Roll on anti perspirent bottle scarred me

peachyprice

dan_l wrote: »

I think you have missed the point. I'm not comparing the 2, I'm trying to distinguish at what stage people on this forum think compensation should be given due to somebody’s negligence.

When it impacts on a persons life seems sensible.

If it were a roll-on eye cream for example that had scarred OP's face, that would have an impact on their life.

If the cut under OP's arm had become infected so that OP had lost earnings, that would impact on her life.

If the scar is in such a place that she would no longer feel comfortable wearing certain clothes would impact on her life.

Compensation expected where there has been absolutely no loss or any impact on a persons life, where people expect compensation for something that might have happened (won't somebody think of the children) is what gets people's goat.

Some people (not OP) just cannot accept that accidents happen.

bod1467

Nice to see everyone has presumed the OPs gender. Do men not use roll-ons too?

The follow on posts are exactly why I phrased my initial questions the way I did. I wanted to avoid making any assumptions re compo and see the OPs attitude, which I found refreshing.

dan_l

peachyprice wrote: »

When it impacts on a persons life seems sensible.

If it were a roll-on eye cream for example that had scarred OP's face, that would have an impact on their life.

If the cut under OP's arm had become infected so that OP had lost earnings, that would impact on her life.

If the scar is in such a place that she would no longer feel comfortable wearing certain clothes would impact on her life.

Compensation expected where there has been absolutely no loss or any impact on a persons life, where people expect compensation for something that might have happened (won't somebody think of the children) is what gets people's goat.

Some people (not OP) just cannot accept that accidents happen.

I completely agree that there are people who come on here after compensation when they don't deserve it (the people who have found something in their food but not eaten it for example)

The post I originally quoted was praising the OP for not mentioning compensation. Now in my opinion I don't think it is completely outrageous for the OP, if they are scarred for life due to somebody elses fault, regardless of where it is. to expect a little bit more than just their expenses - I'm not talking thousands (which I think in your example of a scarred face they should be entitled to).

Zandoni

Scarred or not I feel some sort of compensation is called for. I believe that if a company makes a faulty product which hurts someone, then they should compensate them in some way or other.

Perhaps a nice box of their products or something like that.

shaun_from_Africa

Majorwally,

It may be worth popping in to see you GP at some time.

If it still looks bad after 4 weeks it might be that a bit of the plastic is stuck in there or there could be a bit of an infection caused by underarm bacteria getting into the cut.

unholyangel

dan_l wrote: »

I completely agree that there are people who come on here after compensation when they don't deserve it (the people who have found something in their food but not eaten it for example)

The post I originally quoted was praising the OP for not mentioning compensation. Now in my opinion I don't think it is completely outrageous for the OP, if they are scarred for life due to somebody elses fault, regardless of where it is. to expect a little bit more than just their expenses - I'm not talking thousands (which I think in your example of a scarred face they should be entitled to).

If they were looking for anything more than a "goodwill gesture", they'd likely have to go to court and then such questions as "is there anything they could have done to avoid the incident" etc would arise.

It can take cuts years to fully settle down. About 2 years back I cut my hand on a supermarket checkout (metal bit). It was a livid pinky/red for ages and has only recently started settling back into the colour of the rest of my skin. In another year or so, it wont be noticeable at all

peachyprice

bod1467 wrote: »

Nice to see everyone has presumed the OPs gender. Do men not use roll-ons too?

Yes, but their fur would offer some degree of protection

paddyrg

If the OP works out what it has cost them (including any time off work to go for stitches for instance) the company will refer it to their insurers who will whine like girls and find as many ways to wriggle as they can - but won't want it to go to court so everyone will be happy to settle for a couple of hundred quid just to make this go away. They sold a product which when used as directed injured a customer, they know they are on the hook and will go back to the manufacturer to make sure it doesn't re-occur.

Glass_Half_Full_5

I agree that if a cut still looks nasty after 4 weeks it's worth getting it checked out by a GP just to be on the safe side. As far as compensation goes the question is what has been lost? Any time off work, any daily tasks unable to be completed, or any impact on OP's social life? If the supplier has any sense they will present her/him with a (non dangerous) replacement, plus something else from their range of some value to show they take their responsibilities seriously, along with their sincere apologies. A reasonable person would be happy with that in these circumstances.

Qwiksilver

I utterly despise the way our country has developed this "someone must be cuplable" compensation culture. There are such things as genuine accidents and oversights but it appears that no allowance is made any more for such events.
And before the compo trolls jump on the bandwagon for clarity let me state the following - where direct negligence or premeditated ignorance is involved those responsible need to be held to account.