The Union Rooms

pavarotti1980 said:
They probably made an offer based on the fact it was cheaper than going to court with the risk of it going against them given.


The bloke who owns San Lorenzos in Gosforth bought it

Newcastle pub the Unions Rooms set for big changes under new operators
Click to expand...
Of course that’s why they made an offer, there was a risk they thought they’d lose.


There are various factors at play in a claim of this type. The Occupiers Lisbility Act 1957 imposes a duty on the pub owner (or any occupier) to take all reasonable precautions for the safety of its visitors to its premises. Factors such as what reasonable precautions could have been taken and at what cost, the likelihood of punters being pissed, whether there is a history of people sliding down the bannister and whether anybody had been injured in the same way on the same premises or other Spoons’ premises with similar bannisters would all come into play. From a legal standpoint it’s not as simple as saying ‘you must take responsibility for your own actions’.

mux said:
Didn't know that had happened to you mate - shocking stuff and glad you've managed to live a good life. Well done for taking responsibility and not trying to fleece the innocent, and then justify it by saying "it's okay they're insured" - absolute f***ing nonsense and shameful.

These are the kind of people who would trample all over anyone to get what they want. I prefer people with morals and principles, even if that means you willingly don't get the best for yourself if that means not f***ing someone else over.


If I visited your house, got pissed, pretended to be Mary Poppins and tried to slide down your bannister, fell and broke my back... would you think it was fair if I tried to sue you for not having spikes on the bannister? The principle is the same.

And besides, they have spikes and signs in metro and tube stations because it is the size of a slide - it is not a bannister about 5 inches wide with a significant drop over one side onto a marble staircase.
Click to expand...
My house is not a business set up with the purpose of getting you pissed and (sadly) I don’t have a massive f***ing bannister leading down from my upstairs bar.
 


Jonny Ringo said:
My house is not a business set up with the purpose of getting you pissed and (sadly) I don’t have a massive f***ing bannister leading down from my upstairs bar.
Click to expand...
Fair response I suppose :lol:

You get what I mean though. And a pub isn't there with the purpose of getting you pissed, most people don't go to pubs to get pissed either.

It isn't a pub's responsibility to babysit pissed adults who should know better. I actually can't believe we are still debating this to be honest. The woman got mortal drunk and slid down the bannister of a pub pretending to be Mary Poppins. This is entirely her fault and absolutely nobody else's.
 
Jonny Ringo said:
Of course that’s why they made an offer, there was a risk they thought they’d lose.


There are various factors at play in a claim of this type. The Occupiers Lisbility Act 1957 imposes a duty on the pub owner (or any occupier) to take all reasonable precautions for the safety of its visitors to its premises. Factors such as what reasonable precautions could have been taken and at what cost, the likelihood of punters being pissed, whether there is a history of people sliding down the bannister and whether anybody had been injured in the same way on the same premises or other Spoons’ premises with similar bannisters would all come into play. From a legal standpoint it’s not as simple as saying ‘you must take responsibility for your own actions’.
Click to expand...
There is always a risk they will lose in non-criminal cases as the burdon is lesser so in essence it becomes a lottery.

As an adult there is the acceptance of capacity to appreciate out the potential dangers of circumstances unless peoven to be vulnerable. Being under the influence of alcohol does not make you vulnerable so therefore the same level of awareness of danger is required as demonstrated by the courts decision.

How can you say the premises is to blame for someone clambering onto the staircase at height and trying to slide down it? Simply because they didnt have a sign up saying dont treat the stairs as a helter skelter or have barriers in place to prevent a 1 in 10 million event.
 
Went in there for a breakfast last year and it was f***ing manky, I'll never eat in there again.

If I'm through there with the lads on a night out it's normally one of our stop offs. Used to be decent
 
chunkylover53 said:
Insurance isn’t victimless ffs.

I find these things shameless. I’m sorry she is paralysed, but the pub is not to blame
Click to expand...
I never said the pub was to blame. I said if I was in her situation I would have tried to make a claim.

"Shamless" ffs. She's paralyzed and reliant on others for the rest of her life. It wasn't some dodgy whiplash claim when there was nothing actually wrong with her but some ambulance chaser advised her "only you know if you are in pain" etc.
 
WHD said:
I never said the pub was to blame. I said if I was in her situation I would have tried to make a claim.

"Shamless" ffs. She's paralyzed and reliant on others for the rest of her life. It wasn't some dodgy whiplash claim when there was nothing actually wrong with her but some ambulance chaser advised her "only you know if you are in pain" etc.
Click to expand...
It’s trying to get others to pay out for your mistakes.
 
pavarotti1980 said:
There is always a risk they will lose in non-criminal cases as the burdon is lesser so in essence it becomes a lottery.

As an adult there is the acceptance of capacity to appreciate out the potential dangers of circumstances unless peoven to be vulnerable. Being under the influence of alcohol does not make you vulnerable so therefore the same level of awareness of danger is required as demonstrated by the courts decision.

How can you say the premises is to blame for someone clambering onto the staircase at height and trying to slide down it? Simply because they didnt have a sign up saying dont treat the stairs as a helter skelter or have barriers in place to prevent a 1 in 10 million event.
Click to expand...
How do we know it’s one in a million? How do we know how many previous accidents there’d been on those stairs, how many injuries? Without being in the trial and seeing the evidence it’s impossible to know where liability lies. Undoubtedly there’d be a big finding of contributory negligence on the part of someone injured in this way but it doesn’t mean the pub would always get off. There are cases where trespassers have fallen through an unsafe roof and homeowners have been found liable.

