I am by no means an expert on cutting down trees. If you hand me a chainsaw, I am far more likely to injure myself than any wood in my immediate area. But if the people from Ax Men kidnapped me and forced me to chop my way out of their trailer park hideout, there are some basic mistakes I’d avoid.
First and foremost, I wouldn’t cut down anything I was leaning on at the time I started chopping. You don’t need to be a lumberjack in order to understand Newtonian physics. That knowledge puts me way ahead of an Englishman named Peter Aspinall. The Telegraph reports:
Peter Aspinall, 64, had been asked to prune a sycamore tree in the grounds of a hotel, but instead of leaning his ladder against the trunk he placed it against the branch he was hacking down.
When the branch fell it took Mr Aspinall with it, 14ft to the ground below. He broke his heel, damaged his ligaments and had to spend ten days in hospital recovering from surgery on his injuries.
When I first read the lede of the story, I thought the tipster sent it to me as another candidate for a Drinking Ban Order. But no, having been injured by his own amazing stupidity, Aspinall decided he needed to sue somebody.
His target: the employer who asked him to cut down the branch in the first place…
British health and safety inspectors fined the Egerton House Hotel for not giving Aspinall a remedial lesson in gravity. And that emboldened Aspinall to seek civil damages against his employer:
He took the action after health and safety inspectors concluded the hotel failed to carry out a risk assessment on the dangers of pruning.
They also said that his employer should have given him training on where to place the ladder.
The hotel owners have now been fined £1,000 and ordered to pay £1,000 council costs and a £15 victim surcharge by magistrates in Bolton after pleading guilty to health and safety breaches.
Training on where to place the ladder wouldn’t have helped this guy. Training on how to not chop down his own ladder is what this guy needed. And I think that’s a lesson you’re supposed to learn by the age of six, not 64.
In response, the hotel owner, Jan Hampton, issued a statement I can barely comprehend:
Ms Hampton, said she was proud of the hotel’s health and safety record and standards of customer care.
”Action has been taken to ensure that this could not happen again,” she said.
Is Ms. Hampton now committed to hiring only 14-foot-tall branch cutters, so falling will not be an option? What actions can ensure that a man will never cut off a branch that he is leaning on?
Handyman injured after chopping down branch he propped his ladder against [Telegraph]
Maintenance man chops off tree branch his ladder is leaning on, sues employer [BoingBoing]
This guy sounds like a winner.
This guy sounds like a winner.
This is what happens in a liberal society full of liberal judges — people get money for not understanding how gravity works.
The hotel should seek a motion for a summary judgment. This lawsuit clearly does not pass muster under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is my understanding that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure only apply in the US.
What you need to understand is that Government in the UK permeates all aspects of life. There is a story about how a town couldn't put up holiday decorations because they had to hire a cherry picker (according to the health and safety inspectors) to put them up instead of using the ladders they had for 50 years. A lady was also forbidden from cleaning leaves from her front stoop, where she had lived for since during WWII, because she wasn't trained in cleaning leaves and needed to hire someone to do it for her. . . . Long live Big Government!
I once used my tusks to tunnel my way into a Little Debbie Snack Cake factory. True story.
“What actions ensure that a man will never cut off a branch that he is leaning on?”
Easy. Hire anyone not named “Peter Aspinall.”
That is like going to a mediocre law school, cutting off your chances of a decent job by not working really hard and being in the top 10-20% of the class, and then blaming the law school for your fall into lack of employment.
and wears a bra and panties just like his dear Papa…..
Big Deal. Stuff likes this happens in Utah all the time.
Where does it say that this lawsuit was brought outside the US? And even if it was, that doesn't mean that different principals would apply. Successful litigators make arguments by analogy. The underlying point is that this lawsuit should be denied, whether with prejudice or without it.
thanks obama!
I'm a grumpy old troll, who lives under a bridge
I'm a grumpy old troll, who lives under a bridge
If you want to come over
All you have to do is this
All you have to do is this
I'm a grumpy old troll, who lives under a bridge
I'm a grumpy old troll, who lives under a bridge
If you want to come over
All you have to do is this
All you have to do is this
I never wanted to be a weatherman…
Also, was this guy an affirmative action hire?
