Sainsburys

IvanOpinion

uktim29 wrote: »

Do you mean the op's case? I haven't read the manager informed the customer that they did not follow those procedures that day anywhere. It's says he apologised, thats all.

That is the problem with apologies in 21st century UK .. some people take them as an admission of guilt. This is also the reason why sometimes people do not get an apology ... simply because it can be seen as an admission of guilt.

I am sorry that the OPs car got damaged, because I have experienced exactly the same, it does not however make me guilty of doing it.

ivan

C_Ronaldo

I had the same problem when my car got broken into and at the time i worked for sainsburys, my car had 4 out of 5 windows smashed and some cds taken and prescription sunglasses taken, claim was about £400 but my employer wouldnt give me F**k A** as they said "its park at your own risk", a couple of hundred of pounds wouldnt have dented the profits of JS

C_Ronaldo

andyrules wrote: »

Because whilst they can't stop thieves, they can stop the trolleys by collecting them, especially on a windy day.:)

or have the pound lock on the trolleys so as to try and prevent this, on teh day the OP's car was hit there may not have been enough staff in to collect the trolleys, they could have been on other departments

marleyboy

Good point, the pound trolleys definately wouldnt be left to wander around

C_Ronaldo

marleyboy wrote: »

Good point, the pound trolleys definately wouldnt be left to wander around

I dont know why more of the supermarkets done use the pound locks to be honest

IvanOpinion

Maybe if we put locks requiring a £20 note we could stop all the chavs from shopping there then ones Rolls would be safe in the car park ... I could get some street urchin then return my trolley for me to colect the tip

Ivan

Dave_Brooker

C_Ronaldo wrote: »

I dont know why more of the supermarkets done use the pound locks to be honest

Because they're a pain and irritate customers.

RadoJo

I concur - the number of times a customer is annoyed by having to rustle up a pound coin must FAR outweigh the number of times a stray trolley causes any trouble.

mrme

C_Ronaldo wrote: »

I dont know why more of the supermarkets done use the pound locks to be honest

Thats a simple one, it annoys customers as not everyone has a £1 coin on them to use! Most supermarkets have thankfully got rid of this system, annoying customers obvioulsy isn't good for business. I know I have made do with a basket many times instead of a little trolley because I didn't have a £1 coin and I really can't be arsed to stand around at customer serivice to get some change. No room for those impulse buys in a basket Anyway whats a £1 worth nowadays? I don't think its enough to persuade some people to return the trolley to the correct place

mustrum_ridcully

RichyRich wrote: »

Re negligence - see Ward v Tesco Stores. In that case, a woman slipped on yogurt that a customer had dropped on the floor and had failed to report to staff.

Tesco could prove that they regularly patrolled the store and had procedures in place to mop up spillages. Nevertheless, Tesco were held liable to the injuries to the woman due to their negligence, despite the fact that it was not them who spilt the yogurt.

The test I was always told is would the man on the number 57 bus consider it reasonable. If the spillage was there for say half an hour then yes it is reasonable to suggest a member of staff probably should of spotted the spillage. However, if the spillage had occured 30 seconds before hand it would be unreasonable to expect tesco's to solve the problem.

You forgot to mention one important thing in Ward v Tescos - that [FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]there was evidence that some three weeks after the accident the claimant/plaintiff went back to the same supermarket and found some orange juice spilt on the floor, and watched and noted that it was a good 15 to 20 minutes before it was cleared up. This showed that Tesco's failed in its duty of care.[/FONT]

As I understand it in the end the burden of proof is still on the claimant to prove beyond all reasonable doubt that the defendant was negligent.