Pensioner's tangle with Bromsgrove street advert leaves permanent discomfort

HURT: An advertising board left a Worcester woman with permanent walking difficulties. HURT: An advertising board left a Worcester woman with permanent walking difficulties.

A WORCESTER pensioner has spoken of the day she fell over an A-board – leaving her disabled for life.

Susan Ratcliffe was walking out of a charity shop and turned her back, completely unaware that a large advertising frame was directly behind her.

She crashed over the top of it, smacked against the floor and was rushed to Worcestershire Royal Hospital in Worcester with a broken thigh bone.

After undergoing an operation, the fractured femur had to be held together with a metal plate, bolt and pins.

One leg is now shorter than the other, meaning she walks with a slight limp and has to rely on a walking stick. Discomfort is now a constant in her life.

Mrs Ratcliffe, aged 66, a retired cleaner and mother-of-four, now wants other people to be aware of how it changed her life.

“My husband has to cook, he has to clean, he does everything,” she said. “I’m not active any more, I get tired a lot more easily. I don’t feel I have the quality of life I used to have.

“I was such an active person before this happened. It’s certainly changed my life.”

The incident happened on March 26 last year after she was leaving a Primrose Hospice charity shop in Bromsgrove High Street.

“I left the shop and the A-board was directly outside, but I didn’t see it,” she said.

“All I recall is hitting it and I flew through the air and hit the ground.

“I remember this policeman looking down at me to keep me awake while the ambulance came.

“I was squinting up and him and he kept me talking. I was in hospital for a week.

“When I got home my leg was three times the normal size. I needed crutches at first and couldn’t go out for weeks.”

She has now referred the matter to solicitors so they can investigate the possibility of legal action.

Worcestershire County Council is responsible for highways and as recently as 2007 had a crack-down on A-boards, asking shops to remove them.

But in recent years it has relaxed the policy, on the basis that the frames might boost businesses suffering from the economy.

The county council said it could not comment on Mrs Ratcliffe’s accident.

Councillor John Smith, cabinet member for highways and transportation, said: “We would remind business owners that A-boards should be kept as close to their shop frontage as possible and they should not cause an obstruction to people, particularly those who are disabled or less able, especially in narrower sections of pavement.”

Primrose Hospice told your Worcester News it did not wish to comment on the incident.

Comments(26)

iamthebinman says...
7:58am Fri 8 Mar 13

Had a feeling compensation was at the bottom of this! A- Boards are about three foot tall, often brightly coloured and stationary! Children and dogs are far more likely to trip someone up so do we ban them from town centres? Have some accountability!

pronstar says...
9:24am Fri 8 Mar 13

Old people never look where they're going and often will just stop or flail their arms around without any consideration for other pavement users.

lizzyloolah says...
9:33am Fri 8 Mar 13

If this lady wins her case does it mean that council tax will go up again?

Fishy says...
9:42am Fri 8 Mar 13

It's sad for this lady and I wish her all the best but at the end of the day it sounds like she wasn't looking where she was going.

Hwicce says...
10:15am Fri 8 Mar 13

So an illegal sign causes an accident. I think she has a strong case.

Other A sign owners beware....

Landy44 says...
10:30am Fri 8 Mar 13

With respect, I'm sorry for this ladys predicament, however this smacks of one of the things really wrong in the UK today: compensation culture.

Whatever happened to personal responsibility? She left the shop, she didn't see it (for whatever reason), walked into it and was injured as a result.

I'm sorry, but this is, like many others, a case of "walking without due care and attention"!

PLEASE!

Gillian1961 says...
11:21am Fri 8 Mar 13

I look after a old lady who is 90 this year she had a fall in her house, the phone went when she go up to answer it she tripped over the rug and landed against the gas fire she had the same injurys she is not suing the rug company, as for her leg being shorter she as had her shoe built up.

lianeanddave says...
12:25pm Fri 8 Mar 13

To be perfectly honest with the amount of shops going, there wont be any a boards around soon! So that will give everyone something else to moan about. People need to stop blaming other people/something else for their own actions.. it was an accident, no need for compensation.. look where you are going its simple really people are aware they are there, personally i would like to know how turning your back makes you fall over a sign and fly through the air, did she run at it? Also dont understand why this would make her get tired more easily..

lianeanddave says...
12:26pm Fri 8 Mar 13

oh and there are plenty of activities for people with disabilities so she could go back to being active?? perhaps then she wouldnt get tired so easily doing nothing as her husband does everything!

CMarsh says...
1:00pm Fri 8 Mar 13

How the hell did she not see it? If she gets compensation from this she wants to use it for an eye test and a pair of glasses!!

