Injured in Tesco's - Advice Please

1thorus

Hope your nan gets better soon I would defo go for some compo as it may have been an accident were talking stuck indoors now for maybe weeks having to sit watching tv all day so i think enough to cover the new tv and some dvds would not be unreasonable as she did not ask to be hurt

Tozer

1thorus wrote: »

Hope your nan gets better soon I would defo go for some compo as it may have been an accident were talking stuck indoors now for maybe weeks having to sit watching tv all day so i think enough to cover the new tv and some dvds would not be unreasonable as she did not ask to be hurt

It is posts like this that make the "Ambulance Chaser Haters" get riled.

Compensation is not designed to cover a new TV and DVDs but the pain and suffering and losses suffered by the claimant.

pinkshoes

hundredk wrote: »

Not obsessed, concious of entitlements (oops another buzz word). Just in case you didn't realise, this is a money saving site.:rolleyes:

"Moneysaving" and "compensation" are two very different things.

These "entitlements" are due to our big brother cotton wool way of life, where people no longer take responsibility for their own actions.

Obviously if people have genuine out of pocket expenses, then asking for these to be reimbursed is moneysaving.

I had a car crash, and the guilty party paid for repair to my car, my physiotherapy to sort out my hip injury, and the time I had to take off work which I didn't get paid for. I don't see why I should people should claim for anything other than out of pocket expenses.

Money will not fix people. I'm sure some flowers will be adequate in this situation, as both the OP and the supermarket were equally responsible, given they'd already noted the chair was broken.

Personally, I would have checked WHY the chair was broken, and thus spotted the sharp bit, but that's just me.

Tozer

pinkshoes wrote: »

I don't see why I should people should claim for anything other than out of pocket expenses.

Money will not fix people. I'm sure some flowers will be adequate in this situation, as both the OP and the supermarket were equally responsible, given they'd already noted the chair was broken.
.

It is not equal responsibility in law though. Tesco owed a duty of care to visitors. That was breached. Flowers will NOT be adequate in this case. The lady in question experienced a significant injury.

If Tesco had spontaneously sent flowers then that would have appeared a genuine measure. They didn't and any attempt to do so now would, in my view, look like they are covering their corporate posterior.

hundredk

pinkshoes wrote: »

"Moneysaving" and "compensation" are two very different things.

Fine to hold that opinion and a lot do feel that way for some reason, yet here they are on the MSE site which is about claiming and indeed maximising what you're legitimately entitled to.

MSE links not only advise on how to reclaim excess bank changes but also how reclaiming bank charges can involve "compensation for material distress and inconvenience". Many MSE tips involve exhuasting all legitimate means to reclaim every penny that is due with phrases such as "use this as a stick to hit an unco-operative company straight away". Should we accept that Tesco are really a nice company and nice companies sort serious injuries with a bunch of flowers?

A personal injury as described by OP very likely entitles the injured party to compensation and the same principles apply as with other MSE tips. For example, you can see here that claiming compensation for time, distress and inconveience also applies to a range of other MSE areas too.

pinkshoes wrote: »

These "entitlements" are due to our big brother cotton wool way of life, where people no longer take responsibility for their own actions.

Yes they are so why not accept that's the way it is and that this site endeavours to maximise these entitlements. Your moral viewpoint may prevent you from doing that but you still choose to visit a site that seeks out loopholes and fighting back against large companies.

pinkshoes wrote: »

Obviously if people have genuine out of pocket expenses, then asking for these to be reimbursed is moneysaving.

I had a car crash, and the guilty party paid for repair to my car, my physiotherapy to sort out my hip injury, and the time I had to take off work which I didn't get paid for. I don't see why I should people should claim for anything other than out of pocket expenses.

So why not just accept payment for repair to the car? You accepted payment to cover physio which presumably you had because of pain and suffering?

What if your hip never healed which in turn meant you could not return to work or had to take another lower paid job or require special vehicles to aid mobility etc. You would not have a receipt for any losses such as these so in a situation such as this would you still feel a bunch of flowers would cover it?

pinkshoes wrote: »

Personally, I would have checked WHY the chair was broken, and thus spotted the sharp bit, but that's just me.

Maybe the answer is that employees couldn't be bothered to carry out mundane checks and even when the did, they do nothing about it because the biggest consequence is a clickey ticking off from line manager who has an easy fix of sorting with a bunch of written off flowers.

Takoda

Yes I agree this has been seen elsewhere when Tesco employees just can't be bothered - to sort out stock rotation properly, to check equipment or in another case to check whether a transaction had fully gone through on a self service till.

If the management don't care and no one checks up on them then they will cut corners it seems.

mountainofdebt

If your wife KNEW the wheelchair was broken why did she get your Nan to use it? Surely by agreeing to use a broken wheelchair there was some sort of acceptance of any danager that, by using it, may arise.

sarahg1969

mountainofdebt wrote: »

If your wife KNEW the wheelchair was broken why did she get your Nan to use it? Surely by agreeing to use a broken wheelchair there was some sort of acceptance of any danager that, by using it, may arise.

So the Nan should join the OP's wife into any claim she makes?

Brooker_Dave

tony863 wrote: »

At the end of the day, we could go through courts and she could win a few thousand quid in compo

For a cut on her foot?

Why would a court feel the need to award someone thousands for such a non event?

hundredk

mountainofdebt wrote: »

If your wife KNEW the wheelchair was broken why did she get your Nan to use it? Surely by agreeing to use a broken wheelchair there was some sort of acceptance of any danager that, by using it, may arise.

But Tesco employees knew first and made a decision the chair was OK to use. In making such a decsion on behalf of Tesco the employee must either be incompetent for not checking the equipment properly or no checking regime exists. Either way that, most likely makes Tesco liable.

It would have been very simple for the Tesco employee to say there were no wheelchairs available. Instead a dodgy wheelchair was provided to get another punter in the shop to help boost the profits.