Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Blinded PC David Rathband's family lose negligence case









Paul Reids Sock

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2004
4,458
Paul Reids boot
Bloody Nora, That is an insane amount of money to make them pay - especially within 21 days with, I would expect, more to come after

It seems mad as you can understand their point, but at the same time I guess part of the defence would be that by signing up to the Police you know the risks? Also, I guess they couldn't pull all officers out and leave the public with no protection? Such a case could cause a precedent and I would assume that is what they are worried about.

All in all a horrible horrible state of affairs and now a family have lost a loved one and a massive chunk of money through no fault of their own. What were the motives behind the case? Was it for a compensation payment? Just wondering as you would hope he would have been supported very well after?

As you can tell, i do not know masses about the case but am willing to learn!
 








father_and_son

Well-known member
Jan 23, 2012
4,646
Under the Police Box
While I have every sympathy for the individuals involved... I (and apparently the Judge in this case) don't believe the force were negligent.

I'm sure there are procedures and risk assessments about when to put officers on a specific alert but they should ALWAYS be aware that they will be targeted by some unpleasant individuals at random times/places/situations.

The officer involved was unlucky, but my understanding was he received the compensation that was due to him, along with all the support that the force muster for those injured while on duty (I personally know one ex-copper who was shot and received a cash sum, early pension and loads of medical help - far more than a member of the public would have got had they been the victim).

However, usually with the "help" of solicitors, some people get greedy and want to go for more money. The judge seems to think this is one of those instances. Organisations and individuals must be protected against spurious lawsuits and so the loser picks up the tab for both sides (in most cases). That is all that has happened here.

I have every sympathy for the family over the original events and subsequent tragic loss. I have no sympathy for them trying to screw the UK tax payers for more than the original compensation with an unfounded and unnecessary legal case.
 


alfredmizen

Banned
Mar 11, 2015
6,342
While I have every sympathy for the individuals involved... I (and apparently the Judge in this case) don't believe the force were negligent.

I'm sure there are procedures and risk assessments about when to put officers on a specific alert but they should ALWAYS be aware that they will be targeted by some unpleasant individuals at random times/places/situations.

The officer involved was unlucky, but my understanding was he received the compensation that was due to him, along with all the support that the force muster for those injured while on duty (I personally know one ex-copper who was shot and received a cash sum, early pension and loads of medical help - far more than a member of the public would have got had they been the victim).

However, usually with the "help" of solicitors, some people get greedy and want to go for more money. The judge seems to think this is one of those instances. Organisations and individuals must be protected against spurious lawsuits and so the loser picks up the tab for both sides (in most cases). That is all that has happened here.

I have every sympathy for the family over the original events and subsequent tragic loss. I have no sympathy for them trying to screw the UK tax payers for more than the original compensation with an unfounded and unnecessary legal case.
I dont think it was his wife/ex wife that sued , it was his brother and sister that brought the claim, so maybe the judge did detect an element of greed and subsequently ordered costs paid.
 




Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash
Jul 6, 2003
69,879
I dont think it was his wife/ex wife that sued , it was his brother and sister that brought the claim, so maybe the judge did detect an element of greed and subsequently ordered costs paid.

To be fair to the family though, according to the report 'PC Rathband began the civil action before he took his own life in 2012, and it was continued by his brother and sister.' Maybe they thought it's what their late brother would have wanted - especially as it patently was what the poor man did want.
 


alfredmizen

Banned
Mar 11, 2015
6,342
To be fair to the family though, according to the report 'PC Rathband began the civil action before he took his own life in 2012, and it was continued by his brother and sister.' Maybe they thought it's what their late brother would have wanted - especially as it patently was what the poor man wanted.
i think his brief or barrister are at fault here , by the sounds of it , the case was patently unwinnable. I am all for armed/emergency services receiving the best equipment/medical treatment etc , but there comes a time when you just have to accept that you were unlucky.
 


