Need to claim for an accident on holiday - Who is best?

pippitypip_2

Hi kms,

The only advice I have is to not use the solicitor who posted on the thread above. You'd be better off getting a recommendation, or looking up a well-known company and seeing any comments people have made about them e.g. using google.

Touting on here is not allowed by MSE, but is suspicious in my view that they need to come on forums and tout anyway - alarm bells ringing for me.

I hope that helps and all the best,
pippitypip

malkie76

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you knew there was an issue with a particular part of the poolside, then why walk near it on the second occasion having had an accident on the first occasion?

kms26

malkie76 wrote: »

Maybe I'm missing something, but if you knew there was an issue with a particular part of the poolside, then why walk near it on the second occasion having had an accident on the first occasion?

This is something my MIL is asking herself constantly lol

Where it was you had to walk if you know what i mean

kms26

gordikin wrote: »

cdjones agreed to the t&c of MSE and then flouted them? Personally I wouldn't pass any details on to anybody that ignored basic stuff like that...but hey maybe your different?

Since reading what you have all said and thinking about it i think you are right. :T

littlereddevil

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Who, exactly, does the OP want to claim compensation from?

That is what she is asking on here!

dickydonkin

DrScotsman wrote: »

You know what? I'm not really sure how to say this but I must admit my previous posts were wrong. I have indeed been misunderstanding breach of duty. It indeed does not depend on how careful the claimant is, it depends on the probability of harm, the severity of the likely loss, and the burden/cost of eliminating the risk. I appreciate that I ignored you trying to say this, and I hope you understand it was because the extent of your citations was Health and Safety law (for employees) rather than the core principles of negligence. Not that that's an excuse.

This raises one point though: I don't entirely understand the layout of this pool, but if the only way to reduce the risk involved significantly reducing the entertainment value of the pool, that would count as a burden and hence they they probably won't be liable. This stems from case law but is also codified in the Compensation Act 2006

I hope both you and kms26 accept my sincere apologies. kms26, I do hope you succeed in getting compensation (subject to the burden above)

DrScotsman I am not aware of your age - nor do I want to know, but when I was younger, I did stupid things (not illegal I hasten to add) but we would climb trees, wander in derelict buildings, jump of walls etc and if we hurt ouselves then we would brush ourselves down and suffer the pain and get on with things.

I don't want to criticise anybody who has been seriously hurt or is unable to carry out their normal lives due to someones negligence and is attempting to claim compensation, but this claims culture is really getting out of hand.

I suspect many people reading this thread will look at my postings (and I can understand) and come to the conclusion that I am an example of the 'elf n safety' killjoy brigade.

Primarily, the purpose of such a role is to ensure people do not get hurt in their workplace, unfortunately, a lot of emphasis now has to be targeted to avoid litigation which can sometimes deflect the focus from the main goal of preventing accidents.

Many people now claim through the ubiquitous no-win no-fee solicitors who know that for many relatively minor claims, it is more cost effective just to pay out rather that become embroiled in a protracted defence of the claim.

Of course, to successfully claim, one needs to prove that a duty of care was breached or indeed if there was a duty of care in the first instance.

Negligence needs to be proven although with civil cases such as these, the burden of proof required is only 'the balance of probability' which is deemed to be 51%.

This is English law of course and as far as the OP's situation is concerned, I suspect that due to the fact the incident occurred out of this country, it may be difficult to claim unless it is targeted at a UK based travel company who organised the holiday.

My gut feeling is that it will not be worth pursuing and just put it down to experience as medical records will be needed, possible witnesses and a general inconvenience for the sake of a few hundred quid if successful.

You hit the nail on the head when you quoted "and the burden/cost of eliminating the risk".

The terminology for this in H&S circles which I am sure you have heard is 'Reasonably Practicable' where the cost of implementing measures needs to be balanced with the benefits of the outlay.

Unfortunately, it is the world we live in today and the advertisements for claims solicitors advertised in the media 'ad nauseum', is testament to that.

I refer to post #21 on this thread - the bu**ers are everywhere!

EDIT: Health & Safety at Work Act? Without reading, doesn't that only apply to employees and employers?

No

"It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety". HASWA 1974

This could include a customer slipping in a supermarket, a pedestrian being clobbered by a hammer falling from some scaffolding or indeed a person (non employee) tripping next to a swimming pool. All of these are 'places of work 'however, the injured people are not employees but are obviously 'affected'.

gordikin

You quote 51% as a balance of probabilty..do you have any figures to back this?

kms26

dpassmore wrote: »

DrScotsman I am not aware of your age - nor do I want to know, but when I was younger, I did stupid things (not illegal I hasten to add) but we would climb trees, wander in derelict buildings, jump of walls etc and if we hurt ouselves then we would brush ourselves down and suffer the pain and get on with things.

