|
|
Post by trt on Feb 21, 2018 15:33:03 GMT
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-43142391No compensation. Poor guy - life changing injuries and all that, but the court finds he brought it on himself. EDIT No full RAIB investigation was carried out for the incident. The preliminary investigation is referred to in a Charing Cross investigation around that time:
|
|
|
|
Post by greggygreggygreg on Feb 21, 2018 16:49:00 GMT
|
|
Dom K
Global Moderator
The future is bright
Posts: 1,822 
|
Post by Dom K on Feb 21, 2018 18:17:35 GMT
greggygreggygreg
To be clear, it’s advisable that when we talk about serious incidents such as this we avoid giving opinions or offer theories. You should only post facts and back them up with sources. If you cannot back this up, then you shouldn’t post. greggygreggygreg I will give you the opportunity to edit your post, either by supporting your statement with a source or deleting the post.
Thanks
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Feb 21, 2018 19:01:01 GMT
"He is suing station operator Abellio Greater Anglia for £1.9m, claiming not enough was done to ensure safety" "Giving evidence, he told the judge that, although he had been commuting to and from the station for nine years, he had rarely heard "mind the gap" warnings" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-43003680When I read the article a couple of weeks ago I thought it would get thrown out, it was his fault not Abellio's |
|
|
|
Post by theblackferret on Feb 21, 2018 21:21:19 GMT
"He is suing station operator Abellio Greater Anglia for £1.9m, claiming not enough was done to ensure safety" "Giving evidence, he told the judge that, although he had been commuting to and from the station for nine years, he had rarely heard "mind the gap" warnings" www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-43003680When I read the article a couple of weeks ago I thought it would get thrown out, it was his fault not Abellio's The law usually operates on the old established principle of 'What would the man on the Clapham Omnibus do/say/think?' This is another way of saying what would any reasonable person do. I would suspect the 'mind the gap' warnings are part of how the judgement came to be against him, but possibly more conclusive are the yellow lines, which most courts would adduce a reasonable person might notice or at least enquire what their purpose was, and therefore obey them. It's still sad and a shame, but I can't see how any other verdict could have been given. EDIt The reasonable idea also applies to the TOC of course. It might include assistance being readily available to those with sight difficulties and possibly, dependent on the location, warning signs or announcements being in several languages for the benefit of tourists. |
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 22, 2018 9:36:09 GMT
Of course it’s very sad and I wouldn’t wish that on anybody.
However, it was clearly his fault and it’s about time a verdict like this bucked the trend in recent years that any accident is always someone else’s fault. People need to have a sense of their surroundings and the risks present.
The “no win, no fee” culture has a lot to do with it.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 22, 2018 10:07:08 GMT
Of course, it's another question if DOOP was a contributing factor to the severity of the injuries. Had the train been brought to a standstill quicker, what would have been the outcome? Could the departure have actually been aborted when it became obvious he was in trouble? Of course, it might have been better to simply get the train out of the way once he had fallen down the gap and sustained the injuries. Who can tell? That, however, is all immaterial to the issue of blame and self-safety.
|
|
|
|
Post by superteacher on Feb 22, 2018 10:14:11 GMT
Of course, it's another question if DOOP was a contributing factor to the severity of the injuries. Had the train been brought to a standstill quicker, what would have been the outcome? Could the departure have actually been aborted when it became obvious he was in trouble? Of course, it might have been better to simply get the train out of the way once he had fallen down the gap and sustained the injuries. Who can tell? That, however, is all immaterial to the issue of blame and self-safety. DOOP (Driver only operation) would likely not have had any Impact in this incident. On most modern trains that still retain guards, the guard is inside the train after completing platform duties so if somebody approaches the train as it begins to move off, they are unlikely to see anything. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Feb 22, 2018 10:37:05 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that all Stansted Express and Greater Anglia services through Bishop's Stortford on the West Anglia Main Line are Driver Only with platform mounted monitors or mirrors so once the train starts moving the driver would not be able to see the platform or anything that was going on. If there was a guard/conductor/on board supervisor then they wouldn't have any official platform duties or role in dispatch so the train would only stop if someone noticed what was going on and pulled down the handle
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 22, 2018 11:01:53 GMT
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe that all Stansted Express and Greater Anglia services through Bishop's Stortford on the West Anglia Main Line are Driver Only with platform mounted monitors or mirrors so once the train starts moving the driver would not be able to see the platform or anything that was going on. If there was a guard/conductor/on board supervisor then they wouldn't have any official platform duties or role in dispatch so the train would only stop if someone noticed what was going on and pulled down the handle Indeed, I believe you are correct. Tragically, the period of observation of the PTI, even on guard dispatched services, is very short and for good reasons. I'm much more familiar with the WCML mid-distance commuter services, and the guard typically has just their face sticking out of the mid-cab drop window for about 5 or 10 seconds as the train picks up speed. Once the train is underway, that's it. And it's not required that they perform that observation either - if they dispatch from a passenger door, then they can't observe the full PTI once the doors are closed. Whatever the arguments for or against DOOP, or driver dispatch, I don't think it would have helped in this particular case. |
|
Chris M
Global Moderator
Forum Quizmaster
Always happy to receive quiz ideas and pictures by email or PM
Posts: 19,430
|
Post by Chris M on Feb 22, 2018 12:52:59 GMT
Per the second paragraph quoted in the first post of this thread, the train had in-cab CCTV images which are suppressed after the train starts moving.
