Technology3 mins ago
Personal Injury Responsibility
Hi,
I wonder if anyone can advise...a gentleman had delivered a letter to my property and left it half out of the letter box and on realising he had delivered it to the wrong address he later returned to remove the letter and on leaving my front porch the slab on the step (which was cracked) wobbled or fell off its plinth and he slipped he hurt is ankle.
To set the scene, my house has a small porch which has two steps up to the door, the first of which is a concrete plinth with 2 slabs and this is on the public footpath. One of these slabs was cracked and has been for as long as I have lived here but unknown to me it was also loose...I never use the front door and nobody (postman, etc) has ever mentioned it or fallen to my knowledge.
How would liability be determined in this circumstance?
Thanks in advance for any help.
I wonder if anyone can advise...a gentleman had delivered a letter to my property and left it half out of the letter box and on realising he had delivered it to the wrong address he later returned to remove the letter and on leaving my front porch the slab on the step (which was cracked) wobbled or fell off its plinth and he slipped he hurt is ankle.
To set the scene, my house has a small porch which has two steps up to the door, the first of which is a concrete plinth with 2 slabs and this is on the public footpath. One of these slabs was cracked and has been for as long as I have lived here but unknown to me it was also loose...I never use the front door and nobody (postman, etc) has ever mentioned it or fallen to my knowledge.
How would liability be determined in this circumstance?
Thanks in advance for any help.
Answers
Part 2! Digested my above debz? OK let's crack on.
(a) The step/plinth in question is on a public footpath so unless your property deeds state that you have SOME PARTIAL responsibili
(a) The step/plinth in question is on a public footpath so unless your property deeds state that you have SOME PARTIAL responsibili
19:58 Fri 31st Aug 2012
Homes is correct here. You should notify your Buildings Insurer now,telling them the circumstances surrounding this "Accident".
They are then in a position to deal with any matters that may arise.Also if the injured Third Party contacts you, tell him that your Insurer is handling matters and do not discus anything with him.
I would also think about having the dodgy slab fixed.
They are then in a position to deal with any matters that may arise.Also if the injured Third Party contacts you, tell him that your Insurer is handling matters and do not discus anything with him.
I would also think about having the dodgy slab fixed.
How did you know that 1. he delivered it originally and was the same person later?. 2. It was sticking out of the letterbox (if you were inside the house and never use the front door)?. 3.How did you know he had had an accident?
If you had seen him arrive at your door, you would have surely thought 'who is that' and either gone to the door then or afterwards seen if he had posted anything.
Had you seen it sticking out of the letterbox from the inside or by physically opening the door, would you not have looked at it to see who it was from/was it for you? Could you see the name on the letter and left it there hoping he would come back?
Maybe I am missing something.
If it were me I would replace the slab pretty sharpish so there is no proof and ultimately no later increase on your insurance premium should he 'win'.
If you had seen him arrive at your door, you would have surely thought 'who is that' and either gone to the door then or afterwards seen if he had posted anything.
Had you seen it sticking out of the letterbox from the inside or by physically opening the door, would you not have looked at it to see who it was from/was it for you? Could you see the name on the letter and left it there hoping he would come back?
Maybe I am missing something.
If it were me I would replace the slab pretty sharpish so there is no proof and ultimately no later increase on your insurance premium should he 'win'.
Any prudent owner should make sure that their household insurance policy covers the legal liability for injury to visitors as suggested by Homes 123.
As Fred says you are unable to plead ignorance as a defence if things go wrong. The wording of the 1984 Occupiers Act imposes liability on occupiers to give some reasonable protection to uninvited guests, reasonableness is very important in English law. In 1997 the High court in Leeds found that a 37-year-old burglar should be awarded damages as a 63-year-old farmer had kicked him when discovering him stealing roof slates and the kick amounted to unreasonable force.
As Fred says you are unable to plead ignorance as a defence if things go wrong. The wording of the 1984 Occupiers Act imposes liability on occupiers to give some reasonable protection to uninvited guests, reasonableness is very important in English law. In 1997 the High court in Leeds found that a 37-year-old burglar should be awarded damages as a 63-year-old farmer had kicked him when discovering him stealing roof slates and the kick amounted to unreasonable force.
