different to a copper falling over?

Don't companies/councils have a duty to make sure that their property is safe for people to be on? Or is this something else that we don't count for either?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ITYO

The same should apply to a member of the public, they should watch where they are going.

Just because less scrupulous sorts choose to sue for minor trips doesn't mean we should, I've always thought we should set an example. This sort of pathetic 'cash grabbing' action harms us all, I have no time for her and hope her claim is kicked into touch.

Cpt D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmmmmmmmmmm.

Whilst they should be looking where they are going, you can't have businesses leaving their property in any old state and then expect that their customers fend for themselves. The world of "tough s**t" doesn't exist any longer - unless you're a copper of course.

The basic fact is that companies are liable, MOPs sue companies 'all the time' for injuries sustained by unsafe environments, and as such, we should be able to too without being ridiculed just because we're job.

I really have had enough of us being discriminated against for pretty much everything.....

I wouldn't sue myself, many MOPS wouldn't, but many would.........and if even one MOP would/could sue for such an injury, then we should be able to too.

Good luck to her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A similar thing happened to me and the fed sued the company. I was injured and still have the injury because of the companies poor maintanance of their property. I was responding to a burglary call as well. I support this officer and hope she wins.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the items in the news the kerb looks in good repair, in fact it's just a normal kerb!

If she's trying to say it should have been better lit, where was her torch?

Surely as responding officers we should be prepared for situations away from the norm to a degree? I would suggest the ability to negotiate a kerb would fall in to that category!

I heard her Feds statement on the radio earlier, carefully worded to sound like 'we're supporting her because we have to, but not really!!'.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the items in the news the kerb looks in good repair, in fact it's just a normal kerb!

If she's trying to say it should have been better lit, where was her torch?

Surely as responding officers we should be prepared for situations away from the norm to a degree? I would suggest the ability to negotiate a kerb would fall in to that category!

I heard her Feds statement on the radio earlier, carefully worded to sound like 'we're supporting her because we have to, but not really!!'.

It might look ok now - but did it at the time of the incident?

Has she been issued with a torch? Is it any good?

Was the area lit, was it supposed to be lit, was the lighting working?

There are a few questions and if there are a few questions, then it's right that it should be looked into......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mentioned the case as it appears the cop tripped on a kerb. The story states "Her lawyers say the area was not properly lit. Mr Jones counters that some lights were on and some more light was coming from a back street."

At the end of the day I just think it is yet another bad news story for us whether she is right or wrong to pursue a case.

I have to say the amount of falls, trips etc I have had myself whilst raking about in the dark would have made me a fortune, had I thought to sue. Of course it is everyone's right to sue if there is negligence and an injury occurs, especially if the force would look to restrict an officer for such an injury and the subsequent loss of salary.

But as I say - another - CAN YOU BELIEVE THE AUDACITY OF THE POLICE??? story.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the basis of what's been reported so far her actions are that of a cash grabber - if there's more to this than meets the eye then I will stand corrected.

It could be that her injuries are career threatening but that doesn't appear to be the case.

Like NYRB I've fallen, tripped and been pushed over many times and still have the niggling pains that go with it - did I ever feel the need to sue the victim of the crime I was investigating, no.

Whilst I don't agree with what's she's doing, naming her, secretly photographing her and her partner whilst revealing her car registration is wholly inappropriate and an example of why the press really need to be reigned in.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ridiculous. I despise the compensation culture.

It's an occupational hazard, if you can't deal with it, find a new occupation, create a space for someone who actual deserves the job.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking at the size of her I am surprised the garage owner isn't suing her for damage to his concrete that she fell on.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The report in my paper states that she noticed that the keyholder had a Sports car with personalised Reg. plate, err kerching!

You tend to find places are darker at night. That is why we have the use of torches, or could she not be bothered to use one. :rolleyes:

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I glanced at this story this morning and I must admit that I have not studied it at all thinking it was yet another drip drip drip anti-police story. However later on today it got me thinking and I attempted to look at this from a different perspective.

Consider:-

1995:-

Police officer picks up an injury during the course of their duty, nasty little soft tissue leg injury which causes many months off work and possible long term fitness issues that could render them likely to be placed on restricted duties.

Whilst the officer does their best to get back to operational duties the force (at least it used to be the case in my force) will take care of them and find them a role so they can see out their service whilst re-assessing the individual regularly and giving a reasonable degree of support and assistance to help them return to full duties.

Alternatively, if the officer so chooses, arrange a medical to ascertain whether an enhanced (IOJ) medical pension would be a preferred option.

In either case the officer would know that they took the risks they had signed up for but that "The job" had their back.

(I have seen at least one, very genuine case of this type which resulted in exactly this scenario).

2013:-

Police officer picks up an injury during the course of their duty, nasty little soft tissue leg injury which causes many months off work and possible long term fitness issues that could render them likely to be placed on restricted duties.

The Farce will give little or no assistance to the injured officer as Occ Health budgets have long since been decimated, the officer will have to deal with some spotty 19 year old "HR Advisor" who will act like they are doing them a favour keeping their job open for 6 months.

The officer will go through the regulated "sickness and absence management procedure" which is designed almost entirely to cover the Farces back and not to assist the officer.

The officer will have many a sleepless night wondering how they will cover the mortgage if they get placed on the restricted list as it comes with Mr Winsors built in pay cut.

The officer will also wonder how they will cope if the Farce decides that as they have been unable to pass the bleep test for two years running they should be bumped out to (maybe) a civilian role (no pension) or they should get what passes for a medical pension under their new scheme.

They may know that they took the risks that they signed up for but would also be very much aware that the covenant once held between HMG and the Police had been ripped asunder by the current greedy, self-serving hypocrites in the palace of Westminster and so they may well choose to follow their lead "look out for number one".

I do not know the ins and outs of this particular story and there will no doubt be much conjecture regarding the rights and wrongs of the tactical and situational choices as well as equipment used (or not) at the time but I am sure that it will be judged over time.

I would ask my fellow officers, those who visit the nastier darker places, while those ungrateful armchair generals we are sworn to protect are safe in their beds, to consider the points I have made above and think.............what if?

Semper Fidelis brothers and sisters.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Covert Guy,

I like your perspective!

She probably has an exit strategy for the farce this job has become!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As my comment at 341 - I had considered there is an alternative reasoning for her to sue, that being getting shortchanged in current situation. As this is being funded by CCC then I am sure there must be more to the story than I have seen. Perhaps a test case to challenge part of Winsor!!

Whatever the reason behind the legal side of it - this is still another of those bad news stories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There are 137 hidden replies in this thread that you do not currently have access to as a Guest User of our forum. To unlock the forum register for an account for FREE today by clicking HERE

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.