^ Liberals attempt comedy when issues are too big for them to understand. Hence the popularity of the Daily Show.
This sounds like a bizarre gardening accident.
The trolls are out in full force this morning, and they are hungry. Just because Mr. Aspinall does not seem to have a good grasp of the immutable laws of physics, you idiots all seem to want to blame liberalism and Mr. Obama. Ummm, other than your irrational hatred of all things progressive, would you care to introduce some actual facts into your arguments? I didn't really think so. Go back to whatever masturbatory activities are preventing you from waiting on the public, please. The world needs more JDs working at McDonald's.
The trolls are out in full force this morning, and they are hungry. Just because Mr. Aspinall does not seem to have a good grasp of the immutable laws of physics, you idiots all seem to want to blame liberalism and Mr. Obama. Ummm, other than your irrational hatred of all things progressive, would you care to introduce some actual facts into your arguments? I didn't really think so. Go back to whatever masturbatory activities are preventing you from waiting on the public, please. The world needs more JDs working at McDonald's.
The trolls are out in full force this morning, and they are hungry. Just because Mr. Aspinall does not seem to have a good grasp of the immutable laws of physics, you idiots all seem to want to blame liberalism and Mr. Obama. Ummm, other than your irrational hatred of all things progressive, would you care to introduce some actual facts into your arguments? I didn't really think so. Go back to whatever masturbatory activities are preventing you from waiting on the public, please. The world needs more JDs working at McDonald's.
The trolls are out in full force this morning, and they are hungry. Just because Mr. Aspinall does not seem to have a good grasp of the immutable laws of physics, you idiots all seem to want to blame liberalism and Mr. Obama. Ummm, other than your irrational hatred of all things progressive, would you care to introduce some actual facts into your arguments? I didn't really think so. Go back to whatever masturbatory activities are preventing you from waiting on the public, please. The world needs more JDs working at McDonald's.
It seems reasonable to assume that the lawsuit was filed outside the U.S. given that the accident occurred at a hotel in Bolton, England and involved a worker (i.e., not a tourist). Good litigators do not cite to irrelevant rules. Report back when you finish your first-year civil procedure class.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
Regurgitating dubious stories from the right wing populist tabloid the Daily Mail does not warrant engaging you in serious debate. So please just go back to your tea bagging.
I know that reading comprehension and logic are difficult for liberals like yourself, but no one is blaming Mr. Obama for Mr. Aspinall's failure to understand physics.
We're blaming liberalism for the RESULTING LAWSUIT and Mr. Aspinall's win of 1000 pounds.
Does that help? Okay, thx.
I say this as an American, an American complaining about ANY other country being overly litigious or overly regulated, is a bit ridiculous (unless one is consistent and in other contexts acknowledges the U.S.'s own faults in these areas).
That said, without reading more about this story, it's not necessarily a ridiculous lawsuit. If an employer requires an employee to do a job with some element of risk without training the person how to do it safely or providing adequate safety equipment, and the employee is injured, why shouldn't they be able to sue? E.g. “you've never pruned a tree nor used a ladder as part of your work, but we're sending you out there with a ladder to prune that tree”. Otherwise there is no reason (other than criminal or regulatory law) for an employer not to save money by not training people nor providing safety equipment.
Even years ago when I had a summer job involving some lifting, we were taught e.g. how to safely lift items.
Now, IF this employee was an experienced tree pruner, that would be different.
How about I lived in England. . . .Speak only when you know what you're talking about . . . .and The Sun Page 3 is the only reason to buy a paper in the UK FYI
Successful litigators usually have some reading comprehension abilities and often take note of important facts like: where an incident took place, or who their client is, or if they are wearing pants. Also, given that the case is from a different country, it's probably best not to assume that the principles are the same. Just general advice, but to get you started, focus on the pants issue and work your way up from there.