Dear debz,
RELAX DEBZY and don't be scared by FredPuli43's apparent erudite answer (See my Part 2). You have nothing to fear. My understanding is that you are responsible for the REASONABLE safety of anyone who is: (a) explicitly or clearly implicitly INVITED by you and possible sharers onto YOUR OR SHARED PROPERTY, AND that their injury is due to your or joint negligence. So a guest falling down your stairs, if these are in safe condition, is not your fault, just an unforeseeable accident.
A contract with a delivery person, notably the milkman, is a clear invitation to enter your land. You are therefore responsible to make te milkman's route reasonably safe i.e for careful pedestrians (excluding runners, jumpers etc). I guess similar would apply to the postman unless you ban all postage. But I doubt this and suspect that Post Office Ltd would not pursue any claims in the absence of prior warnings. In fact a postie himself can refuse to deliver mail if he/she feels at hazard e.g. ferocious dogs.
As regards your uninvited mail deliverer, FORGET HIM AND RELAX DEAR. Why was he HALF-delivering mail to your property although the mail was not addressed to you? And he later followed up to recover it? Surely it's not the case that mail not collected from the letter-slot after a while is a good indication that the property is uninhabited and hence ripe for breaking and entering? Unlikely but his behaviour seems vey dubious. Must go for now but more to follow debz, take care! xxx
RELAX DEBZY and don't be scared by FredPuli43's apparent erudite answer (See my Part 2). You have nothing to fear. My understanding is that you are responsible for the REASONABLE safety of anyone who is: (a) explicitly or clearly implicitly INVITED by you and possible sharers onto YOUR OR SHARED PROPERTY, AND that their injury is due to your or joint negligence. So a guest falling down your stairs, if these are in safe condition, is not your fault, just an unforeseeable accident.
A contract with a delivery person, notably the milkman, is a clear invitation to enter your land. You are therefore responsible to make te milkman's route reasonably safe i.e for careful pedestrians (excluding runners, jumpers etc). I guess similar would apply to the postman unless you ban all postage. But I doubt this and suspect that Post Office Ltd would not pursue any claims in the absence of prior warnings. In fact a postie himself can refuse to deliver mail if he/she feels at hazard e.g. ferocious dogs.
As regards your uninvited mail deliverer, FORGET HIM AND RELAX DEAR. Why was he HALF-delivering mail to your property although the mail was not addressed to you? And he later followed up to recover it? Surely it's not the case that mail not collected from the letter-slot after a while is a good indication that the property is uninhabited and hence ripe for breaking and entering? Unlikely but his behaviour seems vey dubious. Must go for now but more to follow debz, take care! xxx
None of these answers addresses the question of who is actually responsible for the faulty step. You say it is on the public footpath. Does that mean it is outside the boundary of your property? If so, how did it come to be placed on the footpath & would the local authority regard it as their responsibility to maintain it as they would any other part of the footpath?
I suspect these questions may arise if you have to involve your insurers.
Also, I'm puzzled about how this actually works. If you have a step jutting out into the footpath I would think it would be a tripping hazard for people walking along the path. Is there some means whereby this is avoided?
I suspect these questions may arise if you have to involve your insurers.
Also, I'm puzzled about how this actually works. If you have a step jutting out into the footpath I would think it would be a tripping hazard for people walking along the path. Is there some means whereby this is avoided?
Part 2! Digested my above debz? OK let's crack on.
(a) The step/plinth in question is on a public footpath so unless your property deeds state that you have SOME PARTIAL responsibility for it, the responsibility lies with the Public Highways Authority not you! We can ignore complications of who built the plinth and which came first: plinth or public highway - almost cetainly too long ago to be a legally relevant.
(b) Fredpuli and others are misleading and distresssing you when quoting highly specific barrack-room lawyer type laws! See below.
