Accident at Nursey

Person_one

It does make me laugh when a poster gets responses they don't like and then decides its because none of the responders can read.

The thing is, amus, we can also read between the lines.

amus

Person_one wrote: »

It does make me laugh when a poster gets responses they don't like and then decides its because none of the responders can read.

The thing is, amus, we can also read between the lines.

I actually didnt have a problem with your response so I wasnt referring to you, I was referring to the people who were unneccessarily rude. But I would be lying if I said the automatic assumption that all I wanted to do was put in a claim didnt get my back up a bit.

The thing is, sometimes there arnt any lines to read between, people shouldnt always assume there are. Just because they may say something and mean another thing, it doesnt mean others do it .

Like Ive said if I wanted to put in a claim Id of done it without asking for opinions, I dont need other people to validate my beliefs (surely that comes across on DT - if not, Im dissappointed in myself). It just so happens in this case some people had suggested a course of action I should take, which I was unsure about, so I wanted to ask for other opinions.

Person_one

amus wrote: »

I actually didnt have a problem with your response so I wasnt referring to you, I was referring to the people who were unneccessarily rude. But I would be lying if I said the automatic assumption that all I wanted to do was put in a claim didnt get my back up a bit.

The thing is, sometimes there arnt any lines to read between, people shouldnt always assume there are. Just because they may say something and mean another thing, it doesnt mean others do it .

Like Ive said if I wanted to put in a claim Id of done it without asking for opinions, I dont need other people to validate my beliefs (surely that comes across on DT - if not, Im dissappointed in myself). It just so happens in this case some people had suggested a course of action I should take, which I was unsure about, so I wanted to ask for other opinions.

The thing is, even mentioning a claim is a bit odd. If your concern was your son's scar you'd have asked 'how can I help it heal without scarring too badly'. If your concern was the removal of the unit you'd have asked 'how do I approach the nursery about getting rid of the sharp furniture'. But you didn't, you framed the whole thing around a 'claim', which is a word that wouldn't enter most people's heads in this situation so it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Also the word 'reluctant' was probably not the best choice. It tends to mean 'I don't feel great about doing this, but I am going to do it'.

I can't blame anybody for thinking you were asking for 'any opinions?' on whether or not you should sue them for compensation, thats exactly what it looked like, so those are the opinions they gave.

How's your son anyway? I bet he's almost completely forgotten the incident in question!

amus

Person_one wrote: »

The thing is, even mentioning a claim is a bit odd. If your concern was your son's scar you'd have asked 'how can I help it heal without scarring too badly'. If your concern was the removal of the unit you'd have asked 'how do I approach the nursery about getting rid of the sharp furniture'. But you didn't, you framed the whole thing around a 'claim', which is a word that wouldn't enter most people's heads in this situation so it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Also the word 'reluctant' was probably not the best choice. It tends to mean 'I don't feel great about doing this, but I am going to do it'.

I can't blame anybody for thinking you were asking for 'any opinions?' on whether or not you should sue them for compensation, thats exactly what it looked like, so those are the opinions they gave.

How's your son anyway? I bet he's almost completely forgotten the incident in question!

I was concerned about the nursery furniture but to be honest it was a given I was going to confront them about that, and I had already read up on scarring due to him having chicken pox so badly last year.

That is what I was asking peoples opinions about (claiming), but as I had put reluctant (I interpret 'reluctant' as there being an option, but an option Im not very keen on), I presumed people would understand that I wasnt saying I was going to put in a claim, simply that it was an option that I wasnt sure about.

Yeah he's fine thanks to be honest I think I was more upset and traumatised by it than him .

Person_one

amus wrote: »

Yeah he's fine thanks to be honest I think I was more upset and traumatised by it than him .

I think that's par for the course for the rest of your life now.

FBaby

I consider myself a very responsible mother and very well aware about health and safety and the likes. I consider my duty to insure my children are as safe as can be in any situation... Yet I had to face the fact that there were two instances when he was put under serious danger whilst in my care (and I suspect the only two times). The first one was to do with a window, the second time a van. In both situations I thought I had things under control.

