Schoolboys left injured after playing near rail line to sue over 'psychological trauma'

[CharlieSpotted]

Schoolboys left injured after playing near rail line to sue over the 'psychological trauma' they suffered

The boys aged 13 received electric burns in the accident in Bescot - but are now taking legal action against the rail company for their injuries

The families of three young boys who were injured as they played near the railway in the Black Country are to sue rail bosses.

The 13-year-olds were injured last summer when they played in a rail storage yard at Bescot

Now their families are suing rail bosses for the physical injuries and "pyschological trauma" they suffered.

One boy was injured when he came into contact with a 25,000 volt cable, another suffered minor burns, while the third was left traumatised after witnessing it.

Their families have hired a lawyer to sue railway bosses over the accident, claiming they should have done more to stop the boys getting into the yard...

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/schoolboys-left-injured-after-playing-14950055

Extraordinary.

 

[4141]

Of course, it's never the poor thing's fault...sorry, but they were old enough to know that they shouldn't be there.

 

[Bantamzen]

So they are going to admit trespassing in a rail yard? Oh boy, NR's or the owner's lawyers could have an absolute field day with this one!

I do like the "they shouldn't leave holes in the fences" excuse when there is a chance that the kids, or kids they know made the hole in the first place. I know kids like to explore, but parents should be telling them not to go sticking their heads through random holes in the first place!!

 

[DarloRich]

By reading the report it seems that DBC are to be sued.

 

[The_Train]

Surely there are no grounds for any sort of claim for someone injuring themselves whilst committing a criminal act?

 

[CharlieSpotted]

I know Judge Judy frequently dismisses cases for parties coming to court without 'clean hands'. The principle, if it were to be applied here, would be that you can't sue for injuring yourself whilst trespassing, because trespassing is a criminal act (and you therefore don't have 'clean hands'. Does such a principle exist in UK law? (Or even US law? )

Yes, all my legal knowledge comes from Judges Judy and Rinder. Wannafightaboutit?

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Surely there are no grounds for any sort of claim for someone injuring themselves whilst committing a criminal act?

Sadly in this day and age this isn't true. I am sure two people breaking into a school and fell and injured themselves falling through a sky light on the roof managed to sue the education authority for damages. Thankfully, the case failed. But it still made it as far as court which is the sad bit.

 

[swt_passenger]

Sorry, but the news report’s ‘playing near rail line’ is an attempt to deflect from the reality of ‘climbing onto a carriage’, which is a different thing to me.

 

[neilmc]

Disgraceful. When I was 13 years old I was constantly trespassing on the railway (fences were more or less one big gaping hole) but wasn't so stupid as to climb up on to a wagon or carriage under 25kv wires. Nobody, except for the occasional surly shed foreman, cared very much and my parents wouldn't have dreamed of suing as a result of stupidity, teenagers were expected to have more sense than a five-year-old.

 

[marcouk2]

Seems a similar situation to the previous time when EWS/DBC were suscessfully prosecuted by the HSE for failing to prevent trespass access to a rail yard.

 

[OuterDistant]

British Railways Board v Herrington, applies here, I take it?

 

[mmh]

I thought it was widely known that trespass isn't a crime, but I guess I was wrong!

 

[jonesy3001]

Its there own fault for going into the yard and messing about with the trains, they also should know that the overhead lines can kill you, kids these days get away with anything and are now suing the train company for something they did!
I was caught by the police crossing the tracks at hyde north station when i was a teenager and was told to go to the transport police at piccadilly station for a caution.

 

[DarloRich]

British Railways Board v Herrington, applies here, I take it?

That would be 1972 rather than during the "elf and safety gone mad" period that posters here like to blame for everything!

Its there own fault for going into the yard and messing about with the trains, they also should know that the overhead lines can kill you, kids these days get away with anything and are now suing the train company for something they did!
I was caught by the police crossing the tracks at hyde north station when i was a teenager and was told to go to the transport police at piccadilly station for a caution.

And yet one of the key cases is from 1972 when men were men and common sense ruled.

