Postman injury claim

[Allegro1]

Hi, first post on here, so please be kind!

 

A postman has made an injury claim against me and my partner. Last July, he was walking across our garden and stepped on a large raised (circular) manhole cover, which wobbled slightly and he dropped partially into it, injuring his leg. Now, we had only been in the house for 4 weeks and were unaware of this manhole problem. It appears that the lid is ever so slightly undersize for the hole it covers, hence the problem. Now, my main issue with this claim is that the postman was taking a shortcut across our garden, right in front of our kitchen window, on a route which nobody would ever normally walk on.

 

The main path into our garden is paved and safe from any obstacles etc, yet the postman, to save a few seconds, walked across our garden and onto the manhole cover, so it was his choice to take that route. Is it also not a bit much when you're stood doing the dishes and he walks right past you? This also startles our young child when he does that, and on other occasions, he has trod dog excrement across our garden path from a neighbouring house.

 

I know that the postman was in good humour afterwards - no ambulance was needed, and he was back at work in full health shortly after.

 

My main question is where do we stand here? I have been told that our home insurers will deal with it?

 

Whilst I sympathise with his injury, is he being a bit cheeky making this claim?

 

-Thanks in advance.

[gyzmo]

I don't think you will get away with "he should not have been there". I'm not even sure you could claim any kind of contributory negligence.

 

I would just let the claim run through your insurers and see what they can sort. I don't think he is being cheeky though. Many posties do use "short cuts" mostly with no problem for them or for the general public.

[gadgetgirl79]

Personally I think he IS being cheeky! It's private property, and by straying off the path he chose to take the risk.

 

What's the point of a path if not to be followed?? What if you'd put toxic week killer on the grass?

 

Just because posties use short cuts, doesn't mean they're permitted to! One would presume it's done at ones own risk!

 

In fact, I'm quite sure posties are told to stick to paths, close gates behind them etc...

[Yorkyclaims]

I think you will have a very good case - you have to provide designated walkways for members of the public. Was the manhole in grass? was there a tarmac alternative?

 

I would take pictures of the way he walked and the way he was supposed to walk - tell the solicitors that he had no reason to be where he was injured, and ask them to re-direct his claim to his employers - or - more easier - pass the correspondence to your contents insurers, as you will have occupiers liability cover

 

Good Luck

[gyzmo]

And if a visiting family member walked in the same area and had the same accident?

 

On speaking to my postie flatmate, he believes the OP is correct. But I disagree somewhat with the principles here. There are wrongs all round.

[postggj]

just dropping in my two cents

 

i would let the house insurance deal with it,

i myself will go around the back of a house if no answer and put a packet in a greenhouse/shed etc,

 

all accidents are recorded in the accident book and a copy goes to hr and the union,

 

like gyzmo has stated,

 

there are normally no problems

[andie_303]

For what my two pence is worth I have to agree with gadgetgirl - if you stray of the designated walkway you do so at your own risk - however I don't pretend to be an expert in this type of claim.

I just know if it was me I wouldn't be very happy about my home owners insurance possibly increasing the next year because some idiot didn't use the path provided.

 

I would however let your insurance company deal with it but make sure they are aware of your POV.

[citizenkain]

That postman has probably been posting letters there for years,probably taking the same shortcut,probably knew the manhole lid was loose as hes fell down it several times,he knew there was new people living in the house as he posts the mail and just decided to put a claim in to be smart.

[Yorkyclaims]

The more I read this I feel the solicitors know he has not got a good case...

 

99% of claims like this go to the employers - there is a non delegable duty of care on them.

 

However, I would be VERY suprised if Royal Mail do not have a generic risk assessment for delivering post, and this will say Keep to designated walkways. As he has not followed this, I would imagine the employers liability insurers have investigated and denied the claim, or, if it is a union based solicitors, haven't even bothered claiming against the employers, as they know it will be denied.

[patdavies]

For what my two pence is worth I have to agree with gadgetgirl - if you stray of the designated walkway you do so at your own risk - however I don't pretend to be an expert in this type of claim.

I just know if it was me I wouldn't be very happy about my home owners insurance possibly increasing the next year because some idiot didn't use the path provided.

 

I would however let your insurance company deal with it but make sure they are aware of your POV.

 

 

Even if he were off the designated walkway, the householder still has a duty of care to trespassers.

 

IMHO, he will have contributory negligence and he will also have to prove that you know of, but did nothing to mitigate, the hazard.

[JonCris]

For what my two pence is worth I have to agree with gadgetgirl - if you stray of the designated walkway you do so at your own risk - however I don't pretend to be an expert in this type of claim.

I just know if it was me I wouldn't be very happy about my home owners insurance possibly increasing the next year because some idiot didn't use the path provided.

 

I would however let your insurance company deal with it but make sure they are aware of your POV.

 

Wrong ................Unless the route across the garden was blocked & the Postie would have had to take exceptional measures to overcome them, such as climbing a wall etc, then the property owner is fully liable. It's to be expected that visitors such as postman who have a time scale to achieve will take the shortest route possible & the drain cover SHOULD have been safe

[JonCris]

Also I like pat doubt there are any grounds for claiming contributory negligence on the part of the postie after all what's the point of having a cover in the 1st place....to stop you falling down the hole of course...........something this cover singularly failed to do

 

As for medical help it's quite common that after the initial shock an injury such as this can manifest itself some time after the incident & remember it's not as if the postie has a sit down job so may have had to go sick........& if so he has a contractual duty with his employer to reclaim any sick pay from the party responsible for his injury

[mojo8]

what an absolute joke. this postman took an unneccasary risk by taking a shortcut across your garden, if there is a clear pathway then he has no right to cut across your garden. He will have during his training gone through a health a safety policy and i would imagine that it states that they are to stick to the main throughways and walkways and not take any risks, if the mail cannot be deliverd then it cannot be delivered. To be honest he should be disciplined by the post office for neglagence.

