Dad cut his mouth on pyrex dish bought the same day

Nona77

I was having dinner at my parents last night, mum had bought a pyrex dish from a well known department store earlier, she heated up some custard in the dish in the microwave and we all used it to pour on our dessert. My dad's mouth suddenly started pouring with blood, he then fished out a large piece of glass from his mouth that had come from the rim of the pyrex dish. Turns out he has a deep cut on his top lip and in his mouth. We can only think that it must have broken off whilst in the microwave as mum says she didn't hit it on anything as she would've noticed.

I told mum to take pictures of dads mouth, the dish and piece of glass, but do you think they're entitled to compensation? Should we go direct to their complaints department online rather than the shop?

Thank you for any help in advance.

mattyprice4004

I'd go to Pyrex, however you need to bear in mind how you'd prove you didn't damage it yourself.

You can only imagine how many people try stuff like this on, you need to give them the impression you're not one of them

MamaMoo_2

Entitled to compensation? If you can prove or Pyrex agree that it was a fault with the dish and not accidental damage whilst cooking, then yes, to the tune of either a new Pyrex dish or a refund for the broken one.
I wouldn't say you're entitled to anything over and above that, unless you incurred any quantifiable losses eg medical bills, transport costs to the hospital.
Pyrex *may* offer you a gesture of goodwill, but they don't have to.

ILW

What are the costs or losses you want compensating for?

bris

ILW wrote: »

What are the costs or losses you want compensating for?

What do you think no win no fee is there for.

If liability can be established then compensation can be claimed for the pain and suffering caused, the claim gets bigger the longer the pain and suffering continues and bigger again if the injury is permanent or scarring, disfigurement involved.

Personal injury claims are big, big business, but the problem is proving liability, may be difficult in this case.

unholyangel

bris wrote: »

What do you think no win no fee is there for.

Personally I think its to tempt people to claim for injuries they wouldnt have otherwise claimed for so the company/solicitor can profit from it.

While I recognise there are genuine compensation claims, we are fast becoming like america - where its the norm to be sued by people for things which they themselves contributed to/were responsible for.

Including (but not limited to) tripping over their own child in a furniture store and then suing the store because the child wasnt under control, slipping on liquid that happened to be the same liquid she threw at her boyfriends face just seconds earlier and crashing a motorhome after getting up to make a cup of coffee (because it didnt say in the manual that cruise control was not auto pilot!).



As for the OP....did your mum wash the dish before using it?

ThumbRemote

unholyangel wrote: »

Personally I think its to tempt people to claim for injuries they wouldnt have otherwise claimed for so the company/solicitor can profit from it.

While I recognise there are genuine compensation claims, we are fast becoming like america - where its the norm to be sued by people for things which they themselves contributed to/were responsible for.

Including (but not limited to) tripping over their own child in a furniture store and then suing the store because the child wasnt under control, slipping on liquid that happened to be the same liquid she threw at her boyfriends face just seconds earlier and crashing a motorhome after getting up to make a cup of coffee (because it didnt say in the manual that cruise control was not auto pilot!).



As for the OP....did your mum wash the dish before using it?

None of your rant about personal injury claims is of any relevance to the OP. There is a well recognised concept in UK law of financial compensation for bodily injury.

System

ThumbRemote wrote: »

None of your rant about personal injury claims is of any relevance to the OP. There is a well recognised concept in UK law of financial compensation for bodily injury.

As he wasn't responding to the OP, your criticism of his "rant" is also irrelevant....

unholyangel

ThumbRemote wrote: »

There is a well recognised concept in UK law of financial compensation for bodily injury.

Take it you missed the bit where I said....

unholyangel wrote: »

While I recognise there are genuine compensation claims, we are fast becoming like america - where its the norm to be sued by people for things which they themselves contributed to/were responsible for.

vaio

unholyangel wrote: »

.......we are fast becoming like america - where its the norm to be sued by people for things which they themselves contributed to/were responsible for.

Including (but not limited to) tripping over their own child in a furniture store and then suing the store because the child wasnt under control, slipping on liquid that happened to be the same liquid she threw at her boyfriends face just seconds earlier and crashing a motorhome after getting up to make a cup of coffee (because it didnt say in the manual that cruise control was not auto pilot!).........

Nice rant but all urban myths rather than real cases (at least according to Snopes)

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Equaliser123

vaio wrote: »

Nice rant but all urban myths rather than real cases (at least according to Snopes)

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

Have to say that whilst I don't agree with the concept of all personal injury claims are fraudulent or unjustified in any way, the no win, no fee brigade have certainly encouraged a lot of exaggerated and spurious claims. Indeed, a fair number of fraudulent claims (e.g. whiplash) would not have been compensated if no win, no fee didn't exist.

OP's case sounds different and, if liability can be established in that the product is unsafe or was faulty then it does sound like a suitable measure of compensation for injury is due.