Successful litigators usually have some reading comprehension abilities and often take note of important facts like: where an incident took place, or who their client is, or if they are wearing pants. Also, given that the case is from a different country, it's probably best not to assume that the principles are the same. Just general advice, but to get you started, focus on the pants issue and work your way up from there.
Successful litigators usually have some reading comprehension abilities and often take note of important facts like: where an incident took place, or who their client is, or if they are wearing pants. Also, given that the case is from a different country, it's probably best not to assume that the principles are the same. Just general advice, but to get you started, focus on the pants issue and work your way up from there.
Successful litigators usually have some reading comprehension abilities and often take note of important facts like: where an incident took place, or who their client is, or if they are wearing pants. Also, given that the case is from a different country, it's probably best not to assume that the principles are the same. Just general advice, but to get you started, focus on the pants issue and work your way up from there.
Successful litigators usually have some reading comprehension abilities and often take note of important facts like: where an incident took place, or who their client is, or if they are wearing pants. Also, given that the case is from a different country, it's probably best not to assume that the principles are the same. Just general advice, but to get you started, focus on the pants issue and work your way up from there.
Successful litigators usually have some reading comprehension abilities and often take note of important facts like: where an incident took place, or who their client is, or if they are wearing pants. Also, given that the case is from a different country, it's probably best not to assume that the principles are the same. Just general advice, but to get you started, focus on the pants issue and work your way up from there.
The world outside the US isn't the socialist dystopia some Americans seem to think it is. Your comment is a bit like saying all American are gun-totting, idiots who dont know what a passport is (and don't care). Stupid lawsuits get filed everywhere- though mostly in the US. As another poster below said, we only have a few of the facts in this case. While the plaintiff ain't too bright, there's probably more to this story than the Daily Mail (which is in the business of selling papers to the lowest common denominator) is telling us. Spending a summer in London does not make you/clearly has not made you very open minded about other countries. As for some other poster who called the Daily Mail a liberal…. blah blah blah- the Mail is nothing more than a “rag”. It's a worthless piece of rubbish aimed at the great unwashed. I wouldn't let it wind you up.
The world outside the US isn't the socialist dystopia some Americans seem to think it is. Your comment is a bit like saying all American are gun-totting, idiots who dont know what a passport is (and don't care). Stupid lawsuits get filed everywhere- though mostly in the US. As another poster below said, we only have a few of the facts in this case. While the plaintiff ain't too bright, there's probably more to this story than the Daily Mail (which is in the business of selling papers to the lowest common denominator) is telling us. Spending a summer in London does not make you/clearly has not made you very open minded about other countries. As for some other poster who called the Daily Mail a liberal…. blah blah blah- the Mail is nothing more than a “rag”. It's a worthless piece of rubbish aimed at the great unwashed. I wouldn't let it wind you up.
Dear Thomas,
America–love it or leave it.
“If the employee WERE . . . .”
TTTime to work on your grammar.
Guest and Sancho: Are you seriously suggesting that English courts lack a mechanism like a motion for a summary judgment to dispose of a case before a full-blown trial? I think that they must have one, and that American rules could be highly useful in that regard. You may not have learned this yet, but we're from the same legal tradition.
In the vast majority of American states, this guy wouldn't need to sue his employer because he would already be entitled to Worker's Compensation. To the extent that he lived in a state that allowed suits against his employer at all in addition to the WC remedy he would already be entitled to as long as he wasn't drunk, he would likely have to allege and prove some form of aggravated negligence or intentional act to recover.
That said, this lawsuit is a good example of why contributory negligence is the better rule…
I'm not sure your lifting analogy works here, for various reasons. First, while the training in how to properly lift is to prevent injuries (which is all good and well), you could conceivably spend your entire summer lifting heavy boxes without any injury (and thus no claim later on). In this case, doing what Aspinall did will result in an adverse result (although no necessarily injury) 100% of the time (it's like it's a law of nature or something). The idea here is that any reasonable person (and unreasonable persons, for that matter) would see that, since they have spent all their life observing gravity in action, and how leaning things against other things work. Second, if employers are supposed to explain the most basic of concepts involved in the work we are to perform things quickly get out of hand. For most lawyers, their work involves sitting in chairs. Did anyone train them in how to properly sit in a chair, so they wouldn't fall out of it? Of course not, because it's assumed that people know this. Our jobs also involves walking from place to place, but (and this might be just me) nobody explains how to walk properly without randomly falling down. You can go on ad naseum with all the things that would have to be shown and explained to an employee in any given job. It becomes ridiculous.
