Injured in Tesco's - Advice Please

Firefox1975

geri1965 wrote: »

There is no way in the world Tesco would even think of trying to defend a claim from a 90 year old woman who was injured by a faulty wheelchair!

That all kinda depends on what recompense the afflicted is asking for though deosn't it?

if it is just a general apology then i am sure Tesco's will comply

if it is £300 million pounds then they might not be able to get that much money out of petty cash.

my suggestion to Tesco if they are reading this is to give her a personal (capped at a reasonable level for a 90 year old) 50% discount card for a year or 2. That way they can prove to her they have also investigated (And hopefully fixed!) the faulty wheelchair thing so it doesn't happen to ANYONE ELSE ASWELL!

love_my_2_boys

pinkshoes wrote: »

Ultimately it was an accident.

Why don't you just wait to see how your nan heals first?

You'd already known the chair was broken, so did you not investigate why? Surely it would have been easy to spot the broken bits, because she did have to sit holding her feet up!

I'm sorry but I have to agree with this, you wife was made aware that the chair was broken but still allowed your Nan to get in it.

Surely some of the responsibility of what happened lies at your wifes door?

Compensation of a monetary kind isn't going to change what happened.
Hopefully all party's involved will have learned a lesson and it won't happen again

sarahg1969

love_my_2_boys wrote: »

Surely some of the responsibility of what happened lies at your wifes door?

However, no responsibility lies with the Nan. She is an entirely innocent party.

Firefox1975

sarahg1969 wrote: »

However, no responsibility lies with the Nan. She is an entirely innocent party.

Not quite in the eyes of the law.

granted she is 90 years old, so effectively she was in the custody/responsibility of a legal guardian, who CHOSE to make a decision on her behalf.

i'm not saying it is fair that it happened - but a concious decision was made by the "party" to use a broken appliance.

love_my_2_boys

sarahg1969 wrote: »

However, no responsibility lies with the Nan. She is an entirely innocent party.

How do you come to that conclusion?

I'm afraid she wouldn't be classed as an entirely innocent party, she also knew the chair was faulty...

OP, hope your Nan gets better soon. She must have got a nasty shock

xx

Tozer

love_my_2_boys wrote: »

How do you come to that conclusion?

I'm afraid she wouldn't be classed as an entirely innocent party, she also knew the chair was faulty...

OP, hope your Nan gets better soon. She must have got a nasty shock

xx

Tesco breached their duty of care. End of. I really cannot see how there can be any contributory negligence here.

Firefox1975

Tozer wrote: »

Tesco breached their duty of care. End of. I really cannot see how there can be any contributory negligence here.

Er no they didn't

they provided a chair

it was pointed out to them said chair was faulty

they agreed

And then said they would attempt to locate another chair but that the client was welcome to use the original chair in the meantime IF THEY WANTED TO AND KNOWING IT WAS FAULTY.

a concious risk/decision was made by the client.

love_my_2_boys

Tozer wrote: »

Tesco breached their duty of care. End of. I really cannot see how there can be any contributory negligence here.

If it went to court, do you not think they would be asked if they wer aware of the condition of the chair? of course they would!
I'm not saying it wasn't terrible what happened and that Tesco don't hold some responsibility, but they made an informed choice to still use the chair in full knowledge that it was not completely fit for purpose.

taxi97w

Using a comparison-

Something has been spilt on the supermarket floor, been mopped up, and then the yellow 'bollard' warning you of a slippery floor is put down. Now it's up to you how careful you tread. If anything happens to you, the onus is on you as you have been warned.
The same in your case Tony, the shop assistant warned you, and you proceeded to go there anyway........

sarahg1969

Firefox1975 wrote: »

Not quite in the eyes of the law.

granted she is 90 years old, so effectively she was in the custody/responsibility of a legal guardian, who CHOSE to make a decision on her behalf.

i'm not saying it is fair that it happened - but a concious decision was made by the "party" to use a broken appliance.

So, by that reasoning, if a parent makes a bad decision that injures their child, the child is not entitled to recover damages? For example, in the case of a road traffic accident?