(c) The country is awash with laws but our friends are quoting the LETTER of the law. There is a massive difference between the LETTER and the SPIRIT of the law. Many Laws are enacted by the LETTER in order to deal with specific precedents and tend to be acted upon to cover serious breaches. Neither the Criminal nor Civil Courts could function if every law's alleged misdemeanor was chucked at every Tom, Dick, Harry or Debz1203. So the Spirit of the law over-rides the Letter as a rule of thumb.
(d) Your anxiety, debz, is about a civil case being brought against you. If your unwanted visitor attempted such action, the magistrate would first examine the details. I can assure you any claims against you would be thrown out and never reach the Court.
(e) If this dubious visitor in his double visits had aggravated the crack by stepping on it and, he says, fallen. Then the otherwise obsolete law of trespass could be brought against him by virtue of trespass AND causing damage, via a counter-suit from you. Even this again assumes the step is part or wholly yours (doubtful).
(f) Read THIS BIT and thus forget the whole matter - he has more questions to answer than you!!! If it did come to Court, your legal representitive would make mince-meat of him and spit him out. This would be via not only questions but CROSS=questiions, the latter revealing contradictions in his statements. All stupid compensation-seekers trip-up that way.
DO NOT CONTACT YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY - YOU HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING AND COULD TALK YOUSELF INTO A MESS AND EXPENSE IF YOU ACT LIKE A GUILTY PARTY IN A NON-EXISTENT DISPUTE.
........SLEEP SOUNDLY DEBSY, you will never hear of this matter or see this guy again. He'll be keeping his head down and hoping YOU don't report him to the police. xxx
(a) The step/plinth in question is on a public footpath so unless your property deeds state that you have SOME PARTIAL responsibility for it, the responsibility lies with the Public Highways Authority not you! We can ignore complications of who built the plinth and which came first: plinth or public highway - almost cetainly too long ago to be a legally relevant.
(b) Fredpuli and others are misleading and distresssing you when quoting highly specific barrack-room lawyer type laws! See below.
(c) The country is awash with laws but our friends are quoting the LETTER of the law. There is a massive difference between the LETTER and the SPIRIT of the law. Many Laws are enacted by the LETTER in order to deal with specific precedents and tend to be acted upon to cover serious breaches. Neither the Criminal nor Civil Courts could function if every law's alleged misdemeanor was chucked at every Tom, Dick, Harry or Debz1203. So the Spirit of the law over-rides the Letter as a rule of thumb.
(d) Your anxiety, debz, is about a civil case being brought against you. If your unwanted visitor attempted such action, the magistrate would first examine the details. I can assure you any claims against you would be thrown out and never reach the Court.
(e) If this dubious visitor in his double visits had aggravated the crack by stepping on it and, he says, fallen. Then the otherwise obsolete law of trespass could be brought against him by virtue of trespass AND causing damage, via a counter-suit from you. Even this again assumes the step is part or wholly yours (doubtful).
(f) Read THIS BIT and thus forget the whole matter - he has more questions to answer than you!!! If it did come to Court, your legal representitive would make mince-meat of him and spit him out. This would be via not only questions but CROSS=questiions, the latter revealing contradictions in his statements. All stupid compensation-seekers trip-up that way.
DO NOT CONTACT YOUR INSURANCE COMPANY - YOU HAVE NOT BEEN CHARGED WITH ANYTHING AND COULD TALK YOUSELF INTO A MESS AND EXPENSE IF YOU ACT LIKE A GUILTY PARTY IN A NON-EXISTENT DISPUTE.
........SLEEP SOUNDLY DEBSY, you will never hear of this matter or see this guy again. He'll be keeping his head down and hoping YOU don't report him to the police. xxx
Wow...very thorough and clear solvitquick...may I ask how you came to be so wise in these matters? I actually felt the same regarding contacting the insurance...why contact them when I don't think I have been negligent. In answer to your and themas' questions, the house was built around 1990 and the step is wholly on the public footpath (this is a very wide footpath, I guess that is all that stops people tripping on it) but it seems to have been built by house builders as the base of the step is a layer of bricks and matches the house.
