Luggage Fell on Head - Compensation Offered

Tozer

kathryn2 wrote: »

You have no idea how heavy the bag was, or how far it actually fell, how it struck the person's head (edge or side on) - anything really.

It's pretty common knowledge that head injuries can be serious - in this case not 'deadly', but they certainly can be! I would rather not run the risk of a 5kg weight being dropped on my head, thanks, not even for the possibility of getting a free flight.

It's also common sense that if symptoms following an accident persist for an unusually long time the person should go back to the doctor to be checked again - there may be problems that were not obvious on an initial examination.

Accidents do indeed happen. But sometimes they are caused by negligence, and in that case Virgin are liable for compensation. None of us can judge either the medical health of the OP's sister or the liability of Virgin over the internet, though.

Agree with this totally.

Frankly if the symptoms are as serious as the OP suggests then a head Xray is probably sensible to rule out a fractured skull.

I think medical advice is probably more a priority than legal advice!

sturll

Look im sorry ok. I just cant take this seriously, i was brought up in a society whereby accidents happen. Given the bag will have been 5kg and cant have fallen farther than a foot i think we need to be realistic here.

I suspect (but may be wrong) that the op is milking this in hope of gaining a get rich quick off the back of VS. The poster who said claim for earnings for the rest of your life is clearly not all there. Others must be just having a laugh.

You got offered a free flight and £30 which is no doubt train fare to the airport. Get over it. Really, you will not get any more and dont really deserve to imo. It was an accident, yesterday i elbowed someone in the head at Tesco by accident, i said sorry he said fine - the end. Should he sue me? Give up.

As for whiplash dont make me laugh - here is the definition: Whiplash occurs when the soft tissue in the spine is stretched and strained after the body is thrown in a sudden, forceful jerk. The injury most commonly occurs in car crashes involving sudden deceleration, but the injury can also occur in other strenuous physical activities such as diving.
A bag to the head does not cause this.

Some people need to get a grip.

Tozer

sturll wrote: »

Look im sorry ok. I just cant take this seriously, i was brought up in a society whereby accidents happen. Given the bag will have been 5kg and cant have fallen farther than a foot i think we need to be realistic here.

I suspect (but may be wrong) that the op is milking this in hope of gaining a get rich quick off the back of VS. The poster who said claim for earnings for the rest of your life is clearly not all there. Others must be just having a laugh.

You got offered a free flight and £30 which is no doubt train fare to the airport. Get over it. Really, you will not get any more and dont really deserve to imo. It was an accident, yesterday i elbowed someone in the head at Tesco by accident, i said sorry he said fine - the end. Should he sue me? Give up.

As for whiplash dont make me laugh - here is the definition: Whiplash occurs when the soft tissue in the spine is stretched and strained after the body is thrown in a sudden, forceful jerk. The injury most commonly occurs in car crashes involving sudden deceleration, but the injury can also occur in other strenuous physical activities such as diving.
A bag to the head does not cause this.

Some people need to get a grip.

Sturll - that may be your personal opinion and you have made your point but frankly your legal advice was outrageously poor.

If the OP has suffered and injury and IF the airline was at fault in some way (failure to ensure overheads were packed correctly, failure to maintain a safe environment, etc.) then a claim can be made.

But the priority must be to have the symptoms professionally checked out.

Incapuppy

sturll wrote: »

Some people need to get a grip.

We don't know the full facts of this story but I have to wonder if you would still be taking such an attitude if a (say - 5kg?) laptop case fell from a few feet overhead and hit your (say 3 year old?) child on the head

sturll

Tozer wrote: »

Sturll - that may be your personal opinion and you have made your point but frankly your legal advice was outrageously poor.

If the OP has suffered and injury and IF the airline was at fault in some way (failure to ensure overheads were packed correctly, failure to maintain a safe environment, etc.) then a claim can be made.

But the priority must be to have the symptoms professionally checked out.

