Legal limits on keeping bees?

[Ely]

Just ridiculous. We have two eyes for a reason. If I hurt myself I think 'that was a bit daft'. I certainly don't look for people to blame. What happened to taking responsibilty for your own actions?

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

. But I'm also pleased that many more people know that they can have recompense for injury and the loss that goes with it.

Pity they don't tell you that an accident whilst working at sea has a two year limitation not three until it's too late

.I may have defamed you by suggesting you were a Mail reader. That's certainly something that could cause right thinking members of society to hold you in ridicule, hatred or contempt. I get my apology in now, before you dash off to see a solicitor.

I'd better cancel that appointment then - luckily I've never really liked the beer in the golf club

 

[pargyle]

Just ridiculous. We have two eyes for a reason. If I hurt myself I think 'that was a bit daft'. I certainly don't look for people to blame. What happened to taking responsibilty for your own actions?

Whilst I fully agree with you - the cost of all insurance, for most people, is rising dramatically year on year because a lot of people are instigating claims (and getting settlements because it's cheaper to settle than go to court !) for things that, in the past, would not even have been considered as claim worthy.

Is there no car accident now that does not get a claim for personal injury or loss of earnings ? Does every holiday result in the loss or theft of a camera ? Does every bit of wet paint attract a Pierre Cardin suit ? It seems that way to me ....

The USA is streets ahead of us in blame and claim culture but that's the way we are going I fear !

 

[thorn]

Just ridiculous. We have two eyes for a reason. If I hurt myself I think 'that was a bit daft'. I certainly don't look for people to blame. What happened to taking responsibilty for your own actions?

So it was your fault that you couldn't avoid the car that pulled into your path from a side turning or struck you on a zebra crossing, your fault that your employer bought on the cheap and provided you with a ladder that broke as you climbed up it, your fault that the meal you had in a restaurant was contaminated. You'll just grin and bear the pain and the loss because, after all, you have two eyes, and you were a bit daft for letting it happen to you.

It's a shame that I can't show you the cases in my cabinets. It might prove an education. The one beside me now is that of an elderly lady who drove to her local clinic and had some eye drops administered. The person doing the administering didn't read the notes to see that my client had a condition that was likely to react badly to the drops, and that the drops were not to be used on people with that condition. The lady had to call a friend to give her a lift home, and will never drive again, neither will she read or watch television. She had two working eyes. She doesn't now.

But then, I would say that. I'm just an ambulance chaser, making money by encouraging people to lie and exaggerate their problems.

 

[MonseigneurBienvenu]

I think the offtopic is getting a bit heated. Yes, there are meritorious claims, and, yes, there are people that wait until you start reversing your car to drive into the back of you and then threaten to sue you if you don't pay them there and then (tell them to go the appropriate way if that ever happens to you) and, yes, there are people who just really like the idea of (or just feel an entitlement to) geting some more free money when an accident occurs. Yes, insurance premiums are high, but you have to be insured. It's a shame, but has nothing to do with bees.

Another truth - law is complicated, it has to be. Just communicate sensibly with your neighbours and respect them; if you can't - don't lower yourselves to their level, and good luck.

 

[Chris Luck]

This sort of thing is usually reserved for winter or when it rains for days and days... then again I suppose the heat could be getting to some people.

See you in court?

Chris

 

[Ely]

So it was your fault that you couldn't avoid the car that pulled into your path from a side turning or struck you on a zebra crossing, your fault that your employer bought on the cheap and provided you with a ladder that broke as you climbed up it, your fault that the meal you had in a restaurant was contaminated. You'll just grin and bear the pain and the loss because, after all, you have two eyes, and you were a bit daft for letting it happen to you.

It's a shame that I can't show you the cases in my cabinets. It might prove an education. The one beside me now is that of an elderly lady who drove to her local clinic and had some eye drops administered. The person doing the administering didn't read the notes to see that my client had a condition that was likely to react badly to the drops, and that the drops were not to be used on people with that condition. The lady had to call a friend to give her a lift home, and will never drive again, neither will she read or watch television. She had two working eyes. She doesn't now.

But then, I would say that. I'm just an ambulance chaser, making money by encouraging people to lie and exaggerate their problems.

There's an obvious boundary between things that are your fault and things that are not. And how does money make all your physical problems go away anyway? At the end of the day, it boils down to greed.

 

[jenkinsbrynmair]

This sort of thing is usually reserved for winter or when it rains for days and daysChris

It's just too hot to be outside!

 

[Karol]

Is he suing you, or simply threatening to? Doubtless you're insured. Your insurance company will only pay up if he proves both liability and injury. If they stand firm, he'll have to convince a judge.

And I've no doubt that his perception of the facts differs from yours.

Definitely suing. Looks like the insurers are lining up to throw the book at him for a fraudulent claim. This person already has 'form' by the way.

I have no problem with compensating those that are genuinely harmed. It sticks in my craw though when you encounter sham artists like this and those that are only to happy to profit on the back of them.

 

[MonseigneurBienvenu]

Chris Luck, not over an injury claim

A

 

[HM Honey]

At the end of the day, it boils down to greed.

What a load of crap...... As with everything, there are those who abuse the system, but what if the person in thorns example had been a self emplyed builder who can no longer work and therefore cant support his family? Dont you think he is entitled to financial support and damages from the person who has put him in this situation?

To say it is all about greed is just an infantile statement that makes it all appear black and white. Every case on its merits. The fact is that if you employ the services of a professional and they cause you injury through actions that they should be capable of performing, you are entitled to damages and more importantly, they should be made to pay. If someone causes you injury through actions they should not be doing, you are entitled to damages and again, more importantly, they should be made to pay.

Its ok saying "we should be more responsible for our own actions" but this also applies to whoever has wronged you.

 

[Karol]

What a load of crap...... As with everything, there are those who abuse the system, but what if the person in thorns example had been a self emplyed builder who can no longer work and therefore cant support his family? Dont you think he is entitled to financial support and damages from the person who has put him in this situation?

To say it is all about greed is just an infantile statement that makes it all appear black and white. Every case on its merits. The fact is that if you employ the services of a professional and they cause you injury through actions that they should be capable of performing, you are entitled to damages and more importantly, they should be made to pay. If someone causes you injury through actions they should not be doing, you are entitled to damages and again, more importantly, they should be made to pay.

Its ok saying "we should be more responsible for our own actions" but this also applies to whoever has wronged you.

OK HM. Your thoughts on this scenario please!

Wasp trap A when deployed in a theme park (250 traps thereof) results in 1,600 people being stung of which 6 have serious reactions requiring hospitalisation.

Wasp trap B when deployed in a sister theme park (150 traps thereof) results in less than 30 people stung with no hospitalisations.

Do the 6 harmed persons in the first theme park have a claim against either the theme park or the professional responsible for installing trap A?

 

[HM Honey]

Do the 6 harmed persons in the first theme park have a claim against either the theme park or the professional responsible for installing trap A?

I'm no legal expert Karol, these are just my opinions but I would say it depends on what steps have been taken by the park owners and the professional to minimise the risk to its customers.

Placing the wasp traps in itself isnt the issue. I would say that If the park owners have made sure that there are sufficient warning notices informing its customers of the danger, the traps are placed at sites as far away from customer areas as possible, and the areas directly around the traps are cordoned off, then they have done as much as they reasonably can to minimise the chance of injury, and therefore have a defence of "due diligence"

If on the other hand, there are no warning notices, the traps in placed directly in areas of high visitor traffic, and visitors are allowed to walk within inches of the traps, then yes, the park are most definately liable.

As you can see, not black and white. In Scenario one, the park has done as much as it can, and the warning notices allow the visitor to make an informed decision on the potential risk.

Scenario 2 put the visitor in UNNECESSARY danger without thier knowledge and could be avoided or minimized with just a few simple precautions.

Its a fact of life that sometimes, **** happens, but if it happens because someone else has cut corners, and it costs you, either financially OR physically, then why shouldnt you be compensated?

 

[HM Honey]

A question for you Karol:

Two supermarkets sell uncooked chicken as part of its range of goods.

Supermarket 1, takes its food hygiene obligations seriously and only sources its chicken from a reputable dealer who can show that the chicken is prepared properly and is safe for human consumption. The supermarket pays a bit more and as a result has a smaller profit margin on the chicken.

Supermarket 2, cuts corners, ignores its food hygiene obligations and buys in cheap, unhygienic chicken from "a bloke in a van" meaning they have a bigger profit margin.

As a result, someone becomies seriously sick and dies. The dead person was the only employed person in a houseold of four and as a result, the family loose their home and have to be rehomed and live on benefits.

Shouldnt supermarket 2 be held accountable? Dont the family who have lost everything deserve to be compensated?

Or do we just let supermarket 2 go unpunished and tell the widower and the children that "**** happens" dont be greedy?

 

[Karol]

I'm no legal expert Karol, these are just my opinions but I would say it depends on what steps have been taken by the park owners and the professional to minimise the risk to its customers.

Placing the wasp traps in itself isnt the issue. I would say that If the park owners have made sure that there are sufficient warning notices informing its customers of the danger, the traps are placed at sites as far away from customer areas as possible, and the areas directly around the traps are cordoned off, then they have done as much as they reasonably can to minimise the chance of injury, and therefore have a defence of "due diligence"

If on the other hand, there are no warning notices, the traps in placed directly in areas of high visitor traffic, and visitors are allowed to walk within inches of the traps, then yes, the park are most definately liable.

As you can see, not black and white. In Scenario one, the park has done as much as it can, and the warning notices allow the visitor to make an informed decision on the potential risk.

