Litigation.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

 

 

 

(I met a chap last year who told me he was suing CRT. He told me he had fallen into the cut and spent 7 hours trying to get out before anyone found and helped him. He was holding CRT responsible for the distress caused and claiming compensation, he said. I often wonder how he fared.)

CRT probably countersued for him polluting the canal. Mind you, if he'd been there much longer, they'd have Section 8'd him and, heaved him out and dumped him three hundred miles from where he wanted to be.

[MtB]

CRT probably countersued for him polluting the canal. Mind you, if he'd been there much longer, they'd have Section 8'd him and, heaved him out and dumped him three hundred miles from where he wanted to be.

 

 

I suspect he didn't sue them at all as he knew in his heart he didn't have a case. He was transferring his anger at himself for falling in onto CRT. I also doubt he was in the water for seven hours. Plenty of canal and towpath traffic there which would have found him far sooner. It probably felt like seven hours though.

[David Mack]

I also doubt he was in the water for seven hours. Plenty of canal and towpath traffic there which would have found him far sooner. It probably felt like seven hours though.

According to his wife, this chap was in the water for 5 hours:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38902977

[ditchcrawler]

According to his wife, this chap was in the water for 5 hours:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38902977

Yes well he is an Aussie, they are made of tougher stuff than us Brits.

[MtB]

According to his wife, this chap was in the water for 5 hours:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-38902977

 

 

Different bloke, in Australia.

 

Still propably holds CRT responsible though!

 

Thing is though, with people suing CRT for something that was basically their own fault, like falling in or sinking your boat in a lock, its human nature to cast around for a scapegoat. And occasionally the more tenacious people succeeed in 'proving' it was CRTs fault not theire own, and getting compensation.

[Machpoint005]

Yes well he is an Aussie, they are made of tougher stuff than us Brits.

 

Not when they are playing rugby, these days!

[WotEver]

There are two groups of people who really benefit from personal injury claims.

(1) The Claimant's solicitors

(2) The Defendant's solicitors.

 

It's a shame that in this country we appear to have forgotten the meaning of the word "Accident".

an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

 

In other words... every 'accident' (even if it wasn't your fault) isn't necessarily someone else's fault.

[Phoenix_V]

CRT probably countersued for him polluting the canal. Mind you, if he'd been there much longer, they'd have Section 8'd him and, heaved him out and dumped him three hundred miles from where he wanted to be.

it is an offence under the byelaws to swim in the canal

[Machpoint005]

 

It's a shame that in this country we appear to have forgotten the meaning of the word "Accident".

an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury.

an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

 

In other words... every 'accident' (even if it wasn't your fault) isn't necessarily someone else's fault.

 

What used to be called "accidents" on the roads are now RTCs (road traffic collisions), on the basis that someone or something always causes them, even if unintentionally.

[WotEver]

 

What used to be called "accidents" on the roads are now RTCs (road traffic collisions), on the basis that someone or something always causes them, even if unintentionally.

 

Indeed, but if someone has a blow out and swerves across the road and hits my car then it's not his fault (unless he had bald tyres of course), and neither is it mine. It's just an accident.

 

And once the insurance company have repaired my car I will be inundated by companies who wish to claim on my behalf for the injuries that I sustained, despite me repeatedly telling them that I didn't sustain any!

[pearlygeoff]

CRT probably countersued for him polluting the canal. Mind you, if he'd been there much longer, they'd have Section 8'd him and, heaved him out and dumped him three hundred miles from where he wanted to be.

 

So glad to see you're beginning to understand the 'problem', at last.

 

Read my website and you'll learn a lot more. (Though you may not be welcome on here anymore).

[WotEver]

So, you're a CC-er who doesn't want to CC and doesn't want to stay on a paid-for mooring?

 

http://canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/overview

[Machpoint005]

 

Indeed, but if someone has a blow out and swerves across the road and hits my car then it's not his fault (unless he had bald tyres of course), and neither is it mine. It's just an accident.