Nikrem says...
1:02pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Spatial Awareness,

An attempted walk around Tesco will show you how many people lack it

MM23 says...
1:14pm Fri 8 Mar 13

I am sorry if I don't sound sympathetic but what about this person's personal responsibility for their own spatial awareness?

Too many people go barging out of shop doorways, without checking the street for passing pedestrians and obstacles that may have only appeared whilst they were inside the shop!

I see it all the time.

I have spent years teaching my children that they are accountable for their own personal safety! To look, listen and act accordingly.

Blind/sight limited people use a stick to detect obstacles ... the rest of us use our peepers!!!!

It is not right that people are always after compensation, and/or trying to find someone else to blame!

At the end of the day the lady should just 'write this off' as an unfortunate accident.

My own elderly mother fell and badly broke her wrist whilst walking 3 of her grandchildren home from school, and consequently has much restricted use of her hand. It was a bright September day, and she just tripped as she misjudged the pavement kerb ... should she have tried to claim compensation from the Council ... no - because it was an accident, and accidents happen. That's life ...

timevans says...
1:30pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Perhaps we should put out signs to warn pedestrians of signs!

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
3:24pm Fri 8 Mar 13

I'm sure Sue, Grabbett & Runne will attempt to get her compo - in this case they will have to presumably sue Primrose Hospice - a charity!! But what the heck, it wasn't her fault she was not looking where she was going! As others have already stated - she should learn to take responsibility for her own actions!

Jabbadad says...
7:23pm Fri 8 Mar 13

If as described by Gillian someone has a fall in their own home they are responsible. However under the new care packages if Gillian had fallen when in the home of the lady she cares for then the home owner is responsible. And should have public liability insurance cover.
Sadly these situations are making so many care in the home schemes almost unworkable. As to the pavement obstruction those who put the sign there and also if without permission are responsible. And it is always more difficult to overcome disabilities when you are older than some of you who obviously aren't old can imagine.
But what a shame that the idiot Pronstar is yet again allowed to roll out the anti-old rubbish in these columns?

1Parent2 says...
7:49pm Fri 8 Mar 13

Er it's not the A Board she should be pointing the finger at. She should asking questions as to why a low impact fracture has left her with one painful leg shorter than the other after a visit to the WRH. There's either more to the story here or she needs a better solicitor!

imustbeoldiwearacap says...
8:19pm Fri 8 Mar 13

If I left my bike secured to one of the "bike posts" on the high street, and someone collided with it - would I be responsible? There are many "obstacles" on the high street - litter bins, benches, trees, telephone boxes, posts etc., etc. Not to mention people, push-chairs, mobility scooters that actually move! Let's just ban everything that can get in the way!

joners says...
6:50am Sat 9 Mar 13

If this lady gets compensation from a charity shop then shame on her and her solicitor, A board's are not the smallest I suggest specsavers next time you fancy a trip !

Jabbadad says...
9:57am Sat 9 Mar 13

Even a Charity shop will have liability insurance, and being a Charity shop and I support all of them in every way I can does not excuse them for being irresponsible or just momentarily careless.

RobertR says...
7:40pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Specsavers perhaps?. A Darwin award?.

Brummagem Bertie says...
7:50pm Sat 9 Mar 13

Hwicce and Jabbadad, absolutely nothing in the article to say that the charity shop have an illegal board or have been irresponsible or careless.

The article states that the lady fell when she came out of the charity shop. That must mean that she was able to safely navigate past the board on her way in, unless it was put out whilst she was in the shop.

A quick look on Google Streetview shows the pavement outside the shop to be very wide. There are telephone boxes, a postbox, cycle posts, a utility cabinet, lamp post, litterbin and street signs. There is still plenty of room for pedestrians to walk by. The doorway is wide and the shop windows large.

There seems to be little reason for the lady not to see the board, or for it to be considered an obstruction of the highway.

Hwicce says...
9:08am Sun 10 Mar 13

Brummagem Bertie wrote:
Hwicce and Jabbadad, absolutely nothing in the article to say that the charity shop have an illegal board or have been irresponsible or careless.

The article states that the lady fell when she came out of the charity shop. That must mean that she was able to safely navigate past the board on her way in, unless it was put out whilst she was in the shop.

A quick look on Google Streetview shows the pavement outside the shop to be very wide. There are telephone boxes, a postbox, cycle posts, a utility cabinet, lamp post, litterbin and street signs. There is still plenty of room for pedestrians to walk by. The doorway is wide and the shop windows large.

There seems to be little reason for the lady not to see the board, or for it to be considered an obstruction of the highway.
All a boards are illegal unless they have permission from the Council, which the Council does not give.

Yes maybe she should have looked where she was going but that doesn't change the status of the illegal a board.

