Woman who claimed she tripped on path cracked by tree root loses case
April 26, 2024
Woman who claimed she tripped on path cracked by tree root loses case
by Sharp-Papaya-7607
10 comments
Always good to see a chancer lose out, however it’s sad to think about the amount of court resources that are wasted on spurious nonsense like this. The tide seems to be turning a little based on headlines this year, however.
Love to see it.
How does it work for case like this to go to High Court vs district etc? Is there a calibration of some sort or do you need to go through the lower instances first?
How about watching where you are walking? Basic skill we develop in childhood. Glad she lost. Half the trees in the cities would have to be removed if people won these cases.
Bloody ridiculous.
We need a register of people who file compo claims Employers should be able to see if people are an absolute liability that they struggle to handle basic footpaths.
And any failed case should have to cover court time and costs.
>In relation to the nonfeasance issue, the judge said this was not an appropriate case to determine the broader legal issue.
Cowards.
Just waiting for the day a good solid nonfeasance defence is accepted and then lots of these cases will go away.
In tort law there’s are the concepts of nonfeasance and misfeasance.
The gist of nonfeasance is if someone hurts themselves on a broken pavement, the council is not liable for damages. The rationale is a public policy one that if the council was liable for all damages associated with broken pavements they’d be bankrupt and incentivise no pavements being built.
Misfeasance is where the council build or repair a pavement so badly that people trip and fall because of the bodged job. Council made the mistake therefore council is liable.
This is day 1 of law school stuff.
I’d guess the solicitor was hoping to argue something like the tree planting or lack of tree maintenance was an example of misfeasance.
In reality the judge said the solicitor could not agree on the facts of where the lady fell so couldn’t establish the council’s liability on the facts. Interesting case.
Genuinely if you look at these personal injury stories as just a scam I’d recommend reading a wiki on tort law and personal injuries. There’s really interesting and very human side to these case around risk, liability and personal responsibility. If you just want to be angry at stuff fair enough but you’re missing out.
So the judge had the sense to see that it was her own fault for not looking where she was going. That’s what happened and the next day the husband saw the crack in the footpath and thought they were on to a winner.
As she should.
That doesn’t mean every case is frviolous like this one, and frightening that some people on here think otherwise.
10 comments
Always good to see a chancer lose out, however it’s sad to think about the amount of court resources that are wasted on spurious nonsense like this. The tide seems to be turning a little based on headlines this year, however.
Love to see it.
How does it work for case like this to go to High Court vs district etc? Is there a calibration of some sort or do you need to go through the lower instances first?
How about watching where you are walking? Basic skill we develop in childhood. Glad she lost. Half the trees in the cities would have to be removed if people won these cases.
Bloody ridiculous.
We need a register of people who file compo claims
Employers should be able to see if people are an absolute liability that they struggle to handle basic footpaths.
And any failed case should have to cover court time and costs.
>In relation to the nonfeasance issue, the judge said this was not an appropriate case to determine the broader legal issue.
Cowards.
Just waiting for the day a good solid nonfeasance defence is accepted and then lots of these cases will go away.
In tort law there’s are the concepts of nonfeasance and misfeasance.
The gist of nonfeasance is if someone hurts themselves on a broken pavement, the council is not liable for damages. The rationale is a public policy one that if the council was liable for all damages associated with broken pavements they’d be bankrupt and incentivise no pavements being built.
Misfeasance is where the council build or repair a pavement so badly that people trip and fall because of the bodged job. Council made the mistake therefore council is liable.
This is day 1 of law school stuff.
I’d guess the solicitor was hoping to argue something like the tree planting or lack of tree maintenance was an example of misfeasance.
In reality the judge said the solicitor could not agree on the facts of where the lady fell so couldn’t establish the council’s liability on the facts. Interesting case.
Genuinely if you look at these personal injury stories as just a scam I’d recommend reading a wiki on tort law and personal injuries. There’s really interesting and very human side to these case around risk, liability and personal responsibility. If you just want to be angry at stuff fair enough but you’re missing out.
So the judge had the sense to see that it was her own fault for not looking where she was going. That’s what happened and the next day the husband saw the crack in the footpath and thought they were on to a winner.
As she should.
That doesn’t mean every case is frviolous like this one, and frightening that some people on here think otherwise.
Ratbag tree! Poor woman!