Making an injury claim against retailer.

Dazzieboo

Flyboy152 wrote: »

Jealousy?

..

It was with a great deal of hesitation I even posted on this thread. I posted on another Forum and could not believe the hatred / venom spouted my way, not just on the forum but in PM's as well, not just "normal" posters but Moderators as well. I had tried to contact the supermarket directly, but as I needed medical help, they would not speak to me directly, it had to be via a Solicitor, I only ever wanted my medical costs recovered, nothing more, nothing less, I made the mistake of asking the best way to go about it. That was the biggest mistake ever.

Why people feel the need to dislike genuine people who have had genuine accidents, really is beyond me. the OP doesn't appear to have returned to this thread, hopefully they will and they get the info they are looking for.

Equaliser123

bod1467 wrote: »

http://www.injurylawyers4u.co.uk/ ??

Just for the avoidance of any doubt, OP would be far better advised to visit a proper firm on a conditional fee arrangement rather than using this sort of organisation.

Flyboy152

Dazzieboo wrote: »

It was with a great deal of hesitation I even posted on this thread. I posted on another Forum and could not believe the hatred / venom spouted my way, not just on the forum but in PM's as well, not just "normal" posters but Moderators as well. I had tried to contact the supermarket directly, but as I needed medical help, they would not speak to me directly, it had to be via a Solicitor, I only ever wanted my medical costs recovered, nothing more, nothing less, I made the mistake of asking the best way to go about it. That was the biggest mistake ever.

Why people feel the need to dislike genuine people who have had genuine accidents, really is beyond me. the OP doesn't appear to have returned to this thread, hopefully they will and they get the info they are looking for.

Because they really are jealous. They see you getting paid compensation and they want some of the same, but don't any of the pain and suffering that goes with it.

That and they have nothing better to do than troll on forums on the internet and wind people up.

lpp1980

Hi everyone, thanks for the advice. We're not really of the suing mentality, so won't be going the solicitor route. She wasn't very happy with the shop staff, they didn't seem too sympathetic to it. To top it off, it also made her late back to work. We'll probably write to their head office as someone suggested. She'd really like an apology/aknowledgement really.

Could easily happen again, to a child or elderly person. It was one of them shelves that hook over the card racks. Not very stable and not something you should load with heavy items.

She had these open shoes on by the way, sandle type things. The type most girls where when the weathers hot. I don't think retailers have the right to expect steel toe-caps from all their customers! Not the girls anyway.

Rant over, her foots heeling well though

unholyangel

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

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?

My entire "position" you are quoting is not my position at all but only what I personally would do. I previously said about accidents where they have contibuted to it and then made clear i was NOT talking about this case, but rather in general.

Comparing it to the hard hat is "impractical and unrealistic". A shoe is protection for your feet. A hat (typical hat) is worn for warmth NOT protection. Its like comparing a bra to a pair of socks. They both may be worn on your body but they do not have the same function.

People go on and on and condemning the OP, the same people who then go on to condemn me for saying what I would do in the same situation but NOT saying anything bad towards the OP. I even said in a previous post if you sustain a serious injury then yes, you should receive compensation.

Yet as usual people pick and choose which parts they want to read, ignoring the important parts which then mean they take it out of context. IF I were in an accident and chose not to chase it that is MY decision and mine alone - regardless of why i arrived at that decision. Likewise if someone wants to take it further, that is THEIR decision and not anyone elses. Absolutely unreal.

To the OP, I've had 2 toe nails come off in an accident and a fingernail (different times) and all 3 grew back, so i hope your gf's grows back also, it can take some time though. She should keep it clean and let air into it and it should speed up the healing process. I also hope she gets the apology she deserves and that the company dont try the brush off

Crazy_Jamie

unholyangel wrote: »

My entire "position" you are quoting is not my position at all but only what I personally would do. I previously said about accidents where they have contibuted to it and then made clear i was NOT talking about this case, but rather in general.

Needless semantics. My criticism was of what you were saying that you would do in this case; what you want to label that as is up to you.

unholyangel wrote:

Comparing it to the hard hat is "impractical and unrealistic". A shoe is protection for your feet. A hat (typical hat) is worn for warmth NOT protection. Its like comparing a bra to a pair of socks. They both may be worn on your body but they do not have the same function.

