Making an injury claim against retailer.

pendulum

I would imagine the OP's after MONEY, and I would be too if I lost the nail on my big toe because a shelf wasn't fitted properly. Horrible injury.

For every ten people who try getting compensation for something that doesn't warrant it, there's one person who has a genuine right to it, and I think this is a genuine case.

arcon5

Dazzieboo wrote: »

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

You can't compare your situation to ops. Your situation you slipped on the floor -- so there is infact a chance what shoes you was wearing could have added to the injury, or even more so, caused it...

In ops situation her footwear played no roll in the accident whatsoever. A shelving unit fell on her whilst she was browsing, so whether she was wearing no shoes or ice skates and had her eyes covered, these elements didn't add to the the cause of the incident.
They're as irrelevant as asking what pocket her phone was in i'm afraid.

Apples and oranges

Dazzieboo

arcon5 wrote: »

You can't compare your situation to ops. Your situation you slipped on the floor -- so there is infact a chance what shoes you was wearing could have added to the injury, or even more so, caused it...

In ops situation her footwear played no roll in the accident whatsoever. A shelving unit fell on her whilst she was browsing, so whether she was wearing no shoes or ice skates and had her eyes covered, these elements didn't add to the the cause of the incident.
They're as irrelevant as asking what pocket her phone was in i'm afraid.

Apples and oranges

Doh, I'm not comparing injuries / accidents at all. I was just explaining the awkward questions which Solicitors can and will ask, so be prepared for them. I am going through it now, so thought I would pass on information which I thought could be useful.

Of course, the shoes question is relevant in my case, but what the heck has mascara got to do with it :eek: if they can wriggle out, they will.

cheltenham_dude

OP, I would wait until your girlfriend has seen the doctor - if the toe isn't broken or isn't something that affect her for the rest of her life, then she might want to approach the supermarket directly (with yourself as moral support of course) or write to them and ask for a gesture of goodwill as although ultimately they might not be responsible for the shelf being fitted incorrectly, it is their shelving in their shop.

Alternatively if it has caused some long term damage or after effects that will affect her for the rest of her life, then she may want to have a word with a lawyer or solicitor about suing the supermarket chain (many do a free initial consultation) - I would hesitate in using an ambulance-chasing company as if they do get her any compensation, then they are likely to take a good chunk of it.

Ultimately though, it is your girlfriend, who must decide what she wants to do.

Crazy_Jamie

unholyangel wrote:

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.

Your entire position on this point is impractical and unrealistic. I am all for taking responsibility for one's own actions, but you are stretching it to absurd degrees here. You mention the scenario of twisting or breaking your ankle whilst walking in high heeled shoes. That is a realistic scenario, but nothing about that scenario implies negligence on the part of anybody else but your own. This is different. The average person should be able to visit public places without preparing for every single possibility in terms of incidents or injury that could befall them. There was no onus here on the OP's girlfriend to wear shoes that would protect her feet from a falling shelf unit. To suggest otherwise, either out of principle or morality, is utterly absurd. If the shelf unit had struck her on the head, would you be suggesting that it was her fault for not wearing a hard hat when she was out shopping?

Hermione_Granger

Originally Posted by unholyangel
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

.

So if the shelf hadn't landed on a toe but hit the OP's girlfriend on the head instead, would you still argue that because she chose not to wear a protective helmet in the store then this was a "contributing factor to the severity of the injury"?

Provided there was no policy in place regarding what footware should be worn by customers then I don't honestly see how any reasonable person can take their choice of footware into account when apportioning blame for something that was totally outside of the control of the injured person.
The footware may well be an issue if an injury was caused by trying to go upstairs in 4" stiletto heels but the case in question is totally different.
Someone was allowed access to a property and from that moment on the shop owners had a duty to ensure that the customer was able to use their shop without harm.
If they thought that soft or open shoes may cause a problem then they should either have refused access or provided a suitable replacement in the way of steel toecapped boots.

Flyboy152

bobajob_1966 wrote: »

Does it? A shelf fell off a wall - without actually knowing why it did you cannot establish negligence.

The store has already admitted liability.

Flyboy152

unholyangel wrote: »

Hmmm if i were the retailer, i would argue my staff are hardly shelving experts, otherwise i wouldnt have had to contract a 3rd party to install them

However, from the OP it isnt clear whether they actually wrote in the accident log that it was due to faulty shelving or whether they even said that. The op wrote "recorded the incident in an accident book and blamed the faulty shelving on a outiside company". This could merely be the OP saying they (the op/his gf) believed the shelving to be faulty and when/if this was put forth to the shop staff, they replied saying something along the lines of they were installed by a 3rd company.

Not saying this is fact, just a different view on what the OP said

It doesn't matter, the employees represent the compnay and they consider the shelves to be unsafe. Supermarkets do not employ third parties to install shelving; the staff do that. I suspect the third party is the greetings cards concessionaire.

Flyboy152

stockportsaver wrote: »

Seriously ,
Several of these replies simply show the posters to be serial self abusers . What is wrong with you people ?
The shop has a liability to ensure that the premesis are safe to accommodate customers wether the shelves were put up by staff or contractors. From the account of the op the shop are in breach of this. It's obviously not a serious injury, as a toe has been hurt, not a limb severed. So what ?
In the first instance evidence the injury and write to the company, see what they have to say. If you cannot negotiate a satisfactory outcome then seek advice off qualified people rather than from the experts on line !

Indeed, the usual suspects, who believe that no one is ever entitled to compensation for anything, ever, have been working overtime on this one.

Flyboy152

Equaliser123 wrote: »

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?

Jealousy?

..