- Mobile site
- E-Newsletters
-
- News feed
- Find us on Facebook
Worcester News
Like us on Facebook
Worcester News Sport
Like us on Facebook
Worcester woman left disabled by fall over A-board (From Worcester News)
Get involved! Send your photos, video, news & views by texting WN NEWS to 80360 or e-mail us
Pensioner's tangle with Bromsgrove street advert leaves permanent discomfort
7:30am Friday 8th March 2013 in News By Tom Edwards
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
pronstar
says...
9:24am Fri 8 Mar 13
lizzyloolah
says...
9:33am Fri 8 Mar 13
Fishy
says...
9:42am Fri 8 Mar 13
Hwicce
says...
10:15am Fri 8 Mar 13
Other A sign owners beware....
Landy44
says...
10:30am Fri 8 Mar 13
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
lianeanddave
says...
12:25pm Fri 8 Mar 13
lianeanddave
says...
12:26pm Fri 8 Mar 13
CMarsh
says...
1:00pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Nikrem
says...
1:02pm Fri 8 Mar 13
An attempted walk around Tesco will show you how many people lack it
MM23
says...
1:14pm Fri 8 Mar 13
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
imustbeoldiwearacap
says...
3:24pm Fri 8 Mar 13
Jabbadad
says...
7:23pm Fri 8 Mar 13
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
imustbeoldiwearacap
says...
8:19pm Fri 8 Mar 13
joners
says...
6:50am Sat 9 Mar 13
Jabbadad
says...
9:57am Sat 9 Mar 13
RobertR
says...
7:40pm Sat 9 Mar 13
Brummagem Bertie
says...
7:50pm Sat 9 Mar 13
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:All a boards are illegal unless they have permission from the Council, which the Council does not give.
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.
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: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.
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:Are you sure that the board is illegal and that the Council don't give permission for them?
Brummagem Bertie wrote:All a boards are illegal unless they have permission from the Council, which the Council does not give.
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.
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.
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
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
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?
Comment now! Register or sign in below.
Log in with us
Fields marked with * are mandatory.
Or
Log in with