Injured in Tesco's

Tozer

d.edna wrote: »

Or it could be the OPs fault they stacked it back on the shelf incorrectly and it fell.

and why are insurance backed solicitors crap? I have used them before with a quite complexed case and they were great, seems like Tozer wants him to use an ambulance chasing firm. Tozer no noticable bang was heard (as it does when you hit a shelf unit) and explain how it could move horizontially if nothing hit the shelf, if it was hit from the other side other vases would have fell

Tesco cannot be reasonabily asked to make sure if a customer puts something back a member of staff is there checking it.

Couple of things - I couldn't give a stuff who the OP uses as a firm.

In my experience, insurance panel solicitors are run on extremely tight fees and so will be tempted to drop cases as soon as they can rather than running with them at very low rates. They have much lower rates than usual claimant firms who work on a contingency based system and rely on volume and quick settlements. More often than not they are staffed by claims handlers.

There is a principle at law res ipsa loquitur which means that the facts speak for themselves (i.e. vases don't just fall to the floor and injure someone without some negligent act). This means that the burden of proof is reversed so that Tesco would have to prove that the OP knocked the fixture themselves. Even then, the OP could easily argue that a) the vase should not have been there; b) the fixture should have taken more than a knock (e.g. if a small child ran into it); c) the vase was inappropriately stocked on the shelf.

Tozer

d.edna wrote: »

You said insurance backed solicitors are awful, I just mearly posted what it would look like if everyone used Ambulance chasers. The legal perspective you gave is flawed due to the many variables the OP gave.

It wasn't personal I just used your post to post the image

on what basis is the legal perspective flawed? I have not said that the claim would succeed, I have said what the basis of the claim would be. Thought this would have been pretty obvious! :rotfl:

d.edna

Tozer wrote: »

on what basis is the legal perspective flawed? I have not said that the claim would succeed, I have said what the basis of the claim would be. Thought this would have been pretty obvious! :rotfl:

A claim that is flawed

Tozer

d.edna wrote: »

A claim that is flawed

Cosmic. Good job you are not running Tesco's defence! :rotfl:

Personally if I was running the defence, I would plead novus actus interveniens (i.e. that there was an intervening act which broke the chain of causation leading to the losses).

But then we don't know the evidence do we? All we have is the OP's account on which a claim would be based.

d.edna

Tozer wrote: »

Personally if I was running the defence, I would plead novus actus interveniens (i.e. that there was an intervening act which broke the chain of causation leading to the losses).

But then we don't know the evidence do we? All we have is the OP's account on which a claim would be based.

A very biased one

I agree with you on this post

omen666

d.edna wrote: »

Every branch I have worked in has had the heavy goods fairly low down

That's why I mentioned, thought it was pretty standard. HS for people placing the items on the shelf and also for donks that bumble into a shelf and cause one to fall off, say on their toe for example

Tozer

d.edna wrote: »

A very biased one

I agree with you on this post

Not biased at all. I've given the basis of the legal claim. You were the one that lowered the level of debate...

hollydays

Pink_fluff wrote: »

Very harsh.Not called for.

Edit-Pinkfluffs offensive post has been reported and removed.

d.edna

Tozer wrote: »

Not biased at all. I've given the basis of the legal claim. You were the one that lowered the level of debate...

Urm excuse me?

The "A very biased one" was in reference to your last sentence.

Tozer

d.edna wrote: »

Urm excuse me?

The "A very biased one" was in reference to your last sentence.

In fairness the OP is obviously going to be biased.

And so would the claim. It is for Tesco to raise its defences not the Claimant to suggest them.