[gyzmo]

what an absolute joke. this postman took an unneccasary risk by taking a shortcut across your garden, if there is a clear pathway then he has no right to cut across your garden. He will have during his training gone through a health a safety policy and i would imagine that it states that they are to stick to the main throughways and walkways and not take any risks, if the mail cannot be deliverd then it cannot be delivered. To be honest he should be disciplined by the post office for neglagence.

 

Can you please provide a basis in law for that statement? I have read through my flatmate's training manuals and there is nothing contained in them about such a thing.

 

Despite my earlier post of what my flatmate said, I cannot agree with him. The posty was not "taking a risk" when he crossed the garden. Unless of course you want to say that he was taking a risk when he used the footpath.

 

The latter is more true than the former. So are we suggesting that the absence of a footpath along the posty's impromptu route negates the liability of the householder? Or is it the fact that it was a postman who was tripped? What if it was family or friends on the property? Would you then say that there was negligence, and if so, where?

 

If I were to walk amongst someone's garden, I do not expect to fall down a manhole unless there is something there warning me of such a danger. Volenti non fit injuria is being suggested. I cannot see the existence of it.

[mojo8]

Im not saying that what he has done is against any laws but i would imagine that the Royal Mail do not have a risk assessment for delivering post and im sure that manhole covers would be included, he has a duty of care to himself and his empoloyers and should stick to the footpath...i mean what right does he have to cross anybodies garden.. i have often spoken to my postman about walking across my garden because they have no right to do it. What idiot would walk on a manhole cover, that is just lack of common sense and if he has had to take time off work then it is down to his neglagence and should be held accountable by his employers. What would happen if you crossed a road and got hit by a car when there is a perfectly good bridge 50 yards up the road, i mean there are no signs to say "danger" and you dont need a manual to tell you that is dangerous.....its common sense and i dont belive for one minute that this postie did not know what he was doing. Unfortunately we are now in a "claim" society and no matter what measures are put in place somebody will try to exploit them.

[JonCris]

Despite what some are saying or would prefer let me assure them Gyzmo is correct. In the circumstances described the liability rests entirely with the property owner - or even the tenant if the owner can show a failure on the part of the tenant to report the hazard within a reasonable time - the tenant would have to establish that that damage occurred either before their occupancy or that the owner failed to make regular inspections when the damage would have been spotted and one assumes repaired

[gyzmo]

Glad you said that JC cox I was drunk when I wrote it!

[JonCris]

Crossing a road is not risk free however if a car does hit you the driver won't be able to claim non-fault of either they saw & made no attempt to avoid you or were speeding to excess.

 

No matter which way you hack it the broken manhole cover WAS a foreseeable risk to anyone entering the property....... what for example would you say to the mother of a child who's little Billy had gone to retrieve his football & as a result had fallen down the hole causing a broken leg........"he shouldn't have been there".........if so best of luck

[JonCris]

Also it's evident to all but the smallest child that a road is a dangerous place whereas a garden is not.......if anything it would be thought as a safe place

[JonCris]

Glad you said that JC cox I was drunk when I wrote it!

 

Not to worry I was drunk when I read it:D

[merlin100]

Just a question here guys.

My garden is 90ft long and 30ft wide. It has cost me just short of £4000 to buy and have erected, professionally made and built 6ft high fencing around the entire perimeter.

There can be no justification whatsoever for ANYONE to climb that fence and enter my property. It is a harmless obstacle that needs a concious decision from an intruder to overcome.

So can anyone please tell me why I could be liable for any injuries sustained by an intruder when that intruder cannot "wander" onto my property?

How does it work if (a), he purposely and without invitation climbs the fence and falls into a hole thereby injuring himself? and (b), he falls foul of a deliberate "booby trap" - bearing in mind that he first has to climb a 6ft obstruction?

[gyzmo]

And if he walked through your gate and fell into the same booby trap or injured himself on your property in some other way? Is that then not acceptable? Just because you put a fence up does not negate any liability in and of itself.

[patdavies]

Even if someone enters your property for nefarious means (ie burglary) you still have a duty of care to them. If you left something deliberately dangerous or actually set a booby trap, then you would be liable for damages for any injury caused.

[JonCris]

You are NOT supposed to booby trap your property but if you do & injure, even a burglar, be prepared to get nicked.........and sued by the burglar

[dinklyink]

Don't say the postman was trespassing. He has implied permission to be on your property. As such you have the obligation to ensure your property is reasonably safe. Dangers should either be fixed, or marked as such. If marked as such you should then provide an alternative way around the danger.

 

The postman is only trespassing if you have put sign(s) up that clearly state you revoke any and all implied permission of entry to your property. Otherwise anyone is actually allowed to enter your property and walk around the garden if they so wish.

 

The fact the postman did not use the foot path has no relevance. He has implied permission to deliver post to your house and you must endeavor to make it safe for him to do so. This can include things such as clearing ice/snow from your footpath to prevent slippage (within reason) and anything else, which means properly covering manholes.

 

Cheers