To grffindoor2011...the story is what the fallen man told me...I was out and arrived home only to see the man on the floor, at which point nothing was in my letter box.
To grffindoor2011...the story is what the fallen man told me...I was out and arrived home only to see the man on the floor, at which point nothing was in my letter box.
Thanks for that Debz1203
Sounds a bit screwy to me. I wonder if he is on the take? The thing is, even if he wasn't there is no proof. I would still replace the paving as a matter of course and move on.
I worked with someone a couple of years ago who was driving along, stopped and someone jumped in front of their car and started rolling on the floor claiming they had been hit. A community police officer had seen what had happened and told them to leave. My colleague never heard anything further.
Sounds a bit screwy to me. I wonder if he is on the take? The thing is, even if he wasn't there is no proof. I would still replace the paving as a matter of course and move on.
I worked with someone a couple of years ago who was driving along, stopped and someone jumped in front of their car and started rolling on the floor claiming they had been hit. A community police officer had seen what had happened and told them to leave. My colleague never heard anything further.
Yes, it does sound a bit 'screwy' or if not invented it may be trivial and not worth a claim .
But on the point of whether the step is part of the highway, the public footpath, and so the local authority's responsibility, common sense, and law, says it isn't. Any highway maintained at public expense is vested in the local authority (Highways Act 1980 s 263) Now, since when are the steps of a house, a step to its porch, say, which happen to project into the pavement or footpath, been maintainable at public expense? They are treated as part of the householder's property and it's his duty to maintain them.
Pubs have cellars. Often the trapdoor to the cellar is in the street, in the pavement. If the trapdoor is rotten and a pedestrian walking along the pavement falls through, who do you think is liable? The pub owners, and ignorance of the defect wouldn't stop the owner being liable. They could hardly claim that it was the local authority's liability. Really the situation with a step is no different.
[And, solvitquick, a 'magistrate' would never deal with a civil claim for damages. That's for the County or High Court, a judge. ]
But on the point of whether the step is part of the highway, the public footpath, and so the local authority's responsibility, common sense, and law, says it isn't. Any highway maintained at public expense is vested in the local authority (Highways Act 1980 s 263) Now, since when are the steps of a house, a step to its porch, say, which happen to project into the pavement or footpath, been maintainable at public expense? They are treated as part of the householder's property and it's his duty to maintain them.
Pubs have cellars. Often the trapdoor to the cellar is in the street, in the pavement. If the trapdoor is rotten and a pedestrian walking along the pavement falls through, who do you think is liable? The pub owners, and ignorance of the defect wouldn't stop the owner being liable. They could hardly claim that it was the local authority's liability. Really the situation with a step is no different.
[And, solvitquick, a 'magistrate' would never deal with a civil claim for damages. That's for the County or High Court, a judge. ]
Thanks Debz for your compliment to me - very much UNDESERVED
viz-a-viz my "wisdom?" (lol). Nope, I just learned as a joint householder with my female partner how to ensure our own securiy in case of real or fraudulent claims as well as reading about such things. I am just glad so many other common-sensed ABers, as well as me, have helped you to dismiss this from your mind. Pity Fredpultheotherone is still going on - now sniping at me. For fred's info: only criminal cases go to the Judge and Jury Court. I think you, fred, are confusing this and with most motoring offences, theft, fraud, appeals against the magistrates court etc.. So "Careless" driving etc are criminal offences. Sure, Fred. please correct me - with precise references if I'm wrong and I'd be genuinely grateful and even "wiser".
IF I MAY, DEBZY et al, DESPITE, MY VERBOSITY, I'd like to end this with a relevant factual "joke" although some tories won't laugh! Please see my Endpiece below.
viz-a-viz my "wisdom?" (lol). Nope, I just learned as a joint householder with my female partner how to ensure our own securiy in case of real or fraudulent claims as well as reading about such things. I am just glad so many other common-sensed ABers, as well as me, have helped you to dismiss this from your mind. Pity Fredpultheotherone is still going on - now sniping at me. For fred's info: only criminal cases go to the Judge and Jury Court. I think you, fred, are confusing this and with most motoring offences, theft, fraud, appeals against the magistrates court etc.. So "Careless" driving etc are criminal offences. Sure, Fred. please correct me - with precise references if I'm wrong and I'd be genuinely grateful and even "wiser".
