Making an injury claim against retailer.

George_Michael

stockportsaver wrote: »

If you cannot negotiate a satisfactory outcome then seek advice off qualified people rather than from the experts on line !

Would they be the same "experts on line" such as yourself who also post incorrect advice?

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=3520403&page=3

"gambling debts are not subject to contract law, and cannot be enforce in this way.
It's s nark if the quality of knowledge on these boards that many advisors are ignorant of this basic fact. Eg acorn."

15 minutes later when this statement was shown to be incorrect.


"I sit corrected, thanks"

I notice that you failed to apologise to arcon for your comment that they were "ignorant of this basic fact", when it was actually you who was the ignorant one.

Equaliser123

Sounds like a genuine claim here which will be assessed on the basis of a non-serious injury.

Why do people try and condemn the OP for that?

Equaliser123

unholyangel wrote: »

With compensation threads.....yes sometimes people poke fun etc. But there is a reason for that. Have you read the threads on here about compensation? Often they are the result of the persons own actions/stupidity (not commenting on this post, just in general) or for something so trivial that caused either no lasting damage/effects or no effects at all. "I bought a cheese sandwich and there was a piece of tomato in it and the packaging did not say it contained tomato and I could have eaten it but I didnt and oh yeah, what compensation am I entitled to?". As one user said earlier, while a goodwill gesture may be in order.....compensation is another matter entirely.

I remember reading about insane compensation claims in the US. Including a women who threw a drink at her boyfriend, got up to storm out and slipped on said drink, another person who tripped over her child running riot in a furniture store, a guy who broke into a house, got locked in the garage and because the family were on holiday....he had to survive on crisps and cans of juice for a week. All of these people won their compensation claims for large amounts of money.

Do you really want to live in a country like that? I know i dont.

Personally I think if you didnt suffer (ie didnt eat the sandwich) then its no harm, no foul and definitely no need for compensation - although if you had to go out of your way to return it, a goodwill gesture should be given. Likewise if it is a minor injury, goodwill gesture. If its a serious injury? Then yes compensation should be sought, but only equal to the injury.

Again, from a personal viewpoint.....if i were in a shop and wearing open toed pretty shoes us women like to wear (which i suspect the OP's gf was), and a shelf happened to fall causing a minor injury to my toe, at most i would seek a goodwill gesture but i would also take responsibility that any severity of the injury was likely my fault for choosing pretty shoes over practical ones. While that may seem harsh.....I'm a believer that accidents happen and if theres no lasting damage, its really not a big deal.

.

A lot of good many points and it takes me back to days as a law undergrad when you consider the compensation culture, whether to have a fault based system (like the US) or whether the state should simply pay out (almost like ours (NHS, Disability and sickness benefits, etc)).

Truth is, neither really works as there are so many exceptions to the rule.

Point is, the store did not (and what a mad world if it did) dictate what shoes the injured person should have worn to visit. In law, you take the victim as you find them. Also known as the egg shell skull rule.

I think the law in the UK works - it has been taken to extremes by ambulance chasers and the incentive to settle early but that is commercial interests rather than legal principles determining.

Oh, and for what its worth, the majority of the US cases are urban myth or were settled by insurers and therefore are not 'law'.

unholyangel

Equaliser123 wrote: »

A lot of good many points and it takes me back to days as a law undergrad when you consider the compensation culture, whether to have a fault based system (like the US) or whether the state should simply pay out (almost like ours (NHS, Disability and sickness benefits, etc)).

Truth is, neither really works as there are so many exceptions to the rule.

Point is, the store did not (and what a mad world if it did) dictate what shoes the injured person should have worn to visit. In law, you take the victim as you find them. Also known as the egg shell skull rule.

I think the law in the UK works - it has been taken to extremes by ambulance chasers and the incentive to settle early but that is commercial interests rather than legal principles determining.

Oh, and for what its worth, the majority of the US cases are urban myth or were settled by insurers and therefore are not 'law'.

My whole point is that the shop has no control over what shoes i choose to wear and i would take responsibility for that myself. If i choose to wear open toed shoes/sandals/whatever (which i do regularly - especially during summer), i do it knowing full well that someone may stand on my toes, i may drop something on my toes etc. And whether its right or wrong legally, morally i feel that someone else should not be held accoutable for something that my own actions contributed to on a large scale.

I guess i missed the "pass the buck" lecture at school.

As for the cases, they were on a darwin award type site. A few of the cases were actually featured in the news at the time. The ones i mentioned had been verified by the site as true.

arcon5

I don't see how what shoes op was wearing is in anyway relevant here. She could be wearing no shoes atall for all I care as it didn't contribute to the accident. The fact of the matter is, a shelf fell on her -- this should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. All fixtures and fittings should be adequately supported and secured in the first place.