Under law the shops illegal act caused injury. I don't know if she will get compensation or not but she has a case. The fact that Primrose won't comment gives the impression their lawyers may think so as well.

198kHz says...
12:32pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Brummagem Bertie wrote:
Hwicce and Jabbadad, absolutely nothing in the article to say that the charity shop have an illegal board or have been irresponsible or careless.

The article states that the lady fell when she came out of the charity shop. That must mean that she was able to safely navigate past the board on her way in, unless it was put out whilst she was in the shop.

A quick look on Google Streetview shows the pavement outside the shop to be very wide. There are telephone boxes, a postbox, cycle posts, a utility cabinet, lamp post, litterbin and street signs. There is still plenty of room for pedestrians to walk by. The doorway is wide and the shop windows large.

There seems to be little reason for the lady not to see the board, or for it to be considered an obstruction of the highway.
Brummagem Bertie wrote:

A quick look on Google Streetview shows the pavement outside the shop to be very wide. There are telephone boxes, a postbox, cycle posts, a utility cabinet, lamp post, litterbin and street signs. There is still plenty of room for pedestrians to walk by.

Indeed so:

http://goo.gl/maps/r
8ReJ

Brummagem Bertie says...
3:15pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Hwicce wrote:
Brummagem Bertie wrote:
Hwicce and Jabbadad, absolutely nothing in the article to say that the charity shop have an illegal board or have been irresponsible or careless.

The article states that the lady fell when she came out of the charity shop. That must mean that she was able to safely navigate past the board on her way in, unless it was put out whilst she was in the shop.

A quick look on Google Streetview shows the pavement outside the shop to be very wide. There are telephone boxes, a postbox, cycle posts, a utility cabinet, lamp post, litterbin and street signs. There is still plenty of room for pedestrians to walk by. The doorway is wide and the shop windows large.

There seems to be little reason for the lady not to see the board, or for it to be considered an obstruction of the highway.
All a boards are illegal unless they have permission from the Council, which the Council does not give.

Yes maybe she should have looked where she was going but that doesn't change the status of the illegal a board.

Under law the shops illegal act caused injury. I don't know if she will get compensation or not but she has a case. The fact that Primrose won't comment gives the impression their lawyers may think so as well.
Are you sure that the board is illegal and that the Council don't give permission for them?

Extract from SPG 2 on Bromsgrove DC website, http://www.bromsgrov
e.gov.uk/cms/pdf/SPG
%202%20-Shop-fronts%
20and%20advertisemen
ts.pdf

"9.0 The Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements)
Regulations 1992 under which applications for advertisement
consent are determined require that each application must be
considered only in terms of ‘amenity’ and ‘public safety’. It is not
therefore, appropriate to have rigid advertisement policies since each
application has to be considered on its individual merits in respect of
these two issues. ...

9.1 The District Council will take into account national guidance set
out in PPG19 ‘Outdoor Advertisement Control’ published in 1992. ...

9.2 In urban areas, the scale and character of existing buildings, the
predominant land-use in the locality, the presence of listed buildings
and/or conservation areas and any proposals for land-use change in
the area are all relevant considerations. Advertisements on
business premises are in principle acceptable provided that they do
not detract from the appearance of the premises themselves or from
the immediate environment. ...

9.3 ... Any free standing signs for
business premises should be incorporated into the landscaping
scheme and should preferably be located near the main site
entrance. Not more than one low-level sign of maximum height 1.2
metres will be permitted at each road frontage with a maximum of
two on each site."

Seems to suggest that blanket bans are not permitted and that planning permission for 1 sign will normally be given.

Even if it were illegal that would not, of itself, automatically allow for a claim in tort. Even if a claim could be made, on the basis that the sign was illegal, my understanding is that the normal rules of tort apply. That is, the claimant still has to prove that a duty of care was owed, there was a breach of that duty, that the breach caused harm, and that the harm was reasonably foreseeable.

I would think that the shop would have a very good claim of contributory negligence, especially if the lady walked past the sign on the way in.

Jabbadad says...
5:41pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Despite your research I would remind you all that the Disability Equality Act October 2010 is supremely powerful and overrules any local and many more bylaws and laws.
So it might be that an injury to an elderly disabled person with a disability occurs due to what might be seen as negligence or lack of Duty of Care. Very difficult scenario?

Jabbadad says...
5:42pm Tue 12 Mar 13

Despite your research I would remind you all that the Disability Equality Act October 2010 is supremely powerful and overrules any local and many more bylaws and laws.
So it might be that an injury to an elderly disabled person with a disability occurs due to what might be seen as negligence or lack of Duty of Care. Very difficult scenario?

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree