Student badly hurt when he fell on council land won't get a penny in compensation
A PLYMOUTH student catastrophically injured when he fell 20ft from council-owned land will not get a penny in compensation, a court has ruled.
Jonathan Harvey, from Tamerton Foliot, was lucky to survive when he tripped over a chainlink fence and plunged over a wall seven years ago.
-
Jonathan Harvey
Mr Harvey, now 28, landed on the concrete car park of Woolwell's Tesco store in the early hours of April 18, 2003.
Although doctors saved his life, brain damage left him with difficulties walking and talking.
The physiotherapy student, who had drunk up to eight pints, was running from a taxi as part of a prank when he tripped.
He sought damages from Plymouth City Council, arguing the area was unsafe and the fence in disrepair.
A High Court judge ruled last year that, although Mr Harvey should shoulder most of the blame for the accident, the council should take 25 per cent of legal liability.
But the council challenged that ruling at the Court of Appeal, saying it placed an impossible burden on landowners and risked opening a litigation floodgate.
Top judges yesterday said they had "considerable sympathy" for Mr Harvey, but ruled the council was not even partially responsible.
The council's barrister, Edward Faulks QC, told the court Mr Harvey had been making "extraordinary and unusual use" of the wasteland.
"You can invite someone into your house, but you don't invite them to slide down the banisters," he added.
In his ruling, Lord Justice Carnwath said Mr Harvey dismissed the argument that the council owed him no legal duty as "unrealistic".
However, he said that because Mr Harvey could not meet the legal definition of a "visitor", the council's appeal must succeed.
He added: "I reach this conclusion with considerable sympathy for the claimant, whose life has been blighted by a tragic accident."
Mr Harvey, who did not travel to London for the hearing, declined to comment.
But, speaking after the ruling, he thanked his friends, family and legal team "for all their help and support" throughout his battle.
A council spokesman said: "This is a very sad case where a young man has been left with life-changing injuries.
"The council is satisfied with today's judgment in the Court of Appeal, where Lord Justice Carnwath stated the council's responsibilities do not extend to Mr Harvey's activities on the night in question. The council will be considering the full details of the judgment with its lawyers in due course.
"This was a tragic accident and the council has considerable sympathy for Mr Harvey."
47 Comments
View all
by Mick, Plymouth
Friday, July 30 2010, 8:24PM
“Drunk falls over, gets hurt, tries to blame someone else, fails.
Nothing to see here, move along now.”
by KW, Plymouth
Friday, July 30 2010, 7:27PM
“Serves him right im afraid, you run away without paying a taxi fare and fall whilst drunk then that is your own fault. The fact that he didnt attend the court hearing in London tells me that he knew he was going to lose the case. Well done judge.”
by me, plymouth
Friday, July 30 2010, 6:54PM
“silly me making a spelling mistake, long day at work. I mean't "run".”
by me, plymouth
Friday, July 30 2010, 6:52PM
“This was in the Herald in November 2009 "Before the fare for the taxi was paid in full, Mr Harvey and one of his friends ran off in order to make another member of their group pay his share of what was owed". To be honest if he had not of rang away, the accident would not have happened. Maybe he should have paid his part of the fare, walked away and he would have had an enjoyable evening. Just think he would have been a qualified Physiotherapist now. All this for one silly drunken mistake.”
by Kate, Plymouth
Friday, July 30 2010, 6:52PM
“@ ....., ......? Of course money was the motivation!!!!!
Common sense at last, now if only Judge Gilbert would get some”
by J, Berks
Friday, July 30 2010, 6:32PM
“From the BBC news "Before the fare for the taxi was paid in full, Mr Harvey and one of his friends ran off in order to make another member of their group pay his share of what was owed, the court was told. "
I don't care if he was running away to avoid paying himself or to make someone else pay - it was his foolish behaviour that did it. I would be interested to see what this fence was like - even if it was 'well maintained' would it have prevented a drunk man running at it - would it have been high enough - and would it be strong enough? He should have been looking where he was going - and if he was that drunk he couldnt how can he blame anyone else? We have to take responsibility for ourselves - I certainly wouldn't expect anyone else to give me money if I fell off a cliff because there was no barrier. What's the difference? Look where you are going, and if you can't, you shouldn't be drinking as much! It is a shame it has happened but I dont have any sympathy. I have turned my ankle on pits in the road - but I don't claim for them. People can't blame drink for their behaviour - you have to control it not let it control you - what if he had been hit by another car - that person would have to live with it for the rest of their lives.. The buck stops with you.”
by Lee, Plymouth
Friday, July 30 2010, 4:34PM
“Running full pelt, whilst drunk in the dark is not a tragic accident, its an act of drunken stupidity. But know doudt we have all been there. Imagine if he would have won the case, we would all run round on unkempt council grounds waiting for our own 'tragic accident' to happen and claim.”
by bob, plymouth
Friday, July 30 2010, 4:27PM
“Guys im sorry but you dont run away over wastland in the dark from a taxi that you have paid for.
"here mate have £15 oow oow chase me taxi man chase me"
so get real, i know people like to come on here and have a argument over the most simplest of things. But the end of the day if he wasn't drunk, running away from a taxi in the dark over wasteland then this wouldn't have happened. simple as. I do sympathise with him though dont get me wrong its not like im glad it happened, but sue pcc / compensation no, take it for what is was a drunken mishap that ended in tears.”
by Vinnie Garstroke, Plymouth
Friday, July 30 2010, 4:13PM
“I don't know what happened in that and neither does anyone who wasn't there.
You are commenting on a report in a paper. If you want to be shocked, go to witness a court case and the read the press reports of the case. By a combination of omission and exagerration the press paint a picture that gives them a juicy headline but has a very loose connection with what actually happened.”
by ....., ......?
Friday, July 30 2010, 3:59PM
“Chris you won't be quoted on that as it is incorrect. Dan, I think 'Vinnie' s comment further down the thread is more accurate. I very much doubt a lad who has enough clout about him to get to uni on a physiotherapy course frees himself of responsibility for having made such a unwise decision to make, and probably wakes every day regretting it. But there's more to this than is reported, and this is what should be remembered. The sensational headline doesn't help... 'doesn't get a penny'. How do the reading public even know for sure that the decision to sue PCC was even motivated by money? The fact is we don't, we can only make judgements on the article which could potentially be (although more than likely) very vague on detail. But of course this post will be ignored by most....and distasteful comments will follow.”