Also, it is obvious that the “actions [that] ensure that a man will never cut off a branch that he is leaning on” are cutting down the tree and any other trees on the property.
Actually, in a previous job I received training in how to sit in a chair. It was presumably aimed at reducing the very real chance of serious injury from sitting in a bad posture for long stretches of time, rather than aimed at preventing us from falling out of the chair. But it still adequately contradicts your evidence.
Ah if only it had just been a summer.
The point I was making was what was a good idea in the beginning has become bogged down by stupid rules and a lack of insight. As for more to the story, I actually really doubt it. It is SO much cheaper to settle this kind of case there (as it is here) than litigate it out. Also the deck is stacked against the defendant regarding these types of cases in England just to the way the laws are structured. I know what my passport is, how to use it, and that the world isn't a socialist dystopia.
In what way is the deck stacked against the defendant in England?
V5
It's essentially a strict liability situation, in practice and the way the regulations are written and enforced, when it come to workplace injuries. http://www.hse.gov.uk/index.htm provides a good starter for the nonsense that may be created. I always laughed at OSHA requiring dihydrogen monoxide (H2O dba water) to have a saftey label in some situations, but then grew to appreciate the restraint OSHA shows when compared to the folks in the UK
I call shenanigans
Do you have a specific example, though, of how the deck is stacked against the defendant in England? Rather than more conclusory generalizations and a link to the home page of the Health and Safety Executive?
Interesting dialogue going on here about that dreaded health & saftey which seems to nvade evry aspect of our lives these days. If you want a smile, take a look at my spoof health and safety in the office – addresses many important issues! Enjoy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yjcEGTVEIhI
Nick
No, we're suggesting that either you can't read or are weak at logical reasoning if you question whether the lawsuit was brought in England or seriously propose that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure are applicable. Those were your initial points. Your attempt to save face by arguing that the English courts probably have a procedure similar to summary judgment is another matter, you're right that they probably do.
v5
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/72...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/topics/weather/69581...
This is a piss poor attempt at trolling.
guest:
Let's look at those examples. Both are from the Telegraph – one of the more respectable right wing newspapers, but it has its ax to grind nonetheless.
The Pavement Story: Essentially, the Institution of Occupational Safety and Health, an industry body representing health and safety professionals, advises businesses not to clear ice from public sidewalks because, in its opinion, they might open themselves up to lawsuits. It suggests passers-by might injure themselves on improperly cleared sidewalks. By taking action, businesses open themselves up to liability where they would have had no liability were they to take no action. Businesses have no duty to clear icy public sidewalks.
The Icy River Story: West Mercia Police claimed safety regulations prevented officers from diving into an icy river to attempt a rescue. No mention is made of any kind of legal action.
Neither story involves an employee suing an employer. Neither suggests that strict liability applies to suits involving workplace accidents. Most importantly, though, neither story carries even a hint that the deck is stacked against the civil suit defendant in England.
Are you just giving examples hoping no one will actually read them? Or do you somehow believe these examples support your point?
No, it is a self-evidently succesful one.
Perhaps you are right. But there really are people as dumb as Aspiring Litigator.
Of course action was taken. They probably told their staff to tell future gardener types to not be idiots. I blame the regulators for blaming the employer.
Aspiring Litigator, you should sue your junior high school principal for allowing you to graduate without learning the difference between a “principal” and a “principle.”
Heat reflective coating to lower internal heat and save on those nasty power bills. Commercial reflective roof coating coating will reflect the heat, contains no ceramics Sydney and NSW wide, Australia. Heat reflective coating