IF I MAY, DEBZY et al, DESPITE, MY VERBOSITY, I'd like to end this with a relevant factual "joke" although some tories won't laugh! Please see my Endpiece below.
SIQ's Endispiece:
Probably before you, debz and others were born, Mrs Thatcher's Tories introduced the "Poll Tax" (now the Community Charge after it caused riots in the streets). A tory supporter was delivering pro-poll tax leaflets through the letter boxes. A (labour or lib-dem? lol) DOG bit off two of his fingers! No charges were brought! Funny to me, sick to others, but a bit relevant maybe? Love to all. xxx
Probably before you, debz and others were born, Mrs Thatcher's Tories introduced the "Poll Tax" (now the Community Charge after it caused riots in the streets). A tory supporter was delivering pro-poll tax leaflets through the letter boxes. A (labour or lib-dem? lol) DOG bit off two of his fingers! No charges were brought! Funny to me, sick to others, but a bit relevant maybe? Love to all. xxx
I used to work in liability insurance claims, and certainly the question of whether or not the man should have been delivering letters to your house is irrelevant - he was there, and the incident arose, that's the sum total of it.
If it is on your property and you have an obligation to keep the step safe, then you could be deemed to be negligent, but - and this is a big but - you need to be aware of the condition of the step in the first place, and know whether or not it's your responsibility. Don't do as others suggest and run round and repair it - repairing or remedying something straight after an accident is about as clear an admission of liability as you can make.
What I suggest you do is go now and take photos of the offending step and go to the council offices and speak to the Highways department, show them the photo and ask for clarification as to whether it's part of the public footpath or part of your house. Don't tell your insurance company yet - after all, nothing may come of it - and the man has three years to claim (it's three years after the date of the incident, or for personal injury claims, three years after he became aware of any long-lasting effects following his fall) but PLEASE write it all down now, while it's fresh in your mind. That way, if a claim comes in in six months' time, you'll have all the information to hand, and can send it straight to your household insurers (you don't need to reply other than telling him in writing who you are sending it to - no apologies, just acknowledgement of the letter). Your household insurance company will appoint solicitors to deal with the claim on your behalf, it won't cost you for their services. If you are asked why you didn't report it at the time, you can say it's because the man said he was OK.
..and in answer to questions about who leaves letters sticking out of the door, it happens round here often, particularly if you have a stiff letterbox.
If it is on your property and you have an obligation to keep the step safe, then you could be deemed to be negligent, but - and this is a big but - you need to be aware of the condition of the step in the first place, and know whether or not it's your responsibility. Don't do as others suggest and run round and repair it - repairing or remedying something straight after an accident is about as clear an admission of liability as you can make.
What I suggest you do is go now and take photos of the offending step and go to the council offices and speak to the Highways department, show them the photo and ask for clarification as to whether it's part of the public footpath or part of your house. Don't tell your insurance company yet - after all, nothing may come of it - and the man has three years to claim (it's three years after the date of the incident, or for personal injury claims, three years after he became aware of any long-lasting effects following his fall) but PLEASE write it all down now, while it's fresh in your mind. That way, if a claim comes in in six months' time, you'll have all the information to hand, and can send it straight to your household insurers (you don't need to reply other than telling him in writing who you are sending it to - no apologies, just acknowledgement of the letter). Your household insurance company will appoint solicitors to deal with the claim on your behalf, it won't cost you for their services. If you are asked why you didn't report it at the time, you can say it's because the man said he was OK.
..and in answer to questions about who leaves letters sticking out of the door, it happens round here often, particularly if you have a stiff letterbox.
