Bugaboo Cameleon buggy

deethebee

George_Michael wrote: »

Apart from a relatively small amount for discomfort, I think that the OP's daughter would have had a hard time claiming for injury for their son.
All they mention is "a bump on the head" and nothing about any medical treatment following the accident.
It was at least 7 weeks later when the buggy was returned to the seller and I'm sure that if the bump on the head was anything serious, some sort of action would have been taken before this time.

Add to that the fact that the daughter wouldn't now be able to prove what caused the buggy to collapse as it has now been repaired and I don't really see that the manufacturer had too much to worry about regarding a personal injury claim.

My response was in line with Thumbsup, who said that if Mothercare had insisted on the OP proving the fault was down to a manufacturer's defect at the time of the complaint then they could have made a personal injury claim. I'm not sure whether a claim can only be made for any costs incurred or also by considering the damage that COULD have occurred (OP said the injury could have been worse). I would imagine they'd take that into account and you can also claim for stress and suffering, especially considering the victim was a young child. I realise it would have been difficult to prove any manufacturing defect once the buggy was repaired, that's why I believe they have offered what they may have considered a "goodwill gesture" - to avoid admitting any liability.

lincroft1710

deethebee wrote: »

I'm not sure whether a claim can only be made for any costs incurred or also by considering the damage that COULD have occurred (OP said the injury could have been worse). I would imagine they'd take that into account and you can also claim for stress and suffering, especially considering the victim was a young child.

You cannot claim for something that might have occurred, only what did occur. Using MCOL (Small Claims) would rarely (if ever) award anything for "stress and suffering", it deals with claims where there has been provable monetary loss or cost. The fact it was a small child makes no difference.

Most (probably all) children get bumps and knocks early in life, it is part of growing up. One of my bumps at 2 years old has left a very visible scar, which I can still see in the mirror nearly 60 years later.

deethebee

lincroft1710 wrote: »

You cannot claim for something that might have occurred, only what did occur. Using MCOL (Small Claims) would rarely (if ever) award anything for "stress and suffering", it deals with claims where there has been provable monetary loss or cost. The fact it was a small child makes no difference.

Most (probably all) children get bumps and knocks early in life, it is part of growing up. One of my bumps at 2 years old has left a very visible scar, which I can still see in the mirror nearly 60 years later.

That's small claims, yes I understand that process. But there are more ways of suing someone or a company so that's what my line of thinking was. Saying that though, the court actually has a section in their guidance notes for claimants where they say "if you are claiming for stress and suffering but don't know how much, then just put my claim will be for no more than £....." or something to that effect, so they obviously do award based on stress and suffering. Obviously it would depend on how far the person was willing to go and how much they want and yes I understand that children get bumps and knocks but it's a little different if it's caused by a product that was faulty and not just a part of being a child. In my eyes I could see that situation being far more damaging if they were in a different scenario at the time of the accident, and it could have occurred at any time so there's no telling the damage that could have been done.

I was once awarded money purely for stress and suffering as I incurred no monetary loss in said claim.

lincroft1710

deethebee wrote: »

In my eyes I could see that situation being far more damaging if they were in a different scenario at the time of the accident, and it could have occurred at any time so there's no telling the damage that could have been done.

Only what actually happened is relevant, speculation as to what might have happened would not be considered in a court action.

deethebee

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Only what actually happened is relevant, speculation as to what might have happened would not be considered in a court action.

Fair enough. I would have thought a judge would consider what kind of damage could be caused when making a decision on how much to award the claimant but if not I'll take your word for it until such time as someone qualified offers a different answer.

lincroft1710

deethebee wrote: »

Fair enough. I would have thought a judge would consider what kind of damage could be caused when making a decision on how much to award the claimant but if not I'll take your word for it until such time as someone qualified offers a different answer.

A judge makes a decision based on the evidence provided and (where applicable) the injury or damage suffered. If someone makes a claim because they broke an arm falling into an open manhole (for which there was no warning) they are not going to be awarded more money because they could have broken their other arm or both legs for example!

deethebee

lincroft1710 wrote: »

A judge makes a decision based on the evidence provided and (where applicable) the injury or damage suffered. If someone makes a claim because they broke an arm falling into an open manhole (for which there was no warning) they are not going to be awarded more money because they could have broken their other arm or both legs for example!

That isn't really the type of thing I was suggesting. More like, if the person who owned the buggy was on a train platform at the time the fault occurred and it caused the child to be launched onto the train tracks then the outcome would be severely worse. Similarly, if a person in a wheelchair were to have fallen into that manhole and cracked their skull open because of it then that outcome would have also been a lot worse. I would have thought that a judge would take that into account - if not for the claimant, then at the least as punishment to whoever was responsible for the accident. I think they call it punitive damages. If they don't take these things into account then I suppose that's just how it is, but it surprises me as the company would not then have any reason to improve their products or the way they operate in the future.

lincroft1710

deethebee wrote: »

That isn't really the type of thing I was suggesting. More like, if the person who owned the buggy was on a train platform at the time the fault occurred and it caused the child to be launched onto the train tracks then the outcome would be severely worse. Similarly, if a person in a wheelchair were to have fallen into that manhole and cracked their skull open because of it then that outcome would have also been a lot worse. I would have thought that a judge would take that into account

You are effectively saying that whenever there is a case for compensation a judge should imagine the worst case scenario that could have happened and award damages on that basis than what actually happened. I think you'll find courts don't work like that.


- if not for the claimant, then at the least as punishment to whoever was responsible for the accident. I think they call it punitive damages. If they don't take these things into account then I suppose that's just how it is, but it surprises me as the company would not then have any reason to improve their products or the way they operate in the future.

Bad publicity and multiple claims for injuries would persuade most responsible companies to remedy a faulty product

..................

deethebee

I didn't say the judge should do anything, I said I would have thought they'd take these things into account and if they don't they don't. I was offering an opinion.

Mr_Singleton

Jaen wrote: »

After being contacted by Bugaboo in Amsterdam I was given a refund.

Allegedly.