 

[Bromley boy]

I know Judge Judy frequently dismisses cases for parties coming to court without 'clean hands'. The principle, if it were to be applied here, would be that you can't sue for injuring yourself whilst trespassing, because trespassing is a criminal act (and you therefore don't have 'clean hands'. Does such a principle exist in UK law? (Or even US law? )

Yes, all my legal knowledge comes from Judges Judy and Rinder. Wannafightaboutit?

Duties are owed to trespassers by landowners in certain situations. The below article (written by ambulance chasing lawyers) summarises:

http://www.lindermyers.co.uk/child-personal-injury-claim/

The 1984 Act states that the occupier of premises may be found liable to a trespasser if it can be established that he did in fact owe the trespasser a duty of care.
Under section 1(3) this duty of care to a trespasser will arise if the occupier is:

• aware of the danger or has reasonable grounds to believe that it exists
• knows or has reasonable grounds to believe that the trespasser is in or may come into the vicinity of the danger: and
• The risk is one against which, in all the circumstances of the case he may reasonably be expected to offer the other some protection.

The law is fairly straightforward but the application of the law sometimes causes difficulty. Essentially, the more significant the danger then the greater the duty of care of the landowner.

Secondly, a child can reasonably expect greater care to be taken for his safety than an adult can.

Children and trespassing – the landowners responsibilities
Section 1(5) states that the occupier’s duty of care can be discharged if reasonable steps are taken to warn of any danger or to reduce the risk of the child being in danger.

However, putting down traps and allurements (something which attracts a child onto the land) on the land can adversely affect the landowner’s position in the case of trespassing children because the presence of a trap actually increases the risk that children will be attracted by a danger and this in turn increases the level of precautions an occupier ought to take. This could work in favour of the child in a personal injury claim.

In terms of precautions taken by an occupier, a warning notice, for example, may be inadequate for children who cannot read or even if they can appreciate the danger in question.

Section 1(6) of the 1984 Act preserves the defence of “volenti non fit injuria”. This means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where they may come to harm, knowing that there is a risk of harm; they will not be able to bring a claim against the other party. This becomes more complicated where children are concerned because much of the decision relies on the age of the child and their level of maturity in understanding the risks involved in undertaking certain activities.

 

[Bromley boy]

I thought it was widely known that trespass isn't a crime, but I guess I was wrong!

Trespass on the railway is very definitely a crime.

 

[jopsuk]

just because they're taking legal action, doesn't mean they'll succeed. The courts may well find against them

 

[CharlieSpotted]

Thanks for the context @Bromley boy.

If trespass on the railway is a crime, does a privately operated rail yard count as part of the railway?

 

[DarloRich]

Thanks for the context @Bromley boy.

If trespass on the railway is a crime, does a privately operated rail yard count as part of the railway?

Yes.

The fact that trespass on the railway is a crime is immaterial here. The duty of care set out in the above case, the fact that a hole in the fence was left unfixed despite being known about and that the injured were children is what matters.

just because they're taking legal action, doesn't mean they'll succeed. The courts may well find against them

If the situation is as per the media report they wont.

 

[Up_Tilt_390]

I think the fence ought to have been fixed really, since an animal could've very well crossed those tracks and got itself killed or injured. I mean I have little sympathy for these thirteen year old lads. I don't care if the fence was broken, it should be common sense not to trespass on the railways. Having said that, the legality of the duty of care is set out, and hopefully it'll prompt Network Rail or whoever owned the yard to get that fixed, since it's a requirement by law. I mean you can argue the law should be changed since some people see this duty of care as the act of a nanny state to protect the idiots of this country, but it's kind of irrelevant to the case we've got here. Unfortunately I've little faith anyone will really learn from this incident, so I doubt anything will change at all really.

 

[Whattraintoday]

Yes.

The fact that trespass on the railway is a crime is immaterial here. The duty of care set out in the above case, the fact that a hole in the fence was left unfixed despite being known about and that the injured were children is what matters.


If the situation is as per the media report they wont.

Had they been the age they are now, and therefore 'young persons' rather than children, I suspect the lawyers wouldn't be bothering to bring the case.

I guess it'll hinge on how much the judge thinks a 13yr old child can be expected to know about the danger of 25Kv OLE (assuming the absence of clear warning signs all over the place). I'd expect the railyard will be found against.

 

[Bantamzen]

Yes.

The fact that trespass on the railway is a crime is immaterial here. The duty of care set out in the above case, the fact that a hole in the fence was left unfixed despite being known about and that the injured were children is what matters.

This assumes that the fence was indeed unfixed, that DB Cargo knew about it and did not act, & the teenagers concerned did not cause the damage themselves. And then as highlighted above there is the matter as to whether or not they knowingly put themselves in danger. As they were all 13, and at least one climbed onto the top of a vehicle, it might be reasonable to assume that they knew they were putting themselves into some level of danger.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the fence ought to have been fixed really, since an animal could've very well crossed those tracks and got itself killed or injured. I mean I have little sympathy for these thirteen year old lads. I don't care if the fence was broken, it should be common sense not to trespass on the railways. Having said that, the legality of the duty of care is set out, and hopefully it'll prompt Network Rail or whoever owned the yard to get that fixed, since it's a requirement by law. I mean you can argue the law should be changed since some people see this duty of care as the act of a nanny state to protect the idiots of this country, but it's kind of irrelevant to the case we've got here. Unfortunately I've little faith anyone will really learn from this incident, so I doubt anything will change at all really.

I think it’s a strange world we live in when people have more sympathy for animals than children.

 

[WelshBluebird]

I guess it'll hinge on how much the judge thinks a 13yr old child can be expected to know about the danger of 25Kv OLE (assuming the absence of clear warning signs all over the place). I'd expect the railyard will be found against.

I am really getting a bit annoyed at todays society and how it infantilises children.
13 year olds are not stupid. Barring any learning difficulties, they understand that "high power electricity = bad" and can understand warning signs and know that a fenced off area means you shouldn't go there.

 

[DarloRich]

but it's kind of irrelevant to the case we've got here. Unfortunately I've little faith anyone will really learn from this incident, so I doubt anything will change at all really.

exactly

Had they been the age they are now, and therefore 'young persons' rather than children, I suspect the lawyers wouldn't be bothering to bring the case.

I guess it'll hinge on how much the judge thinks a 13yr old child can be expected to know about the danger of 25Kv OLE (assuming the absence of clear warning signs all over the place). I'd expect the railyard will be found against.

This assumes that the fence was indeed unfixed, that DB Cargo knew about it and did not act, & the teenagers concerned did not cause the damage themselves. And then as highlighted above there is the matter as to whether or not they knowingly put themselves in danger. As they were all 13, and at least one climbed onto the top of a vehicle, it might be reasonable to assume that they knew they were putting themselves into some level of danger.

It will hinge on the fence, whether the hole was known about, why it wasn't fixed and whether or not it was reasonable to expect it to be fixed. Knowingly putting themselves in danger will only reduce the damages ( via contributory negligence) rather than defeat the claim.

Children ( and 13 year old's are children) have less good mechanisms for judging or assessing danger. While they may know electric is dangerous they may have no idea how their actions are dangerous. People here are experts but people in the real world especially children, are not.

I am really getting a bit annoyed at todays society and how it infantilises children.
13 year olds are not stupid. Barring any learning difficulties, they understand that "high power electricity = bad" and can understand warning signs and know that a fenced off area means you shouldn't go there.

but the key case is from 1972.................

 

[221129]

I do hope BTP will also be bringing charges?

 

[al78]

I think it’s a strange world we live in when people have more sympathy for animals than children.

I think it is an irritating world when people frequently spout strawman arguments.

There was absolutely nothing in that post which suggests the poster has more sympathy for animals than children. The point was that a hole in the fence should be fixed, regardless of whether it is wrong for humans to trespass, because an animal, which has no concept of trespass, could do the same thing.

 

[DarloRich]

I do hope BTP will also be bringing charges?

i suspect that might fail the public impact test - nor might it meet a test of natural justice!

 

[Tube driver]

You can sue anyone for anything.

It is another thing completely to successfully do so.

Probably sniffing for an out of court settlement. Can't see this reaching court.

 

[GB]

I think it’s a strange world we live in when people have more sympathy for animals than children.

13 year olds know right from wrong, if they don't then questions need to be asked of their parents. An animal knows no different.