|
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Feb 22, 2018 15:30:26 GMT
Whoops but it amounts to the same thing, once the train starts moving the driver cannot see what's going on behind them unlike on the Tube where we have in-cab CCTV coverage all the way out of the platform
|
|
|
|
Post by peagle on Feb 26, 2018 13:27:51 GMT
The actual decision is free online. I didn't get the news reports, but reading the decision I thought that it was a generally positive retreat from views about passengers needing to be protected from their own recklessness that would lead to trains full of people being delayed for half an hour or more until one drunk could be persuaded to stop messing around. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Feb 27, 2018 6:44:10 GMT
The actual decision is free online. I didn't get the news reports, but reading the decision I thought that it was a generally positive retreat from views about passengers needing to be protected from their own recklessness that would lead to trains full of people being delayed for half an hour or more until one drunk could be persuaded to stop messing around. I don't see that at all in the judgement, what it does say is that the current procedure is adequate for safe dispatch and that risk is minimised. Item 45 states about the driver that The judgement cites two cases involving injury to intoxicated passengers, Paul Collins-Williamson v Silverlink Trains Ltd where the claim was upheld and Whiting v First/Keolis Transpennine Limited where the claim was unsuccessful. Above all that there is the case of Christopher McGee, a guard on Merseyrail who was sentenced to five years for manslaughter because he closed the doors and gave the signal that is was safe to move while a drunken passenger was leaning against the side of the train. Train Operating Companies have a legal duty of care for the safety of their passengers, under the Railway Bylaws if passengers are "unfit to enter or remain on the station" then staff have the authority to refuse them entry or remove them from the premises, its up to the TOC to ensure that they have enough staff to run the station and that they are made aware of their responsibilities. If I see a drunk person too close to my train then I'm not moving it no matter how much it delays the service |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 27, 2018 13:48:20 GMT
I'm not sure the judge is qualified to say that the current procedure is adequate for safe dispatch. The judge can only comment on one particular case, and in this one the judge says that there is no action the company (s) could have taken which would or could have prevented the tragic and traumatic injury.
|
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Feb 27, 2018 14:00:39 GMT
I'm not sure the judge is qualified to say that the current procedure is adequate for safe dispatch. The judge can only comment on one particular case, and in this one the judge says that there is no action the company (s) could have taken which would or could have prevented the tragic and traumatic injury. To be pedantic, the question is whether there is anything that the company could reasonably have done. Obviously they could install a marshal for every carriage at every station, but that would hardly be a 'reasonable' expectation. Had the plaintiff's barrister been able to show that that particular company operated in some way that was less safe than the industry norm or the the industry as a whole had not implemented some cheap and easy procedure/equipment set-up, then the case might well have succeeded. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 27, 2018 14:18:44 GMT
To be pedantic, the question is whether there is anything that the company could reasonably have done. Such as implementing a new ticketing system that was more easily able to negate lost or stolen tickets, or imposing a less swingeing penalty for such lost and stolen tickets, perhaps. |
|
|
|
Post by aslefshrugged on Feb 27, 2018 14:57:13 GMT
To be pedantic, the question is whether there is anything that the company could reasonably have done. Such as implementing a new ticketing system that was more easily able to negate lost or stolen tickets, or imposing a less swingeing penalty for such lost and stolen tickets, perhaps. According to item 20 According to the Greater Anglia's website the admin charge for a lost Monthly or Annual Season ticket is £20 but they won't do two replacements in a 12 month period unless one of the requests was a result of "theft, robbery, fire or other exceptional circumstances" "which have been reported to the police, the fire service or another appropriate body". The £3000 would have been for a new season ticket so the assumption is this was the second time he'd lost this particular annual season ticket and he'd have to buy another |
|
class411
Operations: Normal
Posts: 2,724
|
Post by class411 on Feb 27, 2018 15:15:42 GMT
To be pedantic, the question is whether there is anything that the company could reasonably have done. Such as implementing a new ticketing system that was more easily able to negate lost or stolen tickets, or imposing a less swingeing penalty for such lost and stolen tickets, perhaps. LOL, I'm not sure if that's a serious comment, but the law doesn't work like that. The judge is not expected to consider why the plaintiff acted recklessly. Would you expect her/him to find for the plaintiff if the rail company had run his train late the day before and he'd been threatened with the sack if he turned up late again that week? Although, in general, I'd agree that train companies have been given far too much power to 'punish' travellers for not correctly handling their convoluted ticketing systems and rules and regulations, particularly as it is their desire to save money by removing ticket collectors and such like that necessitated such swinging penalties in the first place. |
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 27, 2018 15:53:45 GMT
It was tongue slightly in cheek, yes. The guy was obviously seriously agitated by the consequences of losing his season yet again (presumably), and wasn't thinking straight. Again, that is a matter for his own lack of diligence.
|
|
|
|
Post by norbitonflyer on Feb 27, 2018 16:20:16 GMT
The value of the ticket to him would be somewhat less than £3000, since if he had had time to lose it twice (and replace it once) there would have been rather less than a year to go until he would have needed to renew it anyway. I have had a similar accident myself - fortunately with far less serious consequences as I was seen before the right-away was given - but I had only myself to blame for my injuries.
|
|
|
|
Post by trt on Feb 27, 2018 17:32:15 GMT
The value of the ticket to him would be somewhat less than £3000, since if he had had time to lose it twice (and replace it once) there would have been rather less than a year to go until he would have needed to renew it anyway. I have had a similar accident myself - fortunately with far less serious consequences as I was seen before the right-away was given - but I had only myself to blame for my injuries. He could have an annual season loan from his place of work. I wouldn't like to take a hit like that. Still paying work back monthly for the ticker, and having to buy monthlies on top. |
|