All this to say that however much we like to think that we are infallible and focus our attention on others, all we can do is minimize the chance of an accident, not avoid it totally, just like other highly scrutinized environments.

dickydonkin

meritaten wrote: »

had it been an inch lower and your son was blinded - would those who post be quite so scathing about sueing?
I would want to see where the accident happened...........and work out if it was preventable or was negligent.
Yes, accidents happen - but many of them are preventable if people take precautions.
If you are satisfied that all precautions were taken, then fair enough it was an 'accident'. If, however, precautions are now put in place then you could argue that they should have been done sooner.......which would have prevented your sons accident!

ALL accidents are preventable - unfortunately for many, this is usualy determined AFTER the event.

In the OP's situation, if the she decides to take the litigious route, what will need to be determined is if the nursery was deemed negligent and a major factor on determining this would be if the incident was reasonable foreseeable.

A child bumping heavily into the edge of a door will very likely cause a similar cut as the one referred to in this post.

Would it then be reasonable to pad the doors or remove the hazard completely by taking the door off??

Of course not.

I wonder if the OP has all of the furniture with corners in her home padded?

I suspect she won't - so if the child had a similar accident at home, you can bet that this thread would not exist!

The OP may then realise that toddlers invariably get cuts and bruises - but I suspect she already knew that.

Once the pound signs start flashing, common sense goes out of the window.

Thankfully, the no win no fee 'lawyers' are to be regulated very soon - not before time IMO!

amus

dickydonkin wrote: »

Once the pound signs start flashing, common sense goes out of the window.

Thankfully, the no win no fee 'lawyers' are to be regulated very soon - not before time IMO!

Have you even read the OP, have you even read the rest of the thread?

Thought not.

dickydonkin

amus wrote: »

I got a call the other day from my sons nursery saying I would have to pick him up and take him to A&E due to a head injury/cut.

I went to get him and it turns out he was running and ended up hitting his head on the sharp corner of a wooden unit which holds the childrens trays. This resulted in a cut about and 4cm across and about 1/2cm wide in between his eye and his eyebrow, which is now black and blue.

Took him to hospital and he had to have it glued but luckily no other problems.

I suppose Im asking for advice on what to do, Im concerned that this is going to result in a noticable scar and I dont think the nursery should have had these units with sharp corners sticking out all over the place.

I know accidents happen and am reluctant to put a claim in but at the same time am not happy that this has happened.

Opinions please?

amus wrote: »

Have you even read the OP, have you even read the rest of the thread?

Thought not.

Well I have and I have also responded to your request for opinions which was in your original post.

You ask for opinions - but you seem miffed by responses that you don't agree with - isn't that what opinions are all about?

Judging by many other posters 'thanks' count, it seems many others share my views. Small children will always get bangs and bumps - despite attentitive and continuous monitoring.

I was attempting to indicate to you the reality of trying to prove negligence - I did this because you alluded that you may consider the litigious route - albeit 'reluctantly'.

If you didn't consider this - then you should not have even mentioned it in your post.

You do not like the responses - well tough - your child will get over this incident and so should you.

amus

dickydonkin wrote: »

Once the pound signs start flashing, common sense goes out of the window.

Thankfully, the no win no fee 'lawyers' are to be regulated very soon - not before time IMO!

The first half of your post, fine.

This is not giving your opinion. This is suggesting that I have said that I am putting a claim in, which I have not. Not in the OP or elsewhere in the thread.

Yes it seems a lot of people want to believe what they want to beleive so they can have a dig, rather than answer the question which is actually being asked/reading what is actually being written.

I think I've learnt from this thread that when most people are saying something, they dont really mean what they are saying, and are trying to imply something else, and that standard seems to have been applied to me. I will bear this in mind in future. Lack of deceit on my part has always seemed to cause me problems.