I didnt give legal advice, i dont work in the area of Tort. I gave my opinion based and the law as it is now.
But find the faults in what i wrote.

You are assuming there was a failure to ensure overheads packed correctly etc... This cannot be proved. Failure to maintain a safe invironment again the claimant got to her destination and out of perhaps 300 people on board she was the only one with a problem (assuming) how can VS possibly be liable for failing to provide a safe environment, you are making a whle lot of assumptions based on the way you assume things happen.
Look, ill give you an example, can you remember the Herald of Free Enterprise? The door was left open and sadly over 190 people lost their lives. No one ever got convicted. This case illustrates the sheer difficulty in finding a company cuplable for the actions of their employees.

sturll

Incapuppy wrote: »

We don't know the full facts of this story but I have to wonder if you would still be taking such an attitude if a (say - 5kg?) laptop case fell from a few feet overhead and hit your (say 3 year old?) child on the head

Then it would have fallen further, we have already discussed taking the victim as you find them. (my daughter is actually 3)

Perhaps it could have been caught?

Again assumptions.

Steve_xx

Tozer wrote: »

What would usually happen is that a Court may find that there had been contributory negligence if it not entirely down to the fault of the airline.

I wouldn't say so in this case. The comparison you make compares the situation as was with Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958). The person on the aeroplane who has been injured did not contribute to the negligence in any way. The person who put the laptop in the precarious position and the stewardess are or may be jointly liable.

Tozer

Steve_xx wrote: »

I wouldn't say so in this case. The comparison you make compares the situation as was with Sayers v Harlow Urban District Council (1958). The person on the aeroplane who has been injured did not contribute to the negligence in any way. The person who put the laptop in the precarious position and the stewardess are or may be jointly liable.

They are not jointly liable although, potentially, they have both contributed to the accident.

Tozer

sturll wrote: »

I didnt give legal advice, i dont work in the area of Tort. I gave my opinion based and the law as it is now.
But find the faults in what i wrote.

You are assuming there was a failure to ensure overheads packed correctly etc... This cannot be proved. Failure to maintain a safe invironment again the claimant got to her destination and out of perhaps 300 people on board she was the only one with a problem (assuming) how can VS possibly be liable for failing to provide a safe environment, you are making a whle lot of assumptions based on the way you assume things happen.
Look, ill give you an example, can you remember the Herald of Free Enterprise? The door was left open and sadly over 190 people lost their lives. No one ever got convicted. This case illustrates the sheer difficulty in finding a company cuplable for the actions of their employees.

See my post at the bottom of page 2 for your "faults".

As for the Herald of Free Enterprise, you are talking about the criminal manslaughter charges. True, nobody was convicted.

But the injuries and deaths caused were compensated. Please tell me you know the difference between corporate manslaughter culpability and vicarious liability for tortious acts.

kathryn2

sturll wrote: »

As for whiplash dont make me laugh - here is the definition: Whiplash occurs when the soft tissue in the spine is stretched and strained after the body is thrown in a sudden, forceful jerk. The injury most commonly occurs in car crashes involving sudden deceleration, but the injury can also occur in other strenuous physical activities such as diving.
A bag to the head does not cause this.

Some people need to get a grip.

A bag falling on someone's head couldn't cause a sudden, forceful jerk?

Of course it could! The impact could easily cause the head to jerk forward forcefully - the person would have been completely unprepared and not braced. We don't know whether it was a glancing blow or it fell directly on to the person's head, either, or what was actually in it. A lot depends on the angle it struck the head at - the human neck is designed to move in some ways and not in others.

You keep saying that it didn't fall very far, but really you have no idea how far it did fall - you don't kow how tall the person was or how they were sitting, of if they were leaning down at the time. 5k is really quite heavy.

The OP's sister is obviously suffereing quite serious symptoms, so I don't know why you keep saying that the damage can't possibly have happened. Whether Virgin are actually legally liable or not is another matter.

To suggest that someone who came here to ask for advice is 'milking it' is just rude.