accident in morrisons supermarket

MyUserNamesTaken

hawk wrote:

Yes lets sue everyone so all our premiums go up, well done :T :T :T


As said before write a letter first, and just to reiterate a supermarket has a certain amount of time to get to a spillage as they dont carry crystal balls, if you really want to sue or claim then move to the USA youll fit right in.

Hawk, stop giving advice when you don't know what you're talking about. You have worked in a supermarket - whoopie do. That doesn't make you a lawyer. You were not there. Get it? You have shown absolutely no sympathy towards an elderly woman who suffered a dislocated shoulder as a result of the incident. She then needed hospital treatment as a result of her injuries. Due to her age, there's a possibility that she will suffer complications. For all these reasons, it is imperative that the OP seeks legal advice.

Nowhere have I said that Morrisons failed in its duty of care. It would be stupid of me to do so, as I am not aware of all the facts. This needs to be established by a qualified legal representive. If it is then shown that Morrisons did fail in its duty of care, then the OP's mother in law has every right to sue, regardless of your feelings on compensation.

kenshaz

hawk wrote:

Yes lets sue everyone so all our premiums go up, well done :T :T :T


As said before write a letter first, and just to reiterate a supermarket has a certain amount of time to get to a spillage as they dont carry crystal balls, if you really want to sue or claim then move to the USA youll fit right in.

you'll not youll ,you started this

kenshaz

hawk wrote:

NO she isnt making sense neither are you, Insurance is in place for geniune accidents and are a last port of call (ofcourse depending on the circumstances) and shouldnt be used willy nilly just because its not your premiums your paying for.

I know my rights unfortunately ts-aly2000 doesnt, its not a case of shove a claim in because I can its a case of put a claim in if there is something to claim against,, a court would ask did the supermarket try there hardest to make customers aware of a spillage, and even if the supermarket say, we vistit each aisle every 5mins anyone in there right mind would see that as reasonable house keeping, what the hell do you want your own personal cleaner to follow you about just incase you spill something? get with the plan.

of course not ofcourse incase is a variation of encase
and is therefore out of context in your sentence encase means put into a case,surround as with a case

hawk

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

Hawk, stop giving advice when you don't know what you're talking about. You have worked in a supermarket - whoopie do. That doesn't make you a lawyer. You were not there. Get it? You have shown absolutely no sympathy towards an elderly woman who suffered a dislocated shoulder as a result of the incident. She then needed hospital treatment as a result of her injuries. Due to her age, there's a possibility that she will suffer complications. For all these reasons, it is imperative that the OP seeks legal advice.

Nowhere have I said that Morrisons failed in its duty of care. It would be stupid of me to do so, as I am not aware of all the facts. This needs to be established by a qualified legal representive. If it is then shown that Morrisons did fail in its duty of care, then the OP's mother in law has every right to sue, regardless of your feelings on compensation.

No sympathy i suggest you read my posts again, how do you know that i dont know what im talking about you lot take it so personal i think your missing the point i was making i was actually saying figure out what happens before rushing in and making a claim then getting thrown out because of lack of evidence.

If you couldnt see that i suggest you enlarge your text view, also stop parading around like your some kind of lawyer as i havent slated your opinions.

hawk

kenshaz wrote:

of course not ofcourse

I see your taking this a bit too far now :rolleyes:

MyUserNamesTaken

hawk wrote:

No sympathy i suggest you read my posts again, how do you know that i dont know what im talking about you lot take it so personal i think your missing the point i was making i was actually saying figure out what happens before rushing in and making a claim then getting thrown out because of lack of evidence.

If you couldnt see that i suggest you enlarge your text view, also stop parading around like your some kind of lawyer as i ahvent slated your opinions.

You assume too much, Hawk. I have no personal involvement in this, therefore cannot take it personally. If you're going to give advice, at least back it up with reasoned arguments based on the Law (as it is written, not as you percieve it to be). If you do not have a thorough working knowledge of the Law, stop giving advice. You could also try very hard to refrain from ad hominem comments that are completely irrelevant to the thread. You've stated that you worked in a supermarket for 9 years. You never stated that you are a qualified lawyer, nor have you said that you have ever studied the Law. To me, and probably to most reasonable people, that shows that you are basing your advice on your experiences of working in a supermarket. In other words, you don't know jack about the Law.

OP, I stick to my original advice. Seek proper legal advice on this. It's not about how much money you can get from Morrisons. It's about making sure Morrisons did not fail in its duty of care. If it is established that is did, then your mother in law is fully entitled to claim compensation.

kenshaz

Perhaps I am ,but it is fun,shall we call a truce

hawk

MyUserNamesTaken wrote:

You assume too much, Hawk. I have no personal involvement in this, therefore cannot take it personally. If you're going to give advice, at least back it up with reasoned arguments based on the Law (as it is written, not as you percieve it to be). If you do not have a thorough working knowledge of the Law, stop giving advice. You could also try very hard to refrain from ad hominem comments that are completely irrelevant to the thread. You've stated that you worked in a supermarket for 9 years. You never stated that you are a qualified lawyer, nor have you said that you have ever studied the Law. To me, and probably to most reasonable people, that shows that you are basing your advice on your experiences of working in a supermarket. In other words, you don't know jack about the Law.

Im not arguing I was putting my opinion over but you say im not allowed to do this so thanks im glad your here to help :rolleyes: also dont bang on about the law when you have so clearly missed the point of gathering evidence and making a statement and also securing a statement of admittance if this can be obtained from the store manager you just want to wade in empty handed and go straight for the throat, The supermarket may well have failed in there duty but the OP has to prove this as no-one will take there word at face value as I could say I slipped over and ask wheres my payout, also saying its not about the money well if its not just right the store a letter and tell them what happened so it doesnt happen again, or is that to simple.

Oh I just spotted the bit about knowing jack about the law, funny that as I just won a case on friday.

hawk

kenshaz wrote:

Perhaps I am ,but it is fun,shall we call a truce

Isn't that truce (a wooden structure) :rotfl: :rotfl:

Yes mate :beer: a truce it is

MyUserNamesTaken

hawk wrote:

Im not arguing I was putting my opinion over but you say im not allowed to do this so thanks im glad your here to help :rolleyes: also dont bang on about the law when you have so clearly missed the point of gathering evidence and making a statement and also securing a statement of admittance if this can be obtained from the store manager you just want to wade in empty handed and go straight for the throat, The supermarket may well have failed in there duty but the OP has to prove this as no-one will take there word at face value as I could say I slipped over and ask wheres my payout, also saying its not about the money well if its not just right the store a letter and tell them what happened so it doesnt happen again, or is that to simple.

Three words for you, Hawk:

Learn to read.

hawk wrote:

Oh I just spotted the bit about knowing jack about the law, funny that as I just won a case on friday.

I believe you, Hawk.