Jump to content

Litigation.


JACK FELL

Featured Posts

For some time I have been trying to source a solicitor in the North West of England who is familiar with the CRandT and the use of the waterways by boaters. There seems to be a lack of solicitors familiar with this type of business.

 

I am considering litigation regarding injuries I suffered through CRandT staff negligence.

 

If anyone out there has first hand experience in this area I would appreciate information, bearing in mind that sourcing a solicitor is the first concern following which I would be delighted to share my experience via the forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am considering litigation regarding injuries I suffered through CRandT staff negligence.

 

On the face of it it is difficult to understand why you need a Solicitor familiar with CRT operations in particular - it would obviously be relatively easy to find experts familiar with accidents at work or where some organisation has a duty of care to the public.

  • Greenie 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

On the face of it it is difficult to understand why you need a Solicitor familiar with CRT operations in particular - it would obviously be relatively easy to find experts familiar with accidents at work or where some organisation has a duty of care to the public.

 

Quite - surely you need someone who knows about accident/injury claims, rather than the ins and outs of mooring rights, boat licensing etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Quite - surely you need someone who knows about accident/injury claims, rather than the ins and outs of mooring rights, boat licensing etc.

 

 

Not wishing to second guess the OP, but he suggests his claim relates to "use of the waterways by boaters", and CRT staff negligence. I suspect the dispute revolves around details of how the waterway concerned may or may not be used, hence the need for a solicitor familiar with waterways law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not wishing to second guess the OP, but he suggests his claim relates to "use of the waterways by boaters", and CRT staff negligence. I suspect the dispute revolves around details of how the waterway concerned may or may not be used, hence the need for a solicitor familiar with waterways law.

 

Actually, reading the OP again, I wonder if "waterways law" as such even comes into it, and if the problem the OP's having isn't just that he can't find a solicitor who knows the very basics of (say) how a lock works, who's responsible for working them, why you might need to climb a ladder, etc. etc., making it hard for him just to explain what's happened and why he thinks CRT staff have been negligent. So maybe he doesn't need a solicitor who's familiar with waterways law, so much as familar with the waterways themselves (e.g. a solicitor who is also a boater!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope it isn't a "where there's blame there's a claim" type litigation, e.g. for slipping on a wet balance beam or falling in due to a lack of all locks being fenced off, lack of enormous illuminated signs.

 

Perhaps there is good justification for the litigation but in the absence of knowledge I'm going to suspect the worst.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True MtB. There was the recent case discussed on CWDF where a boat travelling along a canal was rammed by one coming out of a branch to one side where injuries suffered by persons on the boat that was rammed were held to be his own fault. I'm sure relevant experts should have been able to prove the boat that did the ramming was culpable there. So it does depend upon the OP's situation.

 

There are obviously people familiar with laws governing C&RT's business operations, but the OP refers to staff negligence which would be a rather different field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's hope it isn't a "where there's blame there's a claim" type litigation, e.g. for slipping on a wet balance beam or falling in due to a lack of all locks being fenced off, lack of enormous illuminated signs.

 

Perhaps there is good justification for the litigation but in the absence of knowledge I'm going to suspect the worst.

Far be it from me to agree with you Nick (!) but I was thinking along the same lines.

 

ohmy.png

 

There are plenty of ambulance chasing vultures out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True MtB. There was the recent case discussed on CWDF where a boat travelling along a canal was rammed by one coming out of a branch to one side where injuries suffered by persons on the boat that was rammed were held to be his own fault. I'm sure relevant experts should have been able to prove the boat that did the ramming was culpable there. So it does depend upon the OP's situation.

 

There are obviously people familiar with laws governing C&RT's business operations, but the OP refers to staff negligence which would be a rather different field.

Can you remind us of which thread that was as I also recall another one regarding the Thames where the opposite was understood to be the case ie the emerging boat was entirely responsible for ensuring safe exit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to search right now, but as I recall (and it was fairly recent) the wife of the person travelling straight ahead suffered injury, but he was held culpable as he did not have anyone one the fore end keeping a look out as he approached the branch canal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any solicitor who deals with claims will do. It's a judge who understands you should hope for. If it's a complex case then I doubt there will be any "no win, no fee" solicitors, so expect to pay. County courts are not cheap if it goes to trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any solicitor who deals with claims will do. It's a judge who understands you should hope for. If it's a complex case then I doubt there will be any "no win, no fee" solicitors, so expect to pay. County courts are not cheap if it goes to trial.

 

Agreed. A good personal injury solicitor will take the trouble to learn and understand the background to a case, and if that means she has to learn exactly how a lock works, she will do so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a solicitor, however in the past solicitors have approached me for navigation advice as part of their legal advice. I know of others who have been asked to perform a similar role on, say, loading bays in warehouses.

 

Note, I'm not looking to do this job for the OP, and more often than not I advise the solicitor not to pursue the case. However sometimes there IS a case to be made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not a solicitor, however in the past solicitors have approached me for navigation advice as part of their legal advice. I know of others who have been asked to perform a similar role on, say, loading bays in warehouses.

 

Note, I'm not looking to do this job for the OP, and more often than not I advise the solicitor not to pursue the case. However sometimes there IS a case to be made.

 

A good solicitor is one prepared to take expert advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How negative. Might be better to know some facts first before passing judgement?

No judgement passed, I was careful not to (for all the good it does trying to be balanced on here). I merely said it was a possibility in the absence of the facts. I would like to know the facts but it seems doubtful that the OP wants to give them. Which says something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't have time to search right now, but as I recall (and it was fairly recent) the wife of the person travelling straight ahead suffered injury, but he was held culpable as he did not have anyone one the fore end keeping a look out as he approached the branch canal.

That seems a bit odd. What could a person at the fore end have done to prevent a collision then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That seems a bit odd. What could a person at the fore end have done to prevent a collision then?

I remember it, a frequent poster in here but can't remember which one. I think the gist of it was that it was both boats responsibility to avoid the collision, so liability on a "knock for knock" basis. It was however suggested by the lawyer that as the skipper was responsible for the safety of his wife, she could probably sue him for her injuries. Tipton factory jn so a search will probably bring it up.

Edited by nicknorman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.