 

And once the insurance company have repaired my car I will be inundated by companies who wish to claim on my behalf for the injuries that I sustained, despite me repeatedly telling them that I didn't sustain any!

 

It's a blowout caused by a faulty tyre, but whether it was poor manufacture, incorrect inflation, excessive wear, maltreatment or puncture by a foreign object, there was still a cause and a collision!

Edited February 10, 2017 by Machpoint005

[WotEver]

 

It's a blowout caused by a faulty tyre, but whether it was poor manufacture, incorrect inflation, excessive wear, maltreatment or puncture by a foreign object, there was still a cause and a collision!

 

So how are you going to find who it was that dropped the screw that punctured the tyre that caused the blowout?

[Machpoint005]

So, you're a CC-er who doesn't want to CC and doesn't want to stay on a paid-for mooring?

 

http://canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/overview

 

The five minutes I've just wasted looking at that site would seem to confirm exactly that.

 

There are no rules against having a normal licence and a mooring, and cruising at will. The same rules still apply to overstaying on visitor moorings though.

Boating is neither a cheap pastime nor a cheap way of life, and no amount of moaning will change that.

[MtB]

 

So how are you going to find who it was that dropped the screw that punctured the tyre that caused the blowout?

 

 

And besides, they might have dropped it by accident...

 

[Machpoint005]

 

So how are you going to find who it was that dropped the screw that punctured the tyre that caused the blowout?

 

Impossible, but that doesn't alter the fact that it was the cause of the collision!

 

 

And besides, they might have dropped it by accident...

 

 

Or on purpose, but we still don't know who dunnit!

[pearlygeoff]

 

The five minutes I've just wasted looking at that site would seem to confirm exactly that.

 

There are no rules against having a normal licence and a mooring, and cruising at will. The same rules still apply to overstaying on visitor moorings though.

Boating is neither a cheap pastime nor a cheap way of life, and no amount of moaning will change that.

 

You obviously haven't read it (5 minutes?) and have no idea what the dispute was about. Like most people on here you don't want the truth to interfere with your prejudices.

 

Carry on with your endless ill informed diatribes with your fellow keyboard commentators; remember there are very few of you so what you say matters not a jot.

So, you're a CC-er who doesn't want to CC and doesn't want to stay on a paid-for mooring?

 

http://canalandrivertyranny.co.uk/index.php/overview

 

Totally inaccurate.

[MtB]

If I remember rightly CRT refused to renew Mr Geoff's license for peristent overstaying, when he had what he considered a reasonable excuse.

 

CRT applied to the court for a Section 8 and Mr Geoff expected this to be his chance to argue the toss before a judge, but what actually happened was the application was rubber stamped due to the indisputable fact that there was no licence. The court was not prepared to listen to the reasons for this and the boat was lifted out.

 

Spitefully (some say), CRT then transported the (wooden) boat to somewhere miles away and knowingly stored it out of the water so the hull dried out and could not be re-launched without sinking.

[Arthur Marshall]

 

So glad to see you're beginning to understand the 'problem', at last.

 

Read my website and you'll learn a lot more. (Though you may not be welcome on here anymore).

I've always understood the "problem". You explained it to me at inordinate length once while I sat on my boat, ending in a wildly misogynistic rant which led me to have considerable doubts about the veracity of any of the preceding story - which had been quite convincing up till then. I still think you were seriously badly treated by CRT but were also to a large extent the architect of your own misfortune. This, however has nothing to do with the topic any more than your accusations of prejudice, ignorance etc against other contributors have - personal attacks the likes of which are what separated out most of on here from those not.

And you may have missed that my comment about section 8ing some who had fallen into the cut was what some of us call a "humourous" intervention. Not a particularly good one, I admit.

I forgot that any mention of Section 8 pushes buttons in some cases and the old bandwagon lurches into sight, accompanied with more vitriol against anyone with an alternative viewpoint.

