Injured from slipping on airplane's ramp

bbk87

If you were notified the ramp was slippery, would you have done anything different?

dickydonkin

peachyprice wrote: »

Except all your postings have been biased towards the fact that is must have been a covered air bridge that was leaking/defective. Nothing you posted was from the POV that it could have been open steps.

Other than whatever type of airbridge it was, the same UK legislation would apply in respect of duty of care, maintenance, risk assessment etc. That is a fact - like it or not.

hollydays wrote: »

What kind of shoes was the op wearing. If flip flops or backless, not suitable .

Doh................we don't know!!!!!! she may have been wearing fishermens waders for all we know. AGAIN - to determine as to why the incident occurred, we need to know all the facts. It seems the OP is conspicuous by her absence - although I can totally understand why.

callum9999 wrote: »

You keep acting like people are making legal judgements - they are not. They are making moral judgements.

However, the reality is that the law will always override 'moral judgement' - that is a fact.

mgdavid wrote: »

did nobody ever explain to you that saying the same thing over and over and over again doesn't make it 'right'?
The HSE laws are not there to justify or protect the victim's stupidity...

The 'things' I keep repeating are in respect to how legislation would apply in such a situation - that my friend makes it right.

And in respect of laws protecting stupidity - I'm not going into details about human factors in respect of safety, perhaps you should read up on it, although I suspect as it will discredit your silly assertion, you won't bother.

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

and consider what jesus would have done (as he stepped off the plane)

:rotfl: Hopefully he would have turned the offending water on the ramp into wine and if there was sufficient, I would go to the airport myself and imbibe the vino from the steps - probaby unwise as my head is aching already due to continuously banging my head of a brick wall on here!!

Never mind, I always get this crap - at least in a training session, I can elaborate more and give examples on how safety legislation applies in the UK-perhaps some on this thread could join me one day!!! I'm sure Jesus would also approve of converting the ignorant - I will forgive though as they know not what they say!;)

That's me done on this thread - I'm off to church to pray for you and hope you are never a victim of an accident.

lea2012

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

Before any one criticises,



Pause,

Stop.


Think,



and consider what jesus would have done (as he stepped off the plane)

There is actually a saying known as WWMD or 'What would Madonna do?' which your quote reminded me of. Quite ironic considering what Madonna did do at last nights Brit's and the original post!!
:rotfl:

pattycake

She's probably formulating a claim against Armani at this very moment. Capes which do not come off with one tug. An obvious H&S issue.

mgdavid

dickydonkin wrote: »

........The 'things' I keep repeating are in respect to how legislation would apply in such a situation - that my friend makes it right.

It only needed saying once, nobody is the slightest interested in your vested interest legal position, least of all the OP. All they are interested in is 'compo'.
And I am not your friend so no need to attempt to ingratiate yourself in that way.

dickydonkin wrote: »

And in respect of laws protecting stupidity - I'm not going into details about human factors in respect of safety, perhaps you should read up on it, although I suspect as it will discredit your silly assertion, you won't bother.
........

I am familiar with human factors and CRM - inside the cockpit; however this particular punter does not have the benefit of a second reference point and has to stand on her own two feet (pun intended). The outcome of this risk was totally isolated to the individual, and did not affect any third party.

callum9999

dickydonkin wrote: »

However, the reality is that the law will always override 'moral judgement' - that is a fact.

And your point is what exactly? That people must always align their opinions with what the law says and should be forbidden from expressing any disagreement?

budgetflyer

Murphy_The_Cat wrote: »

and consider what jesus would have done (as he stepped off the plane)

No problem. Its all ready been documented. He could walk on water.

mattyprice4004

pendragon_arther wrote: »

Pray tell us all why when in broad daylight the floor cleaners in airports etc always have to put up a warning sign advising people the area is wet and slippery.

This has to be a contender for least thought out post of 2015. :beer:

Obviously_the_best

Just to summarise thread:

Passenger saw airstairs were wet. Then decided to hold 7 year old because said steps were wet. Then fell because she couldn't pay proper attention to where she was going. Now wants money from someone because despite herself seeing and knowing the steps were wet, she wasn't explicitly told so by cabin crew.

I have a feeling that even *mentioning no names* large no win no fee companies would turn that case down.

photome

Obviously_the_best wrote: »

Just to summarise thread:

Passenger saw airstairs were wet. Then decided to hold 7 year old because said steps were wet. Then fell because she couldn't pay proper attention to where she was going. Now wants money from someone because despite herself seeing and knowing the steps were wet, she wasn't explicitly told so by cabin crew.

I have a feeling that even *mentioning no names* large no win no fee companies would turn that case down.

Op doesnt need any of those ambulance chasers as Dicky is going to take it on