Solvitquick, you originally gave the advice to debz that this was a civil case and that it would go before a 'magistrate' who would throw it out before it got to court. You seemed to be confusing that with committal proceedings in criminal cases, which are before a magistrate or magistrates, before the case is sent to crown court. Magistrates do not have jurisdiction in civil cases of the present sort (see Magistrates Courts Act 1980 ).
You have now corrected yourself and are telling me, further, that only criminal cases are dealt with by judge and jury. That is not strictly correct either.Defamation law is under review, and this provision should really go, but there still is a right to a jury in libel actions (Supreme Court Act 1982, s 69) subject to certain provisos.
My concern is that people who don't know the law may give misleading advice, that's all, even if they use CAPITALS. People who don't know which court deals with cases, and don't understand negligence and common duty of care, and any differences between them, and so on, might just do that.
Some of us on here may make what may seem to you to be barrack room lawyers' points or be referring to 'barrack room lawyer type laws' (never hear the statutes referred to as that) but we are real lawyers who have practised, not in barrack rooms (unless you count court martials!), but real courts. A 'barrack room lawyer' is an amateur.
You have now corrected yourself and are telling me, further, that only criminal cases are dealt with by judge and jury. That is not strictly correct either.Defamation law is under review, and this provision should really go, but there still is a right to a jury in libel actions (Supreme Court Act 1982, s 69) subject to certain provisos.
My concern is that people who don't know the law may give misleading advice, that's all, even if they use CAPITALS. People who don't know which court deals with cases, and don't understand negligence and common duty of care, and any differences between them, and so on, might just do that.
Some of us on here may make what may seem to you to be barrack room lawyers' points or be referring to 'barrack room lawyer type laws' (never hear the statutes referred to as that) but we are real lawyers who have practised, not in barrack rooms (unless you count court martials!), but real courts. A 'barrack room lawyer' is an amateur.
Oh dear..hoped this was over! I and others have been right to set debz's mind at rest AND WE ARE ABSOLUTELY 100% FUNDEMENTALLY CORRECT IN OUR PROGNOSES (that's forecasts of likely outcome)! But you (boxtops and fredpuli43 [no capital letters in the latter name as he is so sensitive to caps - right said fred!?] seem intent on stirring the pot to boast your deluded "superior eruditon": on boxtops FORMER employment in insurance claims and the letter of the law by fred - (PRESENT employment unstated but typical lawyer's procrastination over any "case" put to them). You are both in your computerised inhumoid manner ignoring DEBZ's VERY PRECISE SITUATION in favour of the GENERAL. Why not address the specifics which point to an unopened and certainly shut case! I could ask you two and some others to predict the likelihood of a court case against debz1203: but boxtops, by his/her definition must say "maybe yes maybe no, let's wait 3 years". Thanks for nothing! Also boxtops you WERE in some insurance claims dept., time unstated Debz is not a claimant. The only potential claimant is the dubious stranger. Why do you say that he does not have to justify his presence on the site of his "injury", whether in private or public presumably? Does he not have to even prove it happened at that site, even after 3 yrs? You are probably right but it sounds like a load of testicles to me. In fact, in insurance claims your job was surely to avoid full just payment to honest claimants in my experience! How many Kellogs Cornflake boxtops must I collect to qualify to be in insurance claims? Don't bother answering I am satisfied with my B.Sc., Ph.D. and former Medical Research Council Fellowship plus many Scientific Journal Publications and Patents. None in law I'm afraid..ever so sorry.Now for fredpuli in next episode. See yah gang!
Dear fredpuli43,
(a) Unlike in e-mails, I use capitals for emphasis not shouting 'cos on AB I cannot use italics or bold. I do not use them in my AB name, unlike you. But let's ignore your nit-picking side-ttrack.
(b) I think you are squirming out of my statements about Civil and Criminal Actions as follows. Sure you quote my original statement about the Magistrate's preview and power to throw out civil cases as wrong. For this I sincerely thank you and am now a wiser person. However this does not discredit the credibility of my other advice. I still know it JUST MIGHT BUT VERY UNLIKELY become a legal case but this would be (i) a civil action and (ii) it would/could either be thrown out by the court in session or quickly dismissed in favour of the defendant. The latter would defo be the case if the strange man did not turn up.
