Home > Case Studies > An Unsuccessful Claim for Personal Injury: A Case Study

An Unsuccessful Claim for Personal Injury: A Case Study

By: Lorna Elliott LLB (hons), Barrister - Updated: 6 Aug 2013 |
 
Injury Claim Court Lawyer Accident

When a fifteen year old boy ventured into a highly dangerous electricity substation, he went to extreme lengths to retrieve his football. Although he was over six feet tall, it was still remarkable that he managed to climb over a railed fence which was taller than him, and scramble over other parts of the substation that had anti-climbing devices around them. Finally, he reached an eight foot high wall. Undeterred, he found three pieces of wood lying on the ground and managed to make a makeshift ladder out of them. This enabled him to get over the fence and into the highly dangerous part of the substation.

The Accident

His determination had devastating consequences. He came into contact with an electrical bar that was carrying 66,000 volts. He suffered burns to over half of his body and one of his legs had to be amputated below the knee. Of course, he had to take some of the blame for what had happened as it was because of his determination that he suffered the injury.

The Legal Case

His legal team, however, thought differently. They could not argue that the boy had put himself at risk. They argued, however, that the electricity company that owned and was responsible for maintenance of the substation hadn’t taken sufficient care to ensure that something like this could never potentially happen.

The Defence Case

The electricity company argued that it had identified the substation as being at a high risk of unauthorized entry. It was very near a housing estate and as such they arranged for a representative to check the substation on a monthly basis. The boy’s lawyers stated that, although the electricity company was under a duty to assess the risk, they had not taken adequate steps to ensure that no-one could enter the substation.

The question for the court was whether the accident that the boy had suffered could have been foreseen as a real risk by the electricity company. If they could have foreseen the accident, had they taken sufficient steps to prevent it? Naturally, the lawyers argued that they hadn’t, and sought to prove this on the basis that:

  • one side of one of the structures did not have an anti-climbing device
  • the three pieces of wood were readily available for the boy to use as a makeshift ladder
  • checking the substation on a monthly basis was not sufficient to counteract the risk of unauthorized entry

The Judgment

The court decided that the electricity company had put enough preventative measures in place to stop unauthorized entry into the substation. When undertaking the balance exercise between measures they had to put in place, and the risk of injury to someone who trespassed into the substation, they had acted appropriately. As a result, the court determined that the nature of the accident could not have reasonably been foreseen by the electricity company. Accordingly, they were not liable for damages and no award for compensation was made to the boy.

This case shows that it is possible to have an accident which is not anyone else’s fault. Although this accident had tragic consequences for the boy in question, he did put himself at significant risk of death or serious harm. He did not dispute that, but sought to prove that the electricity company was partially to blame.

Related Articles in the 'Case Studies' Category...
Share Your Story, Join the Discussion or Seek Advice..
Why not be the first to leave a comment for discussion, ask for advice or share your story...

If you'd like to ask a question one of our experts (workload permitting) or a helpful reader hopefully can help you... We also love comments and interesting stories

Title:
(never shown)
Firstname:
(never shown)
Surname:
(never shown)
Email:
(never shown)
Nickname:
(shown)
Comment:
Validate:
Enter word:
Topics
Comments
  • DEE
    Re: Compensation Payouts Held in Trust
    How do you go about if your child has attained the age of 18 years and the lawyer handling the case has refused any…
    15 October 2017
  • Ant
    Re: 'No-Win, No-Fee' - Too Good to be True?
    I was pressurised into buying a product that was sold to me with the understanding I had a 14 day cool off period.…
    4 October 2017
  • Retired61
    Re: What Can You Claim For?
    Many thanks for your reply. Even if the builders have a right to access to my property (which I dispute), should they not have to apply…
    15 November 2016
  • CompensationCulture
    Re: Problems with Personal Injury Claims
    shunty - Your Question:My car got shunted at a roundabout by a driver who came up the motorway slipway too fast. The…
    2 November 2016
  • shunty
    Re: Problems with Personal Injury Claims
    My car got shunted at a roundabout by a driver who came up the motorway slipway too fast. The driver admitted liability.…
    1 November 2016
  • Rainey Smith
    Re: The Victim Contact Scheme
    What would a huge increase in relevant traffic mean for your business? If I could greatly increase the amount of customers who are…
    16 June 2016
  • CompensationCulture
    Re: What Can You Claim For?
    Retired61 - Your Question:Without prejudice. Builders working next door have removed and killed most of a beautiful Virginia creeper on…
    14 June 2016
  • Retired61
    Re: What Can You Claim For?
    Without prejudice. Builders working next door have removed and killed most of a beautiful Virginia creeper on the wall they are working…
    13 June 2016
  • Nusrat Jabeen
    Re: Damages Under the Human Rights Act
    Social services forced me to leave my house , police were also used . When I did complaint against this incident , social…
    26 July 2015
  • Liza Morris
    Re: The Victim Contact Scheme
    We are Internet Marketing experts who can help you answer these questions, drive mass traffic to your site, and dramatically increase…
    29 August 2014