Quote:
|
Originally Posted by andyl
I'm not going to get into this one (music to many ears I'm sure  but would just like to remind that the kid was only nine when this happened and was looking for a football when he entered the premises (and this is probably why the judgement went against the company). No further comment on the rights or wrongs of that judgement from me though. Honest!  |
Then no doubt there will be no comments that the child was tresspassing at the time of the accident and if he and his mates hadn't have been breaking the law at the time then the accident wouldn't have happened ...... Looking around a building for your ball is one thing, climbing up onto the roof with a group of your mates is another. It's like suing the manufacturer of a match after you burn yourself commiting arson.