Hero is injured stopping runaway van - and then blamed

[TrueBlueTerrier]

Hero is injured stopping runaway van - and then is told 'it's your own fault'

http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/homepage ... ticle.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

A brave man who cracked a rib stopping a Royal Mail van he saw rolling out of control down a hill has been told by the company that he shouldn't have bothered.

Robert Moore, 63, saw the unmanned red van rolling backwards down Whatley Road in Clifton into St John's Road as he walked home from shopping on a Saturday morning.

With children and elderly people nearby, he ignored his own safety and opened the door of the moving vehicle so he could apply the hand brake.

But in doing so he was knocked backwards, cracking his rib and grazing his knees.

Painter Mr Moore, a throat cancer survivor, managed to stop the van which had been heading for a parked car.

The father-of-two wrote to Royal Mail asking for compensation for the injuries he suffered as a result of the accident, but was given short shrift by the organisation.

Despite preventing damage being caused to a Royal Mail vehicle, Mr Moore was told his injuries were his own fault.

A letter from a Royal Mail claims negotiator to Mr Moore's solicitors Metcalfes of Queen Square said: "We cannot be held responsible for your client's injuries in choosing to stop a moving van without considering the personal consequences.

"We assume your client is of average intelligence and as such he must have known that what he was attempting to do was fraught with great danger, with the real possibility of personal injury.

"With that real threat apparent he should never have attempted to do what he did and while his actions may have been brave, they should not have been at the expense of his own safety.

"Had your client not attempted to stop the van it would have continued without posing any danger or threat to your client.

"That being the case, no injury could have been sustained.

"Of course it is commendable what your client did; however, Royal Mail would never ask a member of the public to risk their own safety in the manner above, and, while unfortunate, your client does appear to be the author of his own misfortune.

"We trust common sense will prevail here and you will simply advise in due course that your client's claim is withdrawn."

The letter also stated Mr Moore had attempted to stop the van "negligently", and said the Royal Mail was unable to confirm why the van had rolled.

Mr Moore, who lives in Whatley Road, believes it was because the hand brake had been left off by the driver.

He said: "I was coming home from Sainbury's in Clifton, and noticed the van going backwards without a driver.

"There were children and elderly people. I thought 'What do I do, let kids get killed?

"It wasn't going very fast but there was a parked car it would have hit.

"I opened the door but the motion made me fall over, which shoved my knees into my chest, cracked my rib and grazed my knees.

"The driver came down, he was a young guy, and said 'did I forget to put the hand brake on?' The chap said he was very sorry.

"I was in such agony. I went to the doctor as soon as I could get an appointment and he agreed I had a cracked rib, I'd had one before.

"I've still got scars on my knees to this day. I like to walk but it hurts.

"When I saw the letter I just laughed, I didn't believe it."

Mr Moore made the claim in early September, but didn't receive his rejection letter from the Royal Mail until the end of February.

Within hours of the Post contacting the Royal Mail for comment, the company had drastically changed its tune.

A spokesman said: "We would like to apologise to Mr Moore for the handling of this case and we are discussing the matter with him and his legal representatives."

[Pat Ostman]

Typical RM. Try and get away with it and once the media get in touch they buckle.

Yes the man may have been the author of his own destruction but what a letter to send.

[brothermagrew]

"Royal Mail would never ask a member of the public to risk their own safety in the manner above"

And yet they sing from on high with nothing but praise (let's nominate them for a Royal Mail 1st Class People award), when it is a postie who through their own selfless act of heroism, puts their own safety in danger or at risk, by going to the aid of members of the public who's life may be in danger or at risk, whilst out and about on their delivery round.

[Thorby Bislam]

Bro Magrew, do you mean 'selfless' ?

[brothermagrew]

Bro Magrew, do you mean 'selfless' ?

I thank you brother for pointing out my grammatical spelling error. I did in deed mean selfless and have already reached for that EDIT button.

[stokes11eg]

Typical RM. Try and get away with it and once the media get in touch they buckle.

Yes the man may have been the author of his own destruction but what a letter to send.

Hopefully, he will be nominated for a bravery award by the local police---R/M once again showing it's true colours.

[brothermagrew]

Typical RM. Try and get away with it and once the media get in touch they buckle.