[mayalld]

 

So how are you going to find who it was that dropped the screw that punctured the tyre that caused the blowout?

 

An inability to positively identify the individual responsible doesn't alter their responsibility for the occurrence.

[magpie patrick]

 

An inability to positively identify the individual responsible doesn't alter their responsibility for the occurrence.

 

True, but the tendency to look for a cause of an accident tends to result in a driver being blamed either for bad driving or for not maintaining the vehicle, and if not that then faulty maintenance or manufacture somewhere down the line. For a puncture or a blowout, an unseen, small, sharp object finding it's way onto the road is all that is needed, and the wind or similar happenstance may have carried it there

[MtB]

 

True, but the tendency to look for a cause of an accident tends to result in a driver being blamed either for bad driving or for not maintaining the vehicle, and if not that then faulty maintenance or manufacture somewhere down the line. For a puncture or a blowout, an unseen, small, sharp object finding it's way onto the road is all that is needed, and the wind or similar happenstance may have carried it there

 

 

There is (or was) the concept of an act of God.

 

If say, a freak wind blows a tree down onto your car, no-one is to blame.

[Alan de Enfield]

 

Indeed, but if someone has a blow out and swerves across the road and hits my car then it's not his fault (unless he had bald tyres of course), and neither is it mine. It's just an accident.

 

And once the insurance company have repaired my car I will be inundated by companies who wish to claim on my behalf for the injuries that I sustained, despite me repeatedly telling them that I didn't sustain any!

A slightly different scenario, but still raises the question of responsibility :

 

18 months ago my wife was happily driving along an A-Road, (Son in passenger seat, Daughter in law in back seat) when she was 'T-Boned' by a driver emerging from a side road who had not realised there was a T-Junction.

 

The force pushed the car off the road, but it was still travelling forwards, went into a ditch and smashed (with considerable force) into a tree.

Wife and son BADLY shaken, no broken bones, bad bruising. Daughter in Law broke her back in 3-places due to the impact and the seat belt restraining the lower part of her body. allowing the upper part to 'whiplash' sideways.

 

3rd party driver's insurance (the Co-Op) have admitted liability, paid in full for the written-off car, paid my wife 'damages' but have refused to pay Daughter in law costs and damages claiming that she was injured by my wife driving into a tree and she should therefore sue my wife.

 

We are still awaiting a court date (and Son is severely out of pocket as DiL is not a UK citizen and hospital costs etc all have to be paid for by him/us)

 

 

 

CO-OP 'Ethical company' - not in my book

Edited February 10, 2017 by Alan de Enfield

[cuthound]

A slightly different scenario, but still raises the question of responsibility :

 

18 months ago my wife was happily driving along an A-Road, (Son in passenger seat, Daughter in law in back seat) when she was 'T-Boned' by a driver emerging from a side road who had not realised there was a T-Junction.

 

The force pushed the car off the road, but it was still travelling forwards, went into a ditch and smashed (with considerable force) into a tree.

Wife and son BADLY shaken, no broken bones, bad bruising. Daughter in Law broke her back in 3-places due to the impact and the seat belt restraining the lower part of her body. allowing the upper part to 'whiplash' sideways.

 

3rd party driver's insurance (the Co-Op) have admitted liability, paid in full for the written-off car, paid my wife 'damages' but have refused to pay Daughter in law costs and damages claiming that she was injured by my wife driving into a tree and she should therefore sue my wife.

 

We are still awaiting a court date (and Son is severely out of pocket as DiL is not a UK citizen and hospital costs etc all have to be paid for by him/us)

 

 

 

CO-OP 'Ethical company' - not in my book

Let's hope you win in court. As "a man on the Clapham Omnibus" I fail to see the logic of the Co-Op's argument. Your wife would not have driven into the tree if the other car had not collided with her.

 

Did the Police bring any charges against the other driver?