Council could face large accident claim
Plymouth City Council have been heavily criticised, after a student fell from a Tesco’s building, in the early hours of April 18,2003.
The incident occurred when the victim plunged over a wall and on to the store’s car park. Experts stated that the man was lucky to be alive.
As a result, London’s High Court heard how the council have now taken numerous steps to prevent a second accident from happening.
The 27 year-old, filed an accident claim after he fell from the 20ft drop that had a broken fence. His injury lawyers have stated that the council is liable for their client’s personal injuries, because they owned the land where the accident happened.
The court heard how the young man had been out with three friends after watching a friend play rugby for Plymouth Albion's youth team.
On their way home, they planned to visit Tesco to get something to eat, and were dropped off on the corner of Woolwell Road and Woolwell Crescent at about 2am.
Before the taxi fare was paid in full the victim and one of his friends ran off in order to make another member of their group pay their share, the court heard. They headed towards bushes on the land, and that is when he fell onto the car park.
Ongoing case
However, there is an ongoing dispute, because the council commented that the accident was entirely the individuals fault, because he was drunk at the time, after drinking eight pints and was running away from a taxi driver.
Barrister Catherine Brown, for the council, insisted that the claimant was a trespasser with no right to be on the land.
Barrister Stephen Killalea QC, for the victim, said that after the accident, a number of precautions had been taken by the council to ensure the safety of the public.
Signs had been put up, the fence repaired and regularly inspected, and vegetation grown to make it harder to reach the drop.
Had the council been aware of the dangerous condition of the land, he noted “alarm bells” would have rung among senior staff who feared possible public liability charges or compensation claims if there were an accident, and similar steps to those taken now would have been carried out “had the council appreciated (at the time) that they owned the land.”
What is more, the barrister added, is that the council had ‘permitted’ members of the public to use the land both before and after the accident, and therefore should have done more to protect the victim.
Arguing against this, a council employee stated that it would have been “obvious” to anyone who had previously been to the major franchise that there was a drop to the car park. They also stated that the car park was “so well lit up it was difficult not to see.”
Due to the accident, the victim narrowly escaped death, after Derriford Hospital saved his life. However, he now has difficulty walking and talking because of the damage caused by bleeding on the brain.
Updated on 02/11/2009