Bevendean Hillbilly

New member
Sep 4, 2006
12,805
Nestling in green nowhere
It always sounded a bit flimsy tbh. They discussed it on R4 a little while ago and I thought then that the Police hadn't behaved negligently.

Apparently it hinged on whether or not a call went out IMMEDIATELY after moat made his threat towards cops. I imagine that such threats are made fairly frequently by drunks etc.

As for whether or not single cops should be patrolling alone...if there'd been two of them I imagine we'd now have 2 police injured / dead rather than one. The guy was armed with a sawn off shotgun.
 




Czechmate

Well-known member
Oct 5, 2011
1,212
Brno Czech Republic
Sad story but then again it may deter people from suing the police/NHS , this American disease of suing at the slightest thing from the straight and narrow is out of order and greedy in most cases . At the end of the day we are all only human and everyone will make mistakes . The Police or NHS can't afford claims which may run into millions , where as it could be better spent back into policing and health service .
 


Bevendean Hillbilly

New member
Sep 4, 2006
12,805
Nestling in green nowhere
Sad story but then again it may deter people from suing the police/NHS , this American disease of suing at the slightest thing from the straight and narrow is out of order and greedy in most cases . At the end of the day we are all only human and everyone will make mistakes . The Police or NHS can't afford claims which may run into millions , where as it could be better spent back into policing and health service .

Hear hear. The NHS public liability insurance is absolutely massive. We have a 22bn funding deficit and trusts are paying out millions every day for spurious claims.

Admittedly every now and then there is a huge mistake and compensation is heartily deserved but ( take my word for it )!there are far more shyster lawyers and cash hungry " patients" than the service can cope with. Part of the paralysis surrounding the healthcare system is caused by clinicians not wanting to do anything that might cause them a legal issue later.
 


Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash
Jul 6, 2003
69,879
Hear hear. The NHS public liability insurance is absolutely massive. We have a 22bn funding deficit and trusts are paying out millions every day for spurious claims.

Maybe worth doing a double take, stop posting like Gideon Osborne, and consider that this particular claim was brought about by - before he took his own life - a serving police officer who was shot twice at point blank range as he was sitting, unarmed, in his car and blinded by some pumped-up loser with a shotgun during the execution of his duties. In what way is that a spurious claim?
 




alfredmizen

Banned
Mar 11, 2015
6,342
Maybe worth doing a double take, stop posting like Gideon Osborne, and consider that this particular claim was brought about by - before he took his own life - a serving police officer who was shot twice at point blank range as he was sitting, unarmed, in his car and blinded by some pumped-up loser with a shotgun during the execution of his duties. In what way is that a spurious claim?

Whilst its a very sad case, it doesnt stop it from being a spurious one.
 






Thunder Bolt

Ordinary Supporter
Maybe worth doing a double take, stop posting like Gideon Osborne, and consider that this particular claim was brought about by - before he took his own life - a serving police officer who was shot twice at point blank range as he was sitting, unarmed, in his car and blinded by some pumped-up loser with a shotgun during the execution of his duties. In what way is that a spurious claim?

It's horrific what happened to him by a crazed criminal, but how were the police negligent?
 




Tom Hark Preston Park

Will Post For Cash
Jul 6, 2003
69,879
It's horrific what happened to him by a crazed criminal, but how were the police negligent?

The serving police officer blinded in the incident thought that his employers were negligent and initiated the case. The court decided that the police weren't negligent. Fair enough. Its the glib use of the term 'spurious claim' that I was objecting to.
 


marlowe

Well-known member
Dec 13, 2015
3,898
The £100,000 is only an interim payment, payable within 21 days. This suggests that the costs will actually be much higher once they have been calculated. The only reason legal costs are so high is because of the greed of those in the legal profession. Money should not be a barrier to those wishing to seek justice but because of the exorbitant legal fees this is usually the case, and even more so now that the availability of legal aid has been drastically reduced.
 



Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here