There was a story on Look North this morning, about a family who have just won compensation after their son was killed playing in a graveyard. The boy was killed after being crushed by a toppled gravestone.

1. His parents shouldn't have let him play in a graveyard - yet they blame the church/local authority for his death?!

2. Gravestones don't tend to randomly fall on top of people, this one was probably standard sized (around 3-4 foot high). What made it fall over?!

3. It's very disrespectful to play in a graveyard, what kind of "game" were they playing?!

4. Surely an accident (whether real or caused by trying to push over gravestones ;)) is by it's nature an accident. Therefore why should anyone be able to sue anyone else?!

5. Does this mean gravestones will now carry warning signs such as: "Gravestones can kill - don't push".

Grr.... what a bad start to the day - I'm all worked up now... lol


:lol:

I agree with you wholeheartedly.

Being the sort of morbid person that I am I used to sit with friends in the graveyard near my home. Because we looked 'evil' the locals blamed us for damage to the stones but in actual fact we were trying to stop the local 'trendies'.
Amazing how much appearances can decieve.

Moon

You'll be surprised to know that I know of a graveyard in which some of the headstones have had warning signs stuck on them. They may be the old ones that are perilously close to toppling over or that are sinking, but still the signs are a little over the top and disrespectful to the family and the occupant of the grave.

As for the reported story. It also wound me up that the child was allowed to play wherever without his parent's questioning his whereabouts. God, some people are not even fit to be parents!!!

I seem to recall that there was bit of a thing in the media a bit ago about some reverend causing outrage as unsteady headstones were knocked down in his churchyard so as they couldn't topple on people and the church be sued :roll:

The story's here:

Gravestone (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_815758.html?menu=)

I don't see what the fuss is all about. The authority owes a duty of care to anyone using its facilities, the child wasn't trespassing, he was only 6 years old, the gravestone fell on him.

Would you have all been up in arms if he had been laying flowers on the grave?

I agree we live in a society which is becoming more and more compensation driven. But, if that means people take more care of things for which they are responsible which leads to fewer deaths and injuries then this can only be for the good.

More reasons for the forest cemetaries me thinks.

I still don't think a child should be 'playing' in a cemetary and most certainly NOT at the age of 6!!!

I have seen the damage the kids do to the trees 'conkering' they don't wait for them to fall off they ripp the branches to pieces to get them.

Mothers trauma?? I shoudl hope she does feel trauma letting her only 6 year old child to run free and wild un supervised.

Perhaps that £33,000 would have been better spent by the council ensuring kids are kept out of the cemetaries adn that the cemetaries are bettermaintained and repairs can be made to the old stones.

Remins me of that stupid fertility case - "Oh but I only wanted 1 child and I got three. "

Moon

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
More reasons for the forest cemetaries me thinks.

I still don't think a child should be 'playing' in a cemetary and most certainly NOT at the age of 6!!!



I agree about the forest burials entirely. I've got my name down for a cardboard coffin in a memorial forest.

Where do you suggest the child plays? On the road? In the park? They all have aspects which aren't safe. Or do you prefer them to be locked up in their rooms with a playstation?

I would have thought a cemetary would have been pretty safe and the residents are not likely to complain about the noise.

A six year old should not be wandering anywhere outide the family home or garden.

That is surely asking for trouble.

SIX YEARS OLD???

Moon

Partly agree with maxt that these grave stones if unsafe should be repaired and made safe before someone who mearly walks past them is killed.
We pay our fee for the upkeep and is the authorities duty to see there safe.
I agree the lad should not have been in the place to start with not even out of his own garden but nobody should be able to walk in a cemetry and wind up dead,unless your already dead of course.
Compensation in this case i feel is justified.

Graveyards are regular targets for vandals. They could have tried to push a stone over and failed, and it's just gone over of it's own accord.

But, it is a place of solemn dignity and not a play area.

Children being killed, in many cases is Parental irresponsibility, we always looked after our children, especially at such a tender age as six.

These "Idiots" who let their little children wander off on their own to play are asking for trouble and usually get it. Then, when it is too late they are the first to scream and blame everyone else.

What I dont get is how they automatically turn the death of their son into a money making opportunity. Does having money take the pain away? Does it make it easier for them to cope? Its not like their son is here to enjoy any of the money is it - thanks to them letting him play in such a stupid place.

Originally posted by Moon Maiden
More reasons for the forest cemetaries me thinks.

I have seen the damage the kids do to the trees 'conkering' they don't wait for them to fall off they ripp the branches to pieces to get them.

Moon

:o I can't say anything. I am guilty of downing a few white conkers in my time. I was always too impatient waiting for them to fall. Up went the sticks to try and knock em' down. :)

I don't have a problem with this case. I feel a payout is fair and justified.

However, I feel the compensation culture is out of control. As for my garden path being rough, well keep off. Only assume you have a claim for any possible injury IF I INVITE YOU ONTO IT. (the same applies to burglars)

Did this gravestone just happen to blow over as the child was standing next to it? Or was there a human hand involved in pushing/pulling it over? It must have been very windy?

They must be American!

Originally posted by Geoff
Did this gravestone just happen to blow over as the child was standing next to it? Or was there a human hand involved in pushing/pulling it over? It must have been very windy?
It's mildly disingenuous to suggest that the boy brought on himself, or was murdered in the absence of any indicative news reports.

The gravestone fell over. It was going to do so at some point and was clearly not stable. No wind required.

This is a recognised problems in graveyards with old headstones, some as much as 7 feet high. Those Victorians never really got the hang of subtlety or discretion.

