I feel rather sorry for the lady who is trying to sue me. She must think I am being unhelpful and obstructive as she tries to seek fair compensation for her injuries. It isn't that I don't care but that I cannot help. I simply have to deny her claim.
About a month ago the lady was having lunch in the restaurant. She ordered her meal and then came through the bar on her way to the lavatory. Unfamiliar with the route she claims she was looking for direction signs and, when she opened the door to go into the lavatory, she missed the three-inch step and stumbled against the door frame opposite. She broke her expensive glasses and suffered bruising. An ambulance was called but the paramedics reassured her she was all right. I believe my wife dealt with the whole incident wonderfully, as often only she can. But the woman claims she has suffered loss (her glasses) and injury (her bruising). I am reluctant to also add here that I believe that she is also American ~ I'm trying not to type-cast.
Soon after the incident she returned and indicated she felt she was entitled to recompense but I had to explain to her quite gently that it was a matter for my insurance company and that I could not accept liability although I was very sorry to see she had hurt herself. I told her to put anything in writing and I would forward it. She has now written a letter which I have forwarded to my insurers and I await developments.
Interestingly only a couple of weeks previously a council official exercised his right to conduct an inspection of my premises to identify items that "comply with health and safety law". He was looking for possible hazards. To be honest he wrote quite a long list and I was tempted to dismiss it. But I was calmed down by a colleague and told I had to comply. So I did. We wrote policies. I made my padded head guard for the cellar steps. I wrote "Mind your head" in 10 languages including Korean. In short I did everything I was told to.
This inspector identified a small step into the kitchen as hazardous. I installed contrasting strip. He identified two small holes in the floor-boards through which barely a mouse could squeeze. I duly covered these up. But, crucially, he did not identify the step into the toilets as a hazard and this is the sticking point.
If we are going to have these inspections then we ought to have the protection that goes with them. If the inspector identifies hazards which are then remedied we should be free from litigation. If he examines hazards and regards them as not hazardous then I should be not liable for a claim. Otherwise his existence is pointless. Why bother investigating for hazards if the conclusions are meaningless?
I suspect this council official, one of many in the armies of officialdom, will be able to wriggle out of any liability with some obscure exemption and we, as insurance payers, will foot the bill. But I do feel somewhat cheated that this inspection we endure is a meaningless exercise.