I also disagree that alcohol makes you vulnerable. It lowers inhibitions, affects reactions, makes you do things you later regret.

I used to do a fair bit of personal injury when I first started. Thankfully I don’t have to get my hands dirty with it anymore - it’s bottom feeder work.
 
Jonny Ringo said:
How do we know it’s one in a million? How do we know how many previous accidents there’d been on those stairs, how many injuries? Without being in the trial and seeing the evidence it’s impossible to know where liability lies. Undoubtedly there’d be a big finding of contributory negligence on the part of someone injured in this way but it doesn’t mean the pub would always get off. There are cases where trespassers have fallen through an unsafe roof and homeowners have been found liable.

I also disagree that alcohol makes you vulnerable. It lowers inhibitions, affects reactions, makes you do things you later regret.

I used to do a fair bit of personal injury when I first started. Thankfully I don’t have to get my hands dirty with it anymore - it’s bottom feeder work.
Click to expand...
Because if it was more prevelant it would be reported more often. In you experience of personal injury how many cases did you have for people falling off staircases in the same place? Therefore making it rare.

I didnt say say alcohol makes you vulnerable, i actually said the complete opposite.

You cant draw comparisons with this and an unsafe roof. Was this an unsafe staircase? The hearing suggests it was perfectly safe
 
WHD said:
And if I was totally paralyzed I wouldn't give a fuck about that.
Click to expand...
Then that is f***ing shameful to be fair mate.

Not giving a fuck about anyone other than yourself is shameful.

I'm glad you've just admitted it to be honest.

There are people in this world who go through awful illnesses and keep their convictions and principles - we see stories like this every day in how people act with dignity in adversity.

This "I'm paralysed so fuck everyone else I'll take all I can get" attitude is shameful.
 
Last edited:
I can sort of understand the lass trying to get some money but it's not something I would/have done in that situation. If somebody else was at fault though I would she no problem.

When I first had my accident and I was in the Spinal Unit at Hexham there was a lad in there who was tetraplegic after a police chase.

He was after compen saying it was police fault, he had previous as long as your arm. Was he entitled to anything? Fuck knows but don't the police pull back on chases now if they think there is a danger of an accident?
 
foolzy said:
I can sort of understand the lass trying to get some money. When I first had my accident and I was in the Spinal Unit at Hexham there was a lad in there who was tetraplegic after a police chase.

He was after compen saying it was police fault, he had previous as long as your arm. Was he entitled to anything? Fuck knows but don't the police pull back on chases now if they think there is a danger of an accident?
Click to expand...
If the danger of the pursuit outweighs the benefit of apprehending the suspect then they will withdraw.
 
mux said:
If the danger of the pursuit outweighs the benefit of apprehending the suspect then they will withdraw.
Click to expand...
Like I say, this would have been 1995 so procedures will have changed since then

Reading a bit more up on it here
Woman paralysed in fall from pub bannister
and it's not as clear cut. The banister didn't conform to modern standards as was too low. Spoons knew this and wanted to change it as they knew the danger but Heritage England knocked them back.

Previous incidents had happened and judge ruled in pubs favour due to lass saying she knew it was a daft thing to do...

Either way ,f***ing C5 injury is high up. Mine was 'only L1 and I f***ing struggle at times
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mux said:
Fair response I suppose :lol:

You get what I mean though. And a pub isn't there with the purpose of getting you pissed, most people don't go to pubs to get pissed either.

It isn't a pub's responsibility to babysit pissed adults who should know better. I actually can't believe we are still debating this to be honest. The woman got mortal drunk and slid down the bannister of a pub pretending to be Mary Poppins. This is entirely her fault and absolutely nobody else's.
Click to expand...
Pubs sell alcohol. Alcohol changes your mental state.

Agreed. It isn't the pub's responsibility to babysit pissed adults but they are supposed to make the immediate environment as safe as possible(within reason) Apparently before her accident there had been multiple incidents of people doing the same trick and sustaining injuries. Six months after her accident, someone again fell while acting like a silly arse and it wasn't until after that that they put a stop to it by wrapping some rope around the bannisters. Did they really have safety in mind up until that point or was the £300 cost of the rope considered disproportionate?
 
pavarotti1980 said:
Because if it was more prevelant it would be reported more often. In you experience of personal injury how many cases did you have for people falling off staircases in the same place? Therefore making it rare.

I didnt say say alcohol makes you vulnerable, i actually said the complete opposite.

You cant draw comparisons with this and an unsafe roof. Was this an unsafe staircase? The hearing suggests it was perfectly safe
Click to expand...
There don’t have to be previous claims, just one previous report of people sliding down the bannister may be enough to put the occupier on notice of the risk and create the possibility of liability for any future accident unless reasonable precautions are taken. This is always a question of fact and degree and the line between imposing liability and not can be very fine and even boil down to which judge you appear before.

I drew the comparison with the roof because the homeowner has not invited or permitted anyone to go up there. They weren’t even permitted to be on the land. But the court still imposed a liability. I was simply demonstrating that there are circumstances where this happens which seem excessively harsh

I have never done any bannister claims. I did once succeed in a claim where a frozen leg of lamb landed on someone’s head in the whoopsie aisle at Asda. That was a fairly low moment in my career.
 

Back
Top