Page 4 of 5
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 2:21pm
by irc
kwackers wrote:The reality of things is that (in this country at least) suing someone requires you to prove negligence on their part.
That doesn't stop all the 'outrageous' H&S type stories being told though...
Some of which are true.
A Scout Group had organised a trip to visit the popular show cave at Gaping Ghyll. Some parents had gone along as additional supervising adults.
The party decided to eat their picnic lunch before undertaking the guided tour and walked a short distance up a footpath to some open land. One of the Scouts noticed a small cave opening across a stream and asked the Scout Leader for permission to explore it. The Leader refused permission, pointing out that caves could be dangerous. The Scout then moved away to where his father stood and repeated the request. His father, who had heard the leader's ruling, gave permission, provided his son with a cigarette lighter for illumination and accompanied him into the cave. A short distance inside, the Scout slipped and fell down a "chimney" leading into the main chamber of Gaping Ghyll. He fell 300 feet to his death.
The Father sued the Scout Association. His action was defended but the Judge found in favour of the claimant, stating that, as he was born in a city, he could not have been expected to recognise the dangers. He held that the Scout Leader should have prevented the father from entering the cave with his son and in failing to do so he breached his duty of care.
The Craddocks' older son continued as a member of the same Group for two years after the accident leaving when he reached 18 with his Chief Scout Award. The litigation did not commence until after he left.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/p ... 54we26.htm
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 2:29pm
by kwackers
irc wrote:Some of which are true.
Only if you think the judgement outrageous...
Since I don't know the details I can only assume that the Scout Leader was in charge of the party and that he didn't do enough to prevent the guy taking his son into the cave.
If on the other hand the father simply 'turned' up and took his son into a public place then it does seem a bit OTT.
The problem with all of these things is that even when true the devil is in the detail the authors have chosen to withhold - usually deliberately (nobody likes a rubbish story...)
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 2:31pm
by irc
kwackers wrote:irc wrote:Some of which are true.
Only if you think the judgement outrageous..
So you don't think the father was to blame as having heard the scout leader tell his son not to go into the cave as caves were dangerous he then over ruled the scout leader and went into the cave with his son.
His father, who had heard the leader's ruling, gave permission, provided his son with a cigarette lighter for illumination and accompanied him into the cave
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 2:53pm
by 661-Pete
TonyR wrote:Take the skewer out and pop the wheel in the dropouts. The ends of the axle should be flush or very slightly recessed with the outer surface of the dropout. If its protruding there is a chance the QR will clamp down on the end of the axle not the dropout.
Not strictly accurate: be careful here! If the spacing between the dropouts is significantly more than the distance between the outer surfaces of the bearings on the axle, then as you tighten the skewer the dropouts will be compressed together until they press against the bearings. So the ends of the axle could still protrude once the skewer is tight, even though this is not apparent when the skewer is loose.
Best test I think is to
half tighten the skewer and check that the wheel has no play, however slight, in the dropouts. Then fully tighten the skewer.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 3:12pm
by kwackers
irc wrote:So you don't think the father was to blame as having heard the scout leader tell his son not to go into the cave as caves were dangerous he then over ruled the scout leader and went into the cave with his son.
His father, who had heard the leader's ruling, gave permission, provided his son with a cigarette lighter for illumination and accompanied him into the cave
As I pointed out, I don't have the information but for the sake of discussion:-
Lets assume the scouts organised a trip which allowed the child and a parent to attend. In this case they're the organisers of the party and thus are responsible.
At the scene lets assume that the child asked, was refused and went and asked his father who then simply took him into the cave with no intervention by the scout master.
If that's the scenerio then yes, I think there's an issue. The scout master should have warned off the father and pointed out it was dangerous.
I suspect none of this happened.
Had the child asked, been refused then asked the parent who started off towards the cave and was warned by the scoutmaster it was dangerous but still insisted on going - then I'd say he brought it on himself.
(Had the cave been a dangerous machine you'd be in no doubt the operator was responsible.)
<edit> Just to add to this, I personally think such a case is likely to be ott and that the child's parent should accept full responsibility. But it hardly falls to the level of sillyness you see reported as 'the truth' by some folk.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 3:26pm
by mrjemm
TonyR wrote:You can say its all an excessive reaction to the American legal system but this thread is all about someone in the UK suing the bicycle manufacturer because of injuries possibly caused by the loss of the front wheel in the absence of any lawyers lips.