Yes the man may have been the author of his own destruction but what a letter to send.

Hopefully, he will be nominated for a bravery award by the local police---R/M once again showing it's true colours.

Maybe the postie who's van it was at the time of the incident should put his name forward for a RM award

[k979aaa]

Just all take note those who come in work before their start time those who cut corners those who work over thier paid hours for nothing you will be blamed for any damage you do too yourself or indeed anyone else and you could end up with a very large bill indeed!.

[resperin]

i heard that delivery staff at my office arent insured before 6am :O so those coming in before then, if anything happened, they wouldnt be insured

[DGP1]

i heard that delivery staff at my office arent insured before 6am :O so those coming in before then, if anything happened, they wouldnt be insured

If you're in a Royal Mail building doing Royal Mail work and are a Royal Mail employee then you'll be insured.

[smokerjim]

It would have been a lot simpler ( and smarter ) to write a letter of negotiation, offering something like 60 - 70% of the claim and say "what you did was very silly, but thanks very much"....after all what would the compo claim be like if it had hit "children and elderly people"?

Hold on, I've spotted my error - talking about RM and suggesting something they could have done that would have been smarter I'm so smart, I'll never get promoted ( TF )

[brothermagrew]

i heard that delivery staff at my office arent insured before 6am :O so those coming in before then, if anything happened, they wouldnt be insured

If you're in a Royal Mail building doing Royal Mail work and are a Royal Mail employee then you'll be insured.

And irrespective of how much an employee is to blame for the accident, the Court of Appeal has said in Anderson -v- Newham College of Further Education (2002) that workers cannot be found to have contributed 100 per cent to their own misfortune.


Article on Contributory Negligence:
http://www.thompsons.law.co.uk/ltext/PI ... igence.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The principle of contributory negligence was established in law in the Law Reform (Contributory Negligence) Act 1945. It deals with cases in which an injury is caused by the actions of two or more parties. In essence, the Act states that in these situations the liability must be divided between the parties, and that this should be done in a way that is commensurate with the blame attached to each of those parties. It follows that the liability for any damages awarded must also be divided in the same way.


Contributory negligence can be used as a defence in cases where both the employee and the employer are to blame for the injury. The most common situations in which this might apply are those where the employee has failed to abide by the statutory requirements that apply to them, while the employer was also at fault, for example by failing to provide adequate safety measures or sufficient training. If this claim is upheld by the court, the employer can suggest that any damages awarded to the complainant should be reduced by an amount that represents the portion of the blame assumed by the employee.

http://slcc.strath.ac.uk/scotslawcourse ... ribneg.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


New court ruling sets precedent for accident counterclaims:
A recent High Court judgement has taken into account whether or not a cyclist was wearing a helmet during a road collision, outlining that a cyclist is guilty of contributory negligence for choosing not to.

Despite helmet use not being compulsory under UK law, the judge overseeing Smith v Finch 2009 ruled the cyclist to be partially liable if wearing a helmet could be proven to have prevented any injuries sustained.

http://www.bikebiz.com/news/30165/No-he ... negligence" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Smith v Finch 2009 Judgement in full http://www.ctc.org.uk/resources/Campaig ... nt_brf.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[brothermagrew]

It has just dawned on me that the postie concerned could be in deep doodoo as apparently the van was left unmanned and yet the person who was injured was able to open the door (integrity of mail security) and tried to apply the handbrake.

[DGP1]

It has just dawned on me that the postie concerned could be in deep doodoo as apparently the van was left unmanned and yet the person who was injured was able to open the door (integrity of mail security) and tried to apply the handbrake.

I thought that to but he could have just stepped out of the van and as he turned to lock it found it running down the hill (sometimes the handbrakes don't work the way they should, I know, it's happened to me).

[stokes11eg]

It has just dawned on me that the postie concerned could be in deep doodoo as apparently the van was left unmanned and yet the person who was injured was able to open the door (integrity of mail security) and tried to apply the handbrake.

I thought that to but he could have just stepped out of the van and as he turned to lock it found it running down the hill (sometimes the handbrakes don't work the way they should, I know, it's happened to me).

Aye-your rught about the hanbrakes, some of the vans are not fit for the road.