£20 for a Broken Tooth ? Advice please.

Crazy_Jamie

cyberbob wrote: »

I think you need to get a little perspective. Yes your wife hurt a tooth on an Aldi product. Aldi quite happily paid for the treatment and gave a voucher. They could quite easily have fought it and you would have had problems proving anything.

If this case does proceed to litigation the OP's partner will have to obtain an expert medical report regarding the injury. That, along with the witness statement from the OP and his partner, would be more than sufficient 'proof' of the injury and the circumstances and, barring any significant inconsistencies that would only come if this situation is actually fraudulent (nothing to suggest that it is, indeed it is highly unlikely), such evidence would quite easily reach the civil standard of proof. So actually, you are quite wrong. If Aldi had fought this the OP's partner would have had relatively few problems proving this.

cyberbob wrote:

The point is people like you. Yes i'm afraid with posts like this I know the sort of person you are. Are the reason this country is in such a state.

How could you tell from his posts that the OP is a high ranking executive in one of the major banks?

Seriously, though, that assertion is more than a little melodramatic even for this thread.

cyberbob wrote:

Accidents happen even though someone has paid for the consequences to be fixed. You want more. Why you have had the problem fixed you have had an apology. How do you know your wife;s tooth wouldn't have broken a couple of days later on something else. You don't

Legally this argument is fallacious. An alteration in how susceptible someone is to a particular injury does not exonerate a Defendant of liability. It's called the 'eggshell skull' rule.

cyberbob wrote:

So you just want to push it for more money even though you have already had fair recompense. That really does make you a Muppet and a Chancer i'm afraid.

It is a very long established principle that fair recompense for an injury caused by another's negligence is both out of pocket expense (special damages) and damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity (general damages). Your particular viewpoint on what is or is not right is entirely irrelevant in the objective assessment in this case.

Besides which, even if you do think that the OP is the reason why 'this country is in such a state', I think you'll find that the problem as you perceive should surely lie with the law itself and not the people who use it? Especially when such law has been established since before anyone who has posted in this thread was born.

Cyberbob wrote:

I;m afraid no one here put you in a box you managed to do that all by yourself with your first post, Good luck on your compensation claim I do hope they have a good laugh at it. It'n nice to see you only agree or take advice of those who agree what a good idea you have there.

To be fair, those who 'agree' with him (your phrase, not mine, as I still haven't stated whether or not he should pursue this) are the only ones that have actually addressed the original question. The OP has already stated that he wants to take this further, and has raised a query regarding that. So considering his mind appears to be made up, it is hardly surprising that he has given more notice to those people that actually answered the question that he had originally.

There could also be the small point that those who have expressed a view contrary to the OP have appeared unable to do so without sniping at him with mindless and petty insults. I would suggest that it is bit of a long shot to expect the OP to suddenly fall into line with those that are trying to put him down.

brook2jack

Like toothsmith I have seen alot of people try and claim because of broken teeth due to foreign / hard objects in food .

The problem is ( and I'm sure this is not the case in ops situation) that the majority of cases that have come through my hands have been chancers. As ts said it is very difficult to prove that the hard object caused the damage when 90% of the time the tooth has already been filled or it is a small crack.

The insurers of large companies are now getting wise to fraudulent claims stoked up by the no win no fee cowboys and defend claims more rigorously than they used to.

The cost of your wifes treatment and around 30% extra for inconvenience is about the most you will realistically get unless you can get your regular dentist ,who has seen your wife for some time and can give a history of her needing little or no work over years, to write a report saying the tooth broken is likely to need significant amounts of work in years to come.

You would need to pay for the report and it may not necessarily say what you want it to say, particularly as £50 for a private emergency filling does not sound as if damage was extensive.

Sorry to be so negative but this year have been asked to write reports and distort facts by several dodgy law firms on behalf of clients who are clearly lying to support their case and this is the background you need to bear in mind.

Crazy_Jamie

brook2jack wrote: »

You would need to pay for the report and it may not necessarily say what you want it to say, particularly as £50 for a private emergency filling does not sound as if damage was extensive.

This has just reminded me of a further point. I said in my first post that you would likely be able to find a solicitor who would take this on a Conditional Fee Agreement if the broken tooth was a front tooth. The reason for that is that, as a general rule, the damages for the injury itself need to be £1,000 or more before a solicitor will take them on a CFA. The reason for that is that £1,000 for personal injury damages is the threshold for a claim to be allocated to the fast track, which enables a solicitor to recover their costs from the other side if successful. Anything below that and it will be allocated as a small claim, and the ability of the solicitor to recover their costs is highly restricted.

As such, if the broken tooth was not a front tooth (I expect it was a rear tooth given that it was broken eating cereal), and given that the cost of the emergency filling was only £50 (as stated above, that is low) is appears likely that the damages for the injury would be below £1,000. If that is the case, I would actually give serious consideration as to whether you want to pursue this. The reason for that is that you may have to pursue this yourself (solicitor's fees could easily exceed the damages, leaving you out of pocket), which is time consuming and stressful if you don't have experience doing it, and ultimately it may just not be worth the hassle. Bear that in mind when considering your next step.

Googlewhacker

I just like the fact that the sensible advice is coming from a poster called 'Crazy Jamie' lol

CHR15

How can anyone who has been eating Aldi food for the last 3 yrs have good teeth??

PZH

Ok - might be a naive question, but since the manufacturer has admitted it's their fault, shouldn't it be them that are being potentially sued for compensation ?

Yes, I realise it was Aldi that sold the product - but they have already paid for the treatment and have offered a "goodwill" gesture.

No, I don't really agree with the compensation culture

:rotfl:

OlliesDad

CHR15 wrote: »

How can anyone who has been eating Aldi food for the last 3 yrs have good teeth??

Because alot of food they sell is the same as top brand names but with a different label. There is a thread knocking around somewhere with a list of food that is available in lidl/aldi that is made in the same factory as brand names.

Back to the OP, i do believe that they are entitled to more than £15 as they have suffered a permanent disfigurement (the tooth can be capped but will not grow back)due to the incident which the manufacturer has already accepted liability for.

cyberbob wrote:

The point is people like you. Yes i'm afraid with posts like this I know the sort of person you are. Are the reason this country is in such a state.

Personally i think that this country isn;t doing to bad compared to alot of countries, but hey, i'm just patriotic.

Fig_3

And so is the OP who has a Falklands War Medal in his drawer and now works for the Government in a uniformed post.

Assumptions from beyond the keyboard !!!!

Sandoval

Fig wrote: »

And so is the OP who has a Falklands War Medal in his drawer and now works for the Government in a uniformed post.

Council traffic warden?

Crazy_Jamie

phoodless wrote: »

Ok - might be a naive question, but since the manufacturer has admitted it's their fault, shouldn't it be them that are being potentially sued for compensation ?

Yes, I realise it was Aldi that sold the product - but they have already paid for the treatment and have offered a "goodwill" gesture.

I know that the OP did seem to differentiate between the manufacturer and Aldi, but I was operating under the assumption that Aldi either were the manufacturer, or otherwise owned the manufacturing company. If that is not the case then you are quite right; it is the manufacturer and not Aldi who would be the proper Defendant.