Tesco Car Park Accident & Hospital Visit

