Injured in Tesco's - Advice Please

robpw2

love_my_2_boys wrote: »

???????????
sorry, don't get it. So what's your point?

my point is that firefox asked me if i would find the mechanic guilty for not checking the breaks ..
i responded it depends on if i was to defend the person or to prosecute the person ..

love_my_2_boys

robpw2 wrote: »

my point is that firefox asked me if i would find the mechanic guilty for not checking the breaks ..
i responded it depends on if i was to defend the person or to prosecute the person ..

what if you wer the Judge?

sarahg1969

love_my_2_boys wrote: »

That's not really comparible.
She's 90 and a lot of people that age are perfectly capable of decision making, it doesn't mean she is someone elses responsibility mearly because she's old

You will see that my reply was in response to the suggestion that she had a legal guardian. So in that scenario, it is identical to the case of parent and child.

Firefox1975

robpw2 wrote: »

my point is that firefox asked me if i would find the mechanic guilty for not checking the breaks ..
i responded it depends on if i was to defend the person or to prosecute the person ..

Well you would probably be prosecuting or defending the wrong person then. (you can have this as a homework assignment!:think:)

Anyway - back to Tesco's......

Did they make any/have they made any offer of compensation yet anyway?

robpw2

then it would depend on the circumstances of the case - why was it that this person failed to check ..

love_my_2_boys

sarahg1969 wrote: »

You will see that my reply was in response to the suggestion that she had a legal guardian. So in that scenario, it is identical to the case of parent and child.

and I was merely entertaining the fact that maybe she is capable of deciding for herself if she sat in the chair or not

love_my_2_boys

robpw2 wrote: »

then it would depend on the circumstances of the case - why was it that this person failed to check ..

hasn't this digressed somewhat from the initial point of the thread??

geri1965_2

Firefox1975 wrote: »

I will let everyone google "attempted Manslaughter" because it is ambiguous anyway.

I presume you know what vehicular assisted murder is though? i will explain it to you if you don't , it means "Death with the help of a vehicle"

You can put the rest together yourself.

If you bring me down to your level - I do enjoy a good scrap!

You didn't say vehicular assisted murder - you said vehicular assisted attempted manslaughter.

I would be interested to know if anyone has ever been convicted of that particular offence.

Tozer

love_my_2_boys wrote: »

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.

No it wouldn't go to Court.

Tesco's duty is to provide a reasonably safe environment. They didn't. They are liable. If they could should that it was unreasonable for someone, such as the injured party, to sit in the chair, there may be some con neg.

Open and shut case though.

Firefox1975

geri1965 wrote: »

You didn't say vehicular assisted murder - you said vehicular assisted attempted manslaughter.

I would be interested to know if anyone has ever been convicted of that particular offence.

Oh for petty's sake!

if you accept that attempted Manslaughter exists

And also that Vehicular assisted murder exists then just substitute one into the other.

:T well done

now everyone - please get back on the bus to Tesco's................... (As long as that mechanic hasn;t been fiddling with the brakes we should be ok..);)