Injured from slipping on airplane's ramp

photome

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.

Do you really need to ask

duchy

I suspect the OP did themselves no favours wanting to claim compensation for medical treatment he or she has no idea if they need yet or not (and would be covered under the NHS anyway) plus the attempt at a new coat

PeacefulWaters

Like it or not, insurers pay out significant sums on behalf of their clients for incidents that sound just like this one.

The OP should find a suitable solicitor and take it from there. No guarantees though.

And be more careful next time.

dickydonkin

mgdavid wrote: »

But this case *was* the OP's fault, they failed to engage brain and act accordingly.

So have you seen where the accident occurred and what caused it? Have you also undertaken the accident investigation? You have assumed it was the OP's fault based on what?

Please elaborate as to why it was the OP's fault.

People on here keep focusing on the OP's 'inability' to perceive there was a slipping hazard - and as I keep trying to explain, in respect of H&S legislation, where an accident has occurred - irrespective of severity of the outcome - there will be more than one element that contributed to the cause of her accident.

In this case, the floor was wet - if I was conducting the accident investigation, then one of the key points would be to determine as to why the floor was wet. And for the benefit of the clowns, it was raining I know - but was the area the accident occurred covered or protected?

People keep referring to the fact that it was raining and dark, but if (for example) the roof of the airbridge was leaking or the lighting was not suitable for the area, these issues are factors that the owners of the ramp were responsible for - under UK legislation!

If disembarking an aircraft down external steps when raining, then a wet floor surface/steps are expected to be wet. Leaving an aircraft from a covered airbridge - despite what the weather is outside - it would not be unreasonable to expect the floor surface to be dry.

If unforeseeable circumstances resulted in contamination of the floor, then this would be taken into consideration if the OP decided to claim for personal injury or if escalated to an enforcement body.

If a passenger was intoxicated or fooling around on the ramp, then these too would form part of any accident investigation as these would very likely be contributory factors.

Human factors, environment and many other considerations form part of an accident investigation and it is unwise to assume the cause of an accident without actually seeing where it occurred.

Below is a section from the CAA's airside safety manual.

9 Airbridge Operations
9.1 There have been several incidents involving airbridges which have occurred in the UKand on the Continent which had potential for major aircraft damage and/or serious injury to personnel. These have included:
• collapse and other extensive structural failure
• uncommanded or unexpected movements
28 February 2003CAP 642 Airside Safety Management
Chapter 2 Page 26
• obstructions, such as vehicles and equipment, being struck by the airbridge, due
in part to the failure of detection devices
• rotten floors and leaking roofs creating slip and trip hazards.
9.2 These incidents have commonly been caused either by incorrect installation or inadequate maintenance of the equipment, or poor procedures leading to operator error.

It was raining, no amount of precaution is going to stop it being wet.

Even if the roof of the walkway was leaking? Surely appropriate maintenance would ensure this would not occur.

I will reiterate, we are all attempting to determine the cause an accident where none of us had access to the area and blaming the OP for the injury she sustained is inappropriate without knowing the full facts.

lewroll

Jeez, dickydonkin now I know why the world is in such a state😕

dickydonkin

lewroll wrote: »

Jeez, dickydonkin now I know why the world is in such a state��

I agree - looking at some of the comments on this thread compounds your assertion.

I don't make the laws - I just interpret them to enable legal compliance and to ensure people can go to work in the morning and arrive safely home to their families.

OP - I'm obviously peeing into the wind here but I would certainly seek legal advice to determine the validity of a claim and don't allow some of the stupid comments on here to put you off.

PompeyPete

I saw an elf'n'safety warning on an A-board the other day.
It said 'Beware of A-boards'.:)

dickydonkin

PompeyPete wrote: »

I saw an elf'n'safety warning on an A-board the other day.
It said 'Beware of A-boards'.:)

:rotfl:........a couple of years ago, myself and Mrs DD were in our local supermarket.

Someone must have spilled something on the floor and it was mopped up and an 'A board' was placed in the area where the spillage occurred.

I was looking at a product above eye level (no - not a magazine:eek:) when I tripped over the bl00dy thing. Thankfully the only injury was to my pride and no harm was done.

I always encourage spillages to be 'dry wiped' as mopping only increases the wet area and as you state, you are introducing a potentially trip hazard in the form of an A board. But that's enough of safety - don't want to upset the Daily Mail readers.

peachyprice

dickydonkin wrote: »

So have you seen where the accident occurred and what caused it? Have you also undertaken the accident investigation? You have assumed it was the OP's fault based on what?

Please elaborate as to why it was the OP's fault.

People on here keep focusing on the OP's 'inability' to perceive there was a slipping hazard - and as I keep trying to explain, in respect of H&S legislation, where an accident has occurred - irrespective of severity of the outcome - there will be more than one element that contributed to the cause of her accident.

In this case, the floor was wet - if I was conducting the accident investigation, then one of the key points would be to determine as to why the floor was wet. And for the benefit of the clowns, it was raining I know - but was the area the accident occurred covered or protected?

People keep referring to the fact that it was raining and dark, but if (for example) the roof of the airbridge was leaking or the lighting was not suitable for the area, these issues are factors that the owners of the ramp were responsible for - under UK legislation!

If disembarking an aircraft down external steps when raining, then a wet floor surface/steps are expected to be wet. Leaving an aircraft from a covered airbridge - despite what the weather is outside - it would not be unreasonable to expect the floor surface to be dry.

If unforeseeable circumstances resulted in contamination of the floor, then this would be taken into consideration if the OP decided to claim for personal injury or if escalated to an enforcement body.

If a passenger was intoxicated or fooling around on the ramp, then these too would form part of any accident investigation as these would very likely be contributory factors.

Human factors, environment and many other considerations form part of an accident investigation and it is unwise to assume the cause of an accident without actually seeing where it occurred.

Below is a section from the CAA's airside safety manual.





Even if the roof of the walkway was leaking? Surely appropriate maintenance would ensure this would not occur.

I will reiterate, we are all attempting to determine the cause an accident where none of us had access to the area and blaming the OP for the injury she sustained is inappropriate without knowing the full facts.

Why the assumption it was an air bridge?

Air bridges don't have steps, OP's daughter wouldn't have been frightened of falling while leaving a plane via an air bridge, it's a level walk off the plane.

The logical assumption that most people have made is that it was an open stairway that would have been wet in the rain and no matter how many signs were put up and no matter how many times the steps were swept before passengers disembarked, would have continued to get wet in the rain.

InsideInsurance

dickydonkin wrote: »

And does that comment also apply to young children, the elderly and disabled?

Yes, if they are too young, old or disabled to know that a wet surface may be slippery then I believe they will also be too young, old or disabled to be listening to flight attendants and following their instructions