A shoe is for protection? Really? In that case could you check your collection of shoes and tell me how many pairs were bought for the purposes of protection rather than how they look or how they feel. I'm willing to bet that the only ones bought for protection will be specialist shoes (e.g. ski boots), and that the pairs that you would wear out generally to the shops will have been bought due to to fashion or comfort. In any event, I doubt that there are many people out there who own a pair of shoes that they would realistically wear out the shops that could actually protect their feet from a falling shelf unit. In which case it is not, in my opinion, reasonable to take responsibility for such an injury on account of the footwear that you had on at the time. Which is basically my whole point.

unholyangel wrote:

Yet as usual people pick and choose which parts they want to read, ignoring the important parts which then mean they take it out of context. IF I were in an accident and chose not to chase it that is MY decision and mine alone - regardless of why i arrived at that decision. Likewise if someone wants to take it further, that is THEIR decision and not anyone elses. Absolutely unreal.

You don't have to explain to me that this is your personal view. I fully understand that. But equally if you have some sort of problem with people commenting on your personal views or approaches, could I perhaps suggest that you refrain from posting them on a public internet forum? Because that is what tends to happen in places like this.

unholyangel

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

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?

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

Needless semantics. My criticism was of what you were saying that you would do in this case; what you want to label that as is up to you.
A shoe is for protection? Really? In that case could you check your collection of shoes and tell me how many pairs were bought for the purposes of protection rather than how they look or how they feel. I'm willing to bet that the only ones bought for protection will be specialist shoes (e.g. ski boots), and that the pairs that you would wear out generally to the shops will have been bought due to to fashion or comfort. In any event, I doubt that there are many people out there who own a pair of shoes that they would realistically wear out the shops that could actually protect their feet from a falling shelf unit. In which case it is not, in my opinion, reasonable to take responsibility for such an injury on account of the footwear that you had on at the time. Which is basically my whole point.
You don't have to explain to me that this is your personal view. I fully understand that. But equally if you have some sort of problem with people commenting on your personal views or approaches, could I perhaps suggest that you refrain from posting them on a public internet forum? Because that is what tends to happen in places like this.

You clearly were not commenting on my own personal viewpoint on what i would do in those circumstances are you said i was suggesting she had a duty to wear adequate protection on her feet. You then went on to imply i had said it was the OP's fault.

None of which i said. Now you're twisting your story.

As for shoes for protection, different shoes offer different level of protection. Even flip flops offer some protection....just only to the base of your foot. I have over a hundred pairs of shoes. Some of them offer more protection than others. Many of them which would protect against books/cd's falling from a shelf, many of them wouldnt. If you dont consider protection at all when choosing footwear, then why would you wear any? Never had a nail in the bottom of a shoe? Never had someone else stand on your toes?

I have no problem with people commenting on my personal views - providing they can read it and understand it to be exactly what it is and not comment on it out of context. At no point did i say shoe choice would lessen any liability. At no point did i say the OP would not be right to chase the matter. Even after saying i wasnt commenting on the OP's case at all, people posted as if i had. And very rarely do people apologise for misunderstanding a post or getting it completely wrong. Some even argue they know your meaning better than you do and that they're right and you're wrong. Now THAT is absurd.

Crazy_Jamie

unholyangel wrote:

As for shoes for protection, different shoes offer different level of protection. Even flip flops offer some protection....just only to the base of your foot. I have over a hundred pairs of shoes. Some of them offer more protection than others. Many of them which would protect against books/cd's falling from a shelf, many of them wouldnt. If you dont consider protection at all when choosing footwear, then why would you wear any? Never had a nail in the bottom of a shoe? Never had someone else stand on your toes?

No argument that some pairs of shoes offer more protection than others. That's common sense. But it's not why you buy the vast majority of them. You buy them because of what they look like and how they feel. If you didn't and you actually bought them based on protection, I highly doubt that you would have anywhere near one hundred pairs. But in suggesting that you would take responsibility for a shelf falling on your feet in a shop, you are implying that you should consider the suitability of your shoes to guard against things like that when choosing which pair to put on. But you don't. No one does. Which is why your position, opinion, view, personal preference, or whatever else you want to call it, is unrealistic and illogical.

unholyangel wrote:

At no point did i say shoe choice would lessen any liability.

Not 'would' lessen liability, no. Because it wouldn't. But the strong implication from your own personal view is that it 'should'. Because you stated that you would take responsibility for the shoes you were wearing. In other words, if you were in this position you would accept some of the blame for your injury, which inherently lessens liability because the store would not be responsible for all of the injury.

unholyangel wrote:

Even after saying i wasnt commenting on the OP's case at all, people posted as if i had.

unholyangel wrote:

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.