Nope. Tis in France, and it's someone 'making a claim to the supplier', or words to that effect.
But I agree in point, hence my earlier question as to whether France is going down the litigation route, or if it's just a regional/Europarliament influence.
Also agree how much we get anecdotal anti H&S outrage pumped out, whilst so much of it is just utter mabongie from the DM and it's ilk.
And this all just leads to all those calls at teatime from the PPI claim ambulance chasers and suchlike.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 3:32pm
by LollyKat
661-Pete wrote:TonyR wrote:Take the skewer out and pop the wheel in the dropouts. The ends of the axle should be flush or very slightly recessed with the outer surface of the dropout. If its protruding there is a chance the QR will clamp down on the end of the axle not the dropout.
Not strictly accurate: be careful here! If the spacing between the dropouts is significantly more than the distance between the outer surfaces of the bearings on the axle, then as you tighten the skewer the dropouts will be compressed together until they press against the bearings. So the ends of the axle could still protrude once the skewer is tight, even though this is not apparent when the skewer is loose.
Best test I think is to
half tighten the skewer and check that the wheel has no play, however slight, in the dropouts. Then fully tighten the skewer.
Many thanks, both of you.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 3:53pm
by gaz
.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 4:13pm
by mrjemm
All of which is a quite impressive thread drift, and still off-topic.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 4:39pm
by kwackers
mrjemm wrote:All of which is a quite impressive thread drift, and still off-topic.
Internet thread in 'off topic' three way split drama...
Personally I'd argue it was still on topic. Since the discussion is about the filing off of the lawyers lips and the fact that superficially it's difficult to see why the judge had decided that it was the case they were in some way responsible.
My point (which in this case is imo valid) is that often what's reported doesn't really tell the whole story, often in the interests of 'news' facts aren't mentioned.
(Si made a point further up about holding the forks in a vice, probably not true but if it were then it would have a huge impact on whether the story was one of sillyness or common sense, in this case perhaps there's some other unreported fact that we're unaware of).
So "impressive thread drift"? I don't think so. Minor at best.
On the other hand discussing whether a thread has drifted is to my mind a thread drift.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 5:21pm
by mrjemm
Considering there's been no mention of a judge, just an expert's report, and Audax 67, the OP, seems to have given this thread the can since page 1...
And I usually love a good thread drift.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 5:55pm
by kwackers
mrjemm wrote:Considering there's been no mention of a judge, just an expert's report, and Audax 67, the OP, seems to have given this thread the can since page 1...
And I usually love a good thread drift.
It's Friday afternoon and my brain is cabbaged. At this point I'd judge 'expert' and 'judge' to be interchangeable. I guess the expert 'judged' the filing of the 'lawyers' lips or method used etc to contribute...
On the whole though the thread doesn't really help without knowing exactly why the expert thought this to be the case.
The only lesson in here is that most manufacturers will shirk any responsibility if they can and most have some sub-text in the 'contract' that excludes modifications.
As a footnote, I have seen people successfully argue against such conditions, but they weren't short of cash, the value of the goods was high and they were themselves 'experts'.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 6:02pm
by mrjemm
kwackers wrote:The only lesson in here is that most manufacturers will shirk any responsibility if they can and most have some sub-text in the 'contract' that excludes modifications.
?
Not that the OP's Audax Captain thingy is nuts (read greedy) for trying to make a claim after making the alteration that apparently caused the accident?
Why would anyone dare manufacture and/or sell products if a buyer messes it up then tries to blame the maker/supplier? Ah, I forgot, all business is big business. All businesses are greedy corporations. And of course all businesses are insured, so let's just make a claim and perhaps put them out of business, despite them doing no wrong perhaps.
One day I may like to start a business, but faced with the ever increasing realisation that people are just greedy, grasping and in it only for themselves, I think I'll never take the jump. Ah well.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 7:19pm
by gaz
.
Re: Cautionary tale
Posted: 22 Feb 2013, 9:56pm
by mrjemm
Thank you for the link and extra information Gaz. I apologise for being harsh.
'Claim culture' is one of my red rags. That is no excuse, but perhaps a rough explanation of my pursuit of this.