Scenario 2 put the visitor in UNNECESSARY danger without thier knowledge and could be avoided or minimized with just a few simple precautions.

Its a fact of life that sometimes, **** happens, but if it happens because someone else has cut corners, and it costs you, either financially OR physically, then why shouldnt you be compensated?

Thanks for that - it's an interesting take on the scenarios. So park A uses a trap which results in more people being stung but provided that there are warning signs then this mitigates the use of a product that has a higher risk of causing harm? Why would park A not be liable for failing to use a safer product?

 

[Karol]

A question for you Karol:

Two supermarkets sell uncooked chicken as part of its range of goods.

Supermarket 1, takes its food hygiene obligations seriously and only sources its chicken from a reputable dealer who can show that the chicken is prepared properly and is safe for human consumption. The supermarket pays a bit more and as a result has a smaller profit margin on the chicken.

Supermarket 2, cuts corners, ignores its food hygiene obligations and buys in cheap, unhygienic chicken from "a bloke in a van" meaning they have a bigger profit margin.

As a result, someone becomies seriously sick and dies. The dead person was the only employed person in a houseold of four and as a result, the family loose their home and have to be rehomed and live on benefits.

Shouldnt supermarket 2 be held accountable? Dont the family who have lost everything deserve to be compensated?

Or do we just let supermarket 2 go unpunished and tell the widower and the children that "**** happens" dont be greedy?

Hmmmm!

Not cut and dried as far as I can see. It very much depends on what actually killed the individual.

It would need to be proven that the unhygeinic practices were responsible for the death. Understanding the uncertainties surrounding microbiological contamination means that proving such an association won't be easy or straight forward. Chicken naturally carries lots of bugs which is why it has to be stored properly and cooked thoroughly. The plaintiff would have to prove that they did actually cook the chicken properly and that the level of microbiological contamination in the unhygeinic chicken was pathogenic and of a sufficiently high bioburden that routine cooking would have been insufficient to make the meat safe and that the level of contamination was greater than that which might be found in hygeinic chicken anyway. On top of that, the plaintiff would also have to prove that the chicken was stored in such a way after purchase so as to prevent subsequent confluence. All of which would be very difficult.

There is a difference between unhygeinic and unsafe practice. Understanding where one ends and the other starts is an incredibly grey area.

If the cause of death can be proven as a consequence of cutting corners and unhygeinic practices then I absolutely concur that the responsible supermarket should be brought to book (including facing corporate manslaughter charges) and absolutely the victims should be compensated.

As for safe but unhygeinic practices then that's down to choosing which supermarket to purchase from and how much one is prepared to pay and how much trust one has in them.

I freely admit that as a family we do not buy meats from one of the big four supermarkets because we do not trust their meat. Haven't heard of many people dying though!

Regards,

Karol

 

[HM Honey]

They would be liable. Your totally missing the bigger picture Karol. Its not about using a notice to "mitigate" knowingley using an inferior product etc etc.

The issue is that if an accident has happened and someone has suffered financial or physical damage and this accident is the result of someone else "cutting corners" or doing something they shouldnt do, then that person owes the victim compensation....simply as that.

Only an idiot would argue otherwise...

If I drove my car through your the front of your house because I was drunk, would you accept me just saying "oh well, never mind, **** happens"

Of course you wouldnt....

 

[HM Honey]

A few years ago, there was a case not far from us where a guy clubbed someone over the head with a peice of scaffolding bar. The victim fell and hit his head on the curb and died. The attacker got away with a lessor charge of assault with intent (or something similar) because his solicitor argued that it was actually the victims head hitting the curb that killed him, not the scaffolding bar.....

Were you the thugs solicitor....lol

 

[Karol]

<snip>
The issue is that if an accident has happened and someone has suffered financial or physical damage and this accident is the result of someone else "cutting corners" or doing something they shouldnt do, then that person owes the victim compensation....simply as that.

I'm not sure I have missed the point. The issue is about whether the accident was avoidable or not and whether there was a duty of care to take reasonable steps to avoid the accident which were not taken. To cause wilful harm is an entirely different thing.

Only an idiot would argue otherwise...

If I drove my car through your the front of your house because I was drunk, would you accept me just saying "oh well, never mind, **** happens"

Of course you wouldnt....

I didn't realise I was arguing with you but if you're bored and want an argument........ It was just interesting exploring different takes on things.

 

[Karol]

A few years ago, there was a case not far from us where a guy clubbed someone over the head with a peice of scaffolding bar. The victim fell and hit his head on the curb and died. The attacker got away with a lessor charge of assault with intent (or something similar) because his solicitor argued that it was actually the victims head hitting the curb that killed him, not the scaffolding bar.....

Were you the thugs solicitor....lol

That's a little below the belt!

I'm not defending the 'guilty'.

There's a world of difference between an act of violence (wilful harm) and selling chicken at different levels of hygeine.