I don't want to criticise anybody who has been seriously hurt or is unable to carry out their normal lives due to someones negligence and is attempting to claim compensation, but this claims culture is really getting out of hand.

I suspect many people reading this thread will look at my postings (and I can understand) and come to the conclusion that I am an example of the 'elf n safety' killjoy brigade.

Primarily, the purpose of such a role is to ensure people do not get hurt in their workplace, unfortunately, a lot of emphasis now has to be targeted to avoid litigation which can sometimes deflect the focus from the main goal of preventing accidents.

Many people now claim through the ubiquitous no-win no-fee solicitors who know that for many relatively minor claims, it is more cost effective just to pay out rather that become embroiled in a protracted defence of the claim.

Of course, to successfully claim, one needs to prove that a duty of care was breached or indeed if there was a duty of care in the first instance.

Negligence needs to be proven although with civil cases such as these, the burden of proof required is only 'the balance of probability' which is deemed to be 51%.

This is English law of course and as far as the OP's situation is concerned, I suspect that due to the fact the incident occurred out of this country, it may be difficult to claim unless it is targeted at a UK based travel company who organised the holiday.

My gut feeling is that it will not be worth pursuing and just put it down to experience as medical records will be needed, possible witnesses and a general inconvenience for the sake of a few hundred quid if successful.

You hit the nail on the head when you quoted "and the burden/cost of eliminating the risk".

The terminology for this in H&S circles which I am sure you have heard is 'Reasonably Practicable' where the cost of implementing measures needs to be balanced with the benefits of the outlay.

Unfortunately, it is the world we live in today and the advertisements for claims solicitors advertised in the media 'ad nauseum', is testament to that.

I refer to post #21 on this thread - the bu**ers are everywhere!



No

"It shall be the duty of every employer to conduct his undertaking in such a way as to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that persons not in his employment who may be affected thereby are not thereby exposed to risks to their health or safety". HASWA 1974

This could include a customer slipping in a supermarket, a pedestrian being clobbered by a hammer falling from height or indeed a person (non employee) tripping near swimming pool. All of these are 'places of work' but obviously the injured people are not employees but are obviously 'affected'.

We flew with a very well known english airline, if that makes a difference and had a package holiday.

The swimming pool incident happen to 2 people that we witnessed and 3 others whilst we were there but did not witness. The other 2 people came to us and told us they were going to claim against it so we all exchanged numbers especially as they had both witnessed our incidents. They also have the details of the other 3 people who fell that we did not witness.

We have all medical reports from the hospital and medical centre as it is common practice for them to give the records to foreign patients so they can give them to their GP. My MIL's GP gave my MIL copies for any claim she puts in. She also has her X-rays.

It is not about the money as such, although it will be nice to get back the excess she paid for the travel insurance, it's the point of the whole thing. They knew this area was dangerous and did nothing!

If any of you were to slip in a supermarket and there was no signs up saying it was slippery, wouldn't you want something done? :cool:

dickydonkin

gordikin wrote: »

You quote 51% as a balance of probabilty..do you have any figures to back this?

I actually quoted "Deemed to be 51%" although it will obviously be a close decision for a judge to differentiate between 50% and 51%.

I would have though the balance of probability is self explanatory and I don't know what you are asking for in respect of 'figures' but the following may assist you as it seems you have some doubt.

Expressing that in percentage terms, if a judge concludes that it is 50% likely that the claimant's case is right, then the claimant will lose. By contrast, if the judge concludes that it is 51% likely that the claimant's case is right then the claimant will win.

The page I extracted this from is here .

dickydonkin

kms26 wrote: »

We flew with a very well known english airline, if that makes a difference and had a package holiday.

The swimming pool incident happen to 2 people that we witnessed and 3 others whilst we were there but did not witness. The other 2 people came to us and told us they were going to claim against it so we all exchanged numbers especially as they had both witnessed our incidents. They also have the details of the other 3 people who fell that we did not witness.

We have all medical reports from the hospital and medical centre as it is common practice for them to give the records to foreign patients so they can give them to their GP. My MIL's GP gave my MIL copies for any claim she puts in. She also has her X-rays.

It is not about the money as such, although it will be nice to get back the excess she paid for the travel insurance, it's the point of the whole thing. They knew this area was dangerous and did nothing!

If any of you were to slip in a supermarket and there was no signs up saying it was slippery, wouldn't you want something done? :cool:

Did all of the injured people report their concerns to Management of the hotel?

Being the Devils Advocate, I am thinking that what if the people who were in a position to rectify the situation were unaware of the hazardous surface?

You stated "they knew" but who actually knew?

On the face of it, if your holiday was part of a package, I would attempt to claim from the travel company in the first instance. If your holiday was booked on an independant basis, that may create problems but I would certainly see a no win no fee solicitor just to test the water (no pun intended).