That's because you did. You stated what you would do if it were you. There are few ways to comment on a situation more starkly than to state what you would actually do in it. It is entirely true that you didn't express it as advice, nor did you say that it would turn out that way through the court system or similar. But then again no one has said that you did. You expressed a view, and people are challenging it. It is as simple as that.

In an effort to tie this up I'll say this. If you're saying that this is something that you would do as a personal reaction, similar to someone who is injured in an RTA but just gets on with it and doesn't claim, then that's fine. But in using the phrase 'taking responsibility' you suggest that you would consider yourself at fault in some way because of the shoes you were wearing. In my view there would be no fault on your part due to your choice of shoes, and I have explained why I think that. And that's it. I'm happy to continue if we can actually advance this discussion, but I can't help but feel that we'll be imminently going around in circles.

unholyangel

Crazy_Jamie wrote: »

No argument that some pairs of shoes offer more protection than others. That's common sense. But it's not why you buy the vast majority of them. You buy them because of what they look like and how they feel. If you didn't and you actually bought them based on protection, I highly doubt that you would have anywhere near one hundred pairs. But in suggesting that you would take responsibility for a shelf falling on your feet in a shop, you are implying that you should consider the suitability of your shoes to guard against things like that when choosing which pair to put on. But you don't. No one does. Which is why your position, opinion, view, personal preference, or whatever else you want to call it, is unrealistic and illogical.

No, i never said i would take responsibility for the shelf falling. Nor did i say i would take responsibility for me being injured. Merely that i would accept my choice of footwear was largely to blame for the extent of my injury.
You're completely wrong and just proving my point that people assume they know what someone thinks better than that person themself. For example, when getting ready for a night out and choosing which shoes to wear, i'll consider a LOT of things. I'll consider the weather, whether i'm going to need to do a lot of walking, what kind of surfaces i'll need to walk over, what the chances are of people standing on my feet (crowded nightclub...it happens a lot and when you have a 15st guy standing on your bear toes while he's wearing a hard soled shoe -since trainers are banned in all clubs here - it can hurt, infinitely more than if i stepped on his toes). It doesnt mean i'll choose the shoes with the most protection. But i will make a concious decision that the shoes i choose may lead to injuries. But i accept not everyone does that hence why i said IF it were me and said i wasnt expecting others to be the same.

To me its just a case of "oops oh well". Just the way i was raised i'm afraid.

Crazy_Jamie

unholyangel wrote: »

No, i never said i would take responsibility for the shelf falling. Nor did i say i would take responsibility for me being injured. Merely that i would accept my choice of footwear was largely to blame for the extent of my injury.
You're completely wrong and just proving my point that people assume they know what someone thinks better than that person themself.

Me wrote:

In an effort to tie this up I'll say this. If you're saying that this is something that you would do as a personal reaction, similar to someone who is injured in an RTA but just gets on with it and doesn't claim, then that's fine. But in using the phrase 'taking responsibility' you suggest that you would consider yourself at fault in some way because of the shoes you were wearing. In my view there would be no fault on your part due to your choice of shoes, and I have explained why I think that. And that's it. I'm happy to continue if we can actually advance this discussion, but I can't help but feel that we'll be imminently going around in circles.

You see, the irony here is that whilst you have spent the last few posts claiming that I am quoting you out of context and not getting what you're saying, you have managed to do exactly the same thing. You're so keen to fly in at someone who disagrees with you that you're missing the wood for the trees. So rather than quoting one part of one sentence that I wrote, just read this bit that I've quoted from the end of my last post;

Me wrote:

In an effort to tie this up I'll say this. If you're saying that this is something that you would do as a personal reaction, similar to someone who is injured in an RTA but just gets on with it and doesn't claim, then that's fine. But in using the phrase 'taking responsibility' you suggest that you would consider yourself at fault in some way because of the shoes you were wearing. In my view there would be no fault on your part due to your choice of shoes, and I have explained why I think that. And that's it. I'm happy to continue if we can actually advance this discussion, but I can't help but feel that we'll be imminently going around in circles.

I only mention the shelf because you would take responsibility for the injury that it caused. That implies fault (contributory negligence, specifically) and that is what I take issue with. This whole debate is actually not about the shelf at all, it is about the issue of whether or not choice of footwear in this situation can constitute contributory negligence. From your expression of what you would do the suggestion is that you think it does. I don't think it ever can in a situation such as this.

And to reiterate once again; if you're coming from the position of "oops, oh well" then that's fine. It requires no justification. But in attempting to generate a justification you are putting forward a principle that I disagree with (i.e. that choice of footwear when shopping can lead to contributory negligence in a situation like this one). That's all.