(c) Your para 2 is an irrelevant "throwing up smoke" as regards the debate and my contentions. We are not dealing with "defamation or libel".
(d) I reject your statement that ABers should not advise friends afraid of legal prosecution unless they are qualified in law. There is a wise phrase termed " The University of Life". You as a current or one-time lawyer are obviously a good source of advice. But supposing an ABer has been in the same or very similar situation to debz1203 but you have not and at best only read of similar cases (you know no case is identical or the precedent would have been set in stone). I would chose the advice of the ABer or give good credence to the University of Lifers as well as the lawyers.
(e) The problem with some experts is that they scare the sh*t out of many with their strict learning. I was at the doctors for a routine check and heard a doc talk to a patient about a "haematoma". The patient went white-faced but of course it's a posh name for "bruise". Even I once complained of
skin-itch. Could be serious, yes - Type 11 diabetes, kidney-failure etc. But he dismiissed it as "eczema" and fobbed me off with a scrip for Bethnovate. As you know eczema is another word for itchy skin. See? He gave my complaint another word but meant to impress the less-knowledgable without further diagnosis. So all be circumspect of experts.
(f) I am an expert in researching the chemistry of human life - my qualifications cited to boxtops are true but I would not comment to ABers on those grounds. My "education" has taught me scepticism of other experts, the art of sensible debate, getting to the heart of specifics not quoting generalities and respect for all experienced knowledgeable people without high-flying degrees. It failed to kill my verbosity - sorry. I'd also swap all those qualifications for more common sense!
(a) Unlike in e-mails, I use capitals for emphasis not shouting 'cos on AB I cannot use italics or bold. I do not use them in my AB name, unlike you. But let's ignore your nit-picking side-ttrack.
(b) I think you are squirming out of my statements about Civil and Criminal Actions as follows. Sure you quote my original statement about the Magistrate's preview and power to throw out civil cases as wrong. For this I sincerely thank you and am now a wiser person. However this does not discredit the credibility of my other advice. I still know it JUST MIGHT BUT VERY UNLIKELY become a legal case but this would be (i) a civil action and (ii) it would/could either be thrown out by the court in session or quickly dismissed in favour of the defendant. The latter would defo be the case if the strange man did not turn up.
(c) Your para 2 is an irrelevant "throwing up smoke" as regards the debate and my contentions. We are not dealing with "defamation or libel".
(d) I reject your statement that ABers should not advise friends afraid of legal prosecution unless they are qualified in law. There is a wise phrase termed " The University of Life". You as a current or one-time lawyer are obviously a good source of advice. But supposing an ABer has been in the same or very similar situation to debz1203 but you have not and at best only read of similar cases (you know no case is identical or the precedent would have been set in stone). I would chose the advice of the ABer or give good credence to the University of Lifers as well as the lawyers.
(e) The problem with some experts is that they scare the sh*t out of many with their strict learning. I was at the doctors for a routine check and heard a doc talk to a patient about a "haematoma". The patient went white-faced but of course it's a posh name for "bruise". Even I once complained of
skin-itch. Could be serious, yes - Type 11 diabetes, kidney-failure etc. But he dismiissed it as "eczema" and fobbed me off with a scrip for Bethnovate. As you know eczema is another word for itchy skin. See? He gave my complaint another word but meant to impress the less-knowledgable without further diagnosis. So all be circumspect of experts.
(f) I am an expert in researching the chemistry of human life - my qualifications cited to boxtops are true but I would not comment to ABers on those grounds. My "education" has taught me scepticism of other experts, the art of sensible debate, getting to the heart of specifics not quoting generalities and respect for all experienced knowledgeable people without high-flying degrees. It failed to kill my verbosity - sorry. I'd also swap all those qualifications for more common sense!
Latest Posts
News9 mins ago
Religion & Spirituality22 mins ago
I Wonder Why This Number Is Rising So...
Politics29 mins ago
A Late Good Morning Monday Birds!
ChatterBank31 mins ago