I don't see how any blame whatsoever can be placed on her in this case. Nor could she in anyway forsee this and minise the risk to herself.

unholyangel

arcon5 wrote: »

I don't see how what shoes op was wearing is in anyway relevant here. She could be wearing no shoes atall for all I care as it didn't contribute to the accident. The fact of the matter is, a shelf fell on her -- this should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. All fixtures and fittings should be adequately supported and secured in the first place.

I don't see how any blame whatsoever can be placed on her in this case. Nor could she in anyway forsee this and minise the risk to herself.

It may not have contributed to the accident but it contributed to the injury I have never at any point said she's to blame for the accident. I said if it were me, I would take responsibility that my own actions of choosing pretty shoes over practical ones were a contributing factor to the severity of my injury.

And OP is a guy btw and what shoes he was wearing is completely irrelevant as he was not involved other than being outraged on behalf of his gf. He hasnt returned (as of yet) to clarify anything for us.

Its the same as crossing a road. You do so knowing there are risks involved. You minimise those risks by looking both ways and ensuring the way is clear for you to cross.

I'm not faulting the OP's gf for her fashionable shoe choice. As you can see I admitted I do the same. I also wear high heels knowing fine well I could twist my ankle or break it (i have actually done this before). I didnt blame the council for having uneven pavements etc, I accepted that had i worn more sensible shoes, my injury would either not have happened at all, or not be as severe. Does it stop me wearing pretty shoes? Nope

Like i said, i asked the OP to clarify what he wanted advice on. For all we know he might only want an apology and goodwill gesture. I wasnt passing judgement or being mean at all. I was providing what my view would be, should it have happened to me. I also acknowledged it was a moral viewpoint and not a legal one.

Dazzieboo

Right ( taking a very deep breath here ).

It all depends on what you want out of "taking it further"

What does your Girlfriend want, an apology, a token of an apology or compensation ?

If you write to their Head Office, the chances are you will get the first two without quibble, for compensation to be paid, the store have got to be proven to be negligent, or, unable to prevent the accident from happening. If the store had fitters in to fix the shelves, the fitters could be negligent, if the staff move the shelves once fitted, it could be the staff, but as I said, you have to be able to prove it.

Running to an ambulance chaser isn't as easy as people make out, they know the costs of proving the company is wrong and if the case isn't straight forward, they wont touch it, they only get back a maximum of £800 costs if they lose and trying to prove who is responsible for an accident is getting harder and harder.

I'm not going into the finer details, but I am self employed, I was working in a large supermarket and while walking beside a Manager I slipped on rubbish on the floor, the same piece of rubbish the Manager had only just stepped over I damaged my cruciate and medial ligament in my knee and 6 months down the line, I now need surgery, I did seek legal advice as I needed to go privately to get the treatment asap so I could continue working and after 4 months the supermarket did accept full liability and said the accident was avoidable.

So, in some cases, if they know they are in the wrong, they will admit to it, but if they can wriggle out of it, they certainly will, the other thing to note as well is, I had to use the legal assistance on my home insurance as security for my claim, had I lost I would have had to claim on that, so you need to bear things like that in mind if you take this further.

Dazzieboo

arcon5 wrote: »

I don't see how what shoes op was wearing is in anyway relevant here. She could be wearing no shoes atall for all I care as it didn't contribute to the accident. The fact of the matter is, a shelf fell on her -- this should not have been allowed to happen in the first place. All fixtures and fittings should be adequately supported and secured in the first place.

I don't see how any blame whatsoever can be placed on her in this case. Nor could she in anyway forsee this and minise the risk to herself.

To the likes of you and me, clothing and shoes are all very irrelevant, to the company and their Solicitor it could be a matter of win or lose.

When I submitted my claim, I had to send photo's of what I was wearing, including my shoes, did my shoes have sufficient grip ? was I wearing a cardigan which could have "flapped" therefore obscuring my vision, how long were my trousers, were they too long, was I wearing mascara, if so, too much ?? the list was endless.

You would like to think, that when you enter a shop, you can browse with safety, and not have to think if your clothing is actually a hazard. But if an accident does happen and your clothing / footwear makes the injury worse, that is a get out clause for the company concerned and no one can prove the same injury would have happened with different footwear on.

geri1965_2

The issue of footwear is irrelevant. People are entitled to wear whatever footwear they like in a supermarket, whether it is steel toe capped boots or flipflops! The only time footwear would be an issue would be if they had contributed to the accident itself (not the injury) and even then it can be hard to obtain a contribution for contributory negligence.

Dazzieboo

geri1965 wrote: »

The issue of footwear is irrelevant. People are entitled to wear whatever footwear they like in a supermarket, whether it is steel toe capped boots or flipflops! The only time footwear would be an issue would be if they had contributed to the accident itself (not the injury) and even then it can be hard to obtain a contribution for contributory negligence.

My thoughts exactly, but, in MY situation, not what their Solicitor thought !!