Questions have been raised regarding leaving wheelie bins out for collection. There follows the response provided to Parish Councils from PCC.
Click here for the PCC sample letter re Wheelie Bins
Click here for the PCC sample letter re Wheelie Bins
In order for any claimant to be able to successfully win a claim in damages it is essential that they prove that the defendant owed them a duty of care, that there was a breach of that duty, that loss or damage suffered was a direct result of that breach, and that the loss was not too remote.
Firstly does PCC owe the injured party a duty of care? The law indicates that a duty is owed dependant on certain factors;
1. Did the defendant know of the problem/danger – Applying this PCC would satisfy this element as the danger has been recognised and advice sought.
2. Would a reasonable person have foreseen the incident occurring – As you will appreciate this will differ according to the scenario. Given your first example leaving a bin in the middle of a public footpath would arguably be viewed by most to be a foreseeable problem.
3. What precautions have been taken by the defendant and how practical are they – If there are reasonable precautions which can be taken by the defendant to minimise harm but they are not utilised the Courts will take an unsympathetic view if injury does result. Conversely if a precaution could be taken but was not practical to implicate then the Courts would not penalise a defendant for not adopting it. For e.g. the steps expected of a multi national brand such as Coca Cola would not necessarily be expected from a small local brewery as the multi national has greater funds and resources at its disposal. This is not to say certain things can be ignored due to a limited budget!
Bins need to be left out for collection, a reasonable precaution which is already utilised in some areas would be a collection point. This reduces the amount of hazard spots to an absolute minimum and should make any large enough to be easily noticeable to a passer by.
4. What is the social importance of a defendant’s activity – if a defendants actions serve a social purpose then they may be justified in taking greater risks. Case law relates to emergency services but it is arguable that the collection of refuse is a socially important activity.
It is not necessary for all of these elements to be proved for the claimant to establish a Duty of Care and will be a balancing exercise. The Court will be satisfied that a duty exists providing the majority of factors above can be established.
Breach and Damage will usually flow once a duty has been established. In certain cases there has been argument with respect to this but for the purposes of these scenarios if a clamant is injured as a result of the placing of a PCC bin it will be fairly simple for them to prove these limbs. The injury itself will prove breach and a doctor’s report regarding the injury will prove the cause.
The issue of remoteness is the final strand which the claimant must prove. Essentially was the event reasonably foreseeable and not too remote (beyond the imagination or contemplation of the average person). Once again if the court deems it is foreseeable then the defendant is likely to be found liable. This will differ according to the situation. Adopting the first scenario once again a bin left in the middle of a public footpath is likely to cause harm to someone eventfully, a footpath should be clear from obstruction so that it can be utilised as intended, as a right of way. Bins at one collection point adequately enclosed off and with warning signs could prevent any argument under this limb.
ADVICE:
As you will appreciate this area of law is complex and can turn very easily on a single variable. Any claim against PCC will arise as a result of a duty being owed and the damage eventually suffered, if it is reasonably foreseeable. In order to minimise this risk PCC should identify the problem and minimise any foreseeable risk.
a) Utilise warning signs so that individuals are clear of the potential hazard.
b) Attempt to minimise the amount of collection points to one ideally. This will reduce the amount of hazard points and make the one collection point quite noticeable reducing the argument that an individual would not see the hazard, i.e. walking into one bin by mistake is more believable then walking in to a collection of 15!
c) If this is not possible and individual households need to leave bins out by their house can it be left on their drive, is there a need for the bin to be left on the public footpath? When bins are returned by refuse collection they should not be left on public footpaths.
d) Can leaflets be circulated to households regarding the dangers of leaving bins for collection on public byways?
e) Any reasonably practical steps which you believe can be taken to protect public safety.
Firstly does PCC owe the injured party a duty of care? The law indicates that a duty is owed dependant on certain factors;
1. Did the defendant know of the problem/danger – Applying this PCC would satisfy this element as the danger has been recognised and advice sought.
2. Would a reasonable person have foreseen the incident occurring – As you will appreciate this will differ according to the scenario. Given your first example leaving a bin in the middle of a public footpath would arguably be viewed by most to be a foreseeable problem.
3. What precautions have been taken by the defendant and how practical are they – If there are reasonable precautions which can be taken by the defendant to minimise harm but they are not utilised the Courts will take an unsympathetic view if injury does result. Conversely if a precaution could be taken but was not practical to implicate then the Courts would not penalise a defendant for not adopting it. For e.g. the steps expected of a multi national brand such as Coca Cola would not necessarily be expected from a small local brewery as the multi national has greater funds and resources at its disposal. This is not to say certain things can be ignored due to a limited budget!
Bins need to be left out for collection, a reasonable precaution which is already utilised in some areas would be a collection point. This reduces the amount of hazard spots to an absolute minimum and should make any large enough to be easily noticeable to a passer by.
4. What is the social importance of a defendant’s activity – if a defendants actions serve a social purpose then they may be justified in taking greater risks. Case law relates to emergency services but it is arguable that the collection of refuse is a socially important activity.
It is not necessary for all of these elements to be proved for the claimant to establish a Duty of Care and will be a balancing exercise. The Court will be satisfied that a duty exists providing the majority of factors above can be established.
Breach and Damage will usually flow once a duty has been established. In certain cases there has been argument with respect to this but for the purposes of these scenarios if a clamant is injured as a result of the placing of a PCC bin it will be fairly simple for them to prove these limbs. The injury itself will prove breach and a doctor’s report regarding the injury will prove the cause.
The issue of remoteness is the final strand which the claimant must prove. Essentially was the event reasonably foreseeable and not too remote (beyond the imagination or contemplation of the average person). Once again if the court deems it is foreseeable then the defendant is likely to be found liable. This will differ according to the situation. Adopting the first scenario once again a bin left in the middle of a public footpath is likely to cause harm to someone eventfully, a footpath should be clear from obstruction so that it can be utilised as intended, as a right of way. Bins at one collection point adequately enclosed off and with warning signs could prevent any argument under this limb.
ADVICE:
As you will appreciate this area of law is complex and can turn very easily on a single variable. Any claim against PCC will arise as a result of a duty being owed and the damage eventually suffered, if it is reasonably foreseeable. In order to minimise this risk PCC should identify the problem and minimise any foreseeable risk.
a) Utilise warning signs so that individuals are clear of the potential hazard.
b) Attempt to minimise the amount of collection points to one ideally. This will reduce the amount of hazard points and make the one collection point quite noticeable reducing the argument that an individual would not see the hazard, i.e. walking into one bin by mistake is more believable then walking in to a collection of 15!
c) If this is not possible and individual households need to leave bins out by their house can it be left on their drive, is there a need for the bin to be left on the public footpath? When bins are returned by refuse collection they should not be left on public footpaths.
d) Can leaflets be circulated to households regarding the dangers of leaving bins for collection on public byways?
e) Any reasonably practical steps which you believe can be taken to protect public safety.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
