Postman tried to sue woman who helped when he slipped in snow

Published: 8:00AM GMT twenty-seven February 2010

Beverley Jones, from Stockton, was so endangered about the Royal mail worker"s head damage that she dialled 999 and carried out initial assist whilst they waited for an ambulance to arrive.

Miss Jones, 47, afterwards contacted the Post Office to let them know about their employee"s tumble and after rang the University Hospital of North Tees to check on his condition.

Woman barrister tackles car burglar so she can pick up young kids from hothouse Millionaire in jeopardy to drown me, lady tells justice Italy earthquake: escape of pique in temporary camps Businesswoman faces charge after crashing whilst articulate on hands-free pack Woman gets �30,000 payout from M&S after slipping on grapes

The postman was so beholden for her assistance that, she says, he called at her home in Rothbury Avenue, Roseworth, 3 days after with a garland of flowers.

But dual months later, Miss Jones was repelled to embrace a minute informing her that he was receiving authorised movement opposite her for unwell to transparent the ice and sleet from her path.

Miss Jones, who is incompetent to work due to sickness, insists she regularly keeps her trail transparent in bad weather, but hadn"t nonetheless got out of bed as it was usually 8am on a Saturday.

She said: "I could assimilate it if he"d been bitten by my dog or if he"d tripped on an disproportionate paving slab.

"But this was an movement of God. When he forsaken the flowering plants off for me, he even pronounced that he wasn"t holding it opposite me.

"It seems similar to he done a censure to his work, not got anywhere with them, so he"s only flitting the censure on to me."

The postman is being represented by Simpson Millar solicitors in Leeds.

The organisation sent a minute to Miss Jones, explaining: "The reason given we are alleging error is given you unsuccessful to safeguard that the pathway was clear, so as not to poise a foreseeable risk of damage to the petitioner in suitability with the Occupiers" Liability"s Act.

"Pursuant to the Occupiers Liability Act you have a avocation of caring as occupier to yield a pretty protected thoroughfare to official visitors of your property."

According to the company, he suffered a "severe laceration" to the head, as well as neck and jaw line pain.

It is accepted that the postman, on guidance that Beverley would be without delay concerned in any authorised movement and the issue would not be rubbed by insurers, has given motionless to dump the claim.

A Royal Mail orator said: "Royal Mail has no believe of any authorised movement connected with this incident."