Snow clearing is where your actions can result in an injury. That's
different to giving assistance to a person in need.

Although strictly speaking if someone helps another and makes things worse
they could be sued for it. I am not aware of a single case where this has
happened where the 'help' was given in the belief that what they was doing
was the right thing.

I also cant believe that a court in the UK would allow such a case to be
won.

Any law students out there beg to differ? :-)))

Steve


"Jack Taylor" wrote in message
...

"Fearty" wrote in message
...

I did a law unit at college last year and this subject came up with our
lecturer giving the example of a road crash saying that I would be under
no obligation to help the injured person but if I did help them and made
their situation worse i.e paralysed them, then they would be perfectly
entitled to sue me even though I was only genuinely just trying to help.

Yes, that's exactly the same situation as reared its head with regard to
snow clearing, back in the 1970s. If it snows and you leave your front
path
untouched and someone falls down they have no claim, if you've cleared it
and they slip over then you're liable. So much for trying to do a good
turn!

I also cant believe that a court in the UK would allow such a case to be
won.

The first thing my lecturer told me regarding common law court cases was
that the law was largely irreleveant and results of cases are most often
decided simply by which lawyer argues better on the day.

I think you are right in that no cases of this type have made the UK
courts, however the medical organisations are aware of the implications
of Good Samaritan deeds, which can by illustrated by this page on the
Resucitation Council's website giving scary reading about the potential
hazard of helping someone in need.

http://www.resus.org.uk/pages/legal.htm


Also, take a look at this American newspaper cutting which in a few
years time could happen here.

http://tinyurl.com/6j9ca


I did however come across this interesting case in my file:

Slater v Clay Cross Co (1956)
The pursuer was a woman who was struck by a train in a tunnel. She and
other visitors had been in the habit of using the tunnel as a short
cut. The engine driver was found to be negligent in failing to slow
down and sound his whistle when entering the tunnel. The woman was
found to be contributorily negligent but Volenti did not apply as the
court held that while the woman accepted the danger of the running of
the railway, she did not accept the risk of the driver's negligence.

(Volenti is a defence used where if the pursuer is aware and accepts the
danger of something then they canot sue if something goes wrong)

This was a landmark case which set a precedent for future negligence
cases which is relevent to another thread, though only on the Uk.Railway
newsgroup where a van driver was hit on an open level crossing on the
Severn Valley Railway. One post suggests that no warning whistle was
sounded by the steam engine driver and if this is true a lawyer acting
for the van driver could sue the railway/driver for negligence quoting
the test case above.

What a mad world we live in!!!!!!!


Stephen

In article , Fearty wrote:
The first thing my lecturer told me regarding common law court
cases was that the law was largely irreleveant and results of
cases are most often decided simply by which lawyer argues better
on the day.

And, in my legal studies days, by a feeling that although X had come
to grief as a result of their own stupidity (e.g. diving into an
empty swimming pool while drunk) if you could construct an argument
that allotted blame to some other insured party then you should try
to do so.

--
Tony Bryer