These big headstones only have to develop a slight lean (<5deg) before their own weight will slowly but inexorably pull them to the floor. At some point the slightest touch will make them suddenly crash down flat.

In the Spring Bank Cemetery in Hull (east end), they had to dig out and lay flat many headstones for precisely the same reason, they were at risk of falling over, possibly injuring or killing someone. Similar things (flattening of headstones for safety reasons) have happened in Stoke on Trent, Lancaster, Melton Mowbray and in (somwhere in ) Scotland.

The assumption seems to be that any headstones older than 100 years are deemed to be the council's responsibility.

In this case, that whilst they were probably slightly negligent, the council made an offer to the bereaved mother to financially compensate her for the trauma of actually seeing the headstone lifted off her dead son as a form of no fault settlement.

The mother, not being a compensation junkie accepted the offer, rather than try to sue the council for much more in the courts.

A credit to her I feel.

There you go with b****y facts again, spoiling the chance of a good rant.

Lol, good old Phan - bringing us back down to earth 8) I was merely playing the devil's advocate with regard to this story.

My cynical mind considered the fact the kid might have seen the aforementioned grave stone leaning at an angle (due to age etc.) and given it a quick push/pull - which resulted in his unfortunate death...

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
The mother, not being a compensation junkie accepted the offer, rather than try to sue the council for much more in the courts. [...] A credit to her I feel.
Or maybe she didn't realise that she could have won more at court? Her solicitor may have informed her that the risk/reward ratio of going to court was too high, therefore she should just take this amount.

(Hypothetically of course - i.e. in a similar case but not this one ;))

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
...financially compensate her for the trauma of actually seeing the headstone lifted off her dead son...
As KittyKat mentioned earlier (on page 1) - how exactly does giving a mother £30k make the pain any less?! I thought money didn't buy happiness :P

Originally posted by Geoff
Or maybe she didn't realise that she could have won more at court? Her solicitor may have informed her that the risk/reward ratio of going to court was too high, therefore she should just take this amount.

(Hypothetically of course - i.e. in a similar case but not this one ;))


As KittyKat mentioned earlier (on page 1) - how exactly does giving a mother £30k make the pain any less?! I thought money didn't buy happiness :P

er,
hypothetically? I thought we were discussing this case. Maybe, she didn't want to line the pockets of ambulance chasing civil suit lawyers...

As for the compensation payment, no-one is suggesting that money can replace dead people or guarantee happiness.

But what other form would financial compensation take? Or maybe they should have thought of some other kind of compensation, like giving her an orphan of the same age as a replacement. Well, maybe not, but it's just difficult to see how any other form of compensation would take place really.

The council wanted to be seen to be sympathetic without admitting liability. We won't ever know whether they were liable because both parties agreed to the payout and the no fault condition (it seems).

Of course all we have are some sparse news reports to go on, so a lot of things may have happened behind closed doors; who knows really?

[edited for confrontational content)

If the fact that a financial penalty of sorts has been paid, means that councils all over are more rigorous ensuring graveyards are safe then surely that's a good thing!

the lad was only 6 - the fact that his parents may have been irresponsible was hardly his fault, was it?

I couldn't resist ressurrecting this one( pardon the phrasing) but I've seen the recent furore created by the councils decision to fell headstones in the Intake cemetery, and thought everybody connected withit would benefit from reading some of the preceding contributions. As for me I still think the council bereavemant service is second only to Burke and Hare in the top ten of the desecration charts.

I've just read the title of this thread properly and it looks as if those damn lawyers find clients beyond the grave now.

Originally posted by max
I've just read the title of this thread properly and it looks as if those damn lawyers find clients beyond the grave now.

I must admit Max it was the title that made me curious. It does sound rather strange to say the least.:)

I feel the modern-day problem we are faced with is that there are so many cranky compensation claims that we are rightly suspicious of each-and-every one.

By the law of averages, every so often, a justifiable one must come along.

Mustn't it?

Going off on a bit of a tangent here:

If he was of a working age ... I think the amout of pay-out would be related to his income (from employment etc) ... and the family of a rich person would recieve more compensation than the family of a poor person ... at least I think (I was told) it works like that.

And I thought all human life was equally valuable ...

I'm also wondering what a six year old was doing 'playing' in a graveyard.

Such a place is fraught with other dangers such as collapsed graves, needles and the usual weirdos.

I'm also wondering whether the parent would have sued if the kid had climbed a tree and a branch had snapped. Or if he had climbed a wall and it had collapsed. Or if the kid had fallen into brambles and got an infection from the thorns. And what if the kid had eaten some poison berries?

These are all hazards which all kids playing out are exposed to and in my mind the age of the kid determines whether they are old (and wise) enough to be exposed to these hazards. And it is the responsibility of the parent to make this decision. In this case, a six year old certainly isn't old enough to be put at this risk,
or even be allowed out of parental sight. As mentioned in an earlier post, why was he not in his garden?

I feel for the parents, but surely THEY are the ones who are ultimately responsible for this tragedy.

Lecture/rant/opinion over!!!

tell that to the parents they deserve safety for other children

ALSO

I know this is kinda off topic but-
have you seen in the papers today about the little lad who died.

The link is here if you wanna look.
Its from the sun website.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2004510406,00.html

Im absolutely gobsmacked and disgusted by the council involved in this- they should feel bloody ashamed of themselves for what they have done to the lads parents.

Mini Blackpool Illuminations--
they are 2 ****n small lights for godsakes... whats the world coming too nowadays.

Originally posted by astraflash
tell that to the parents they deserve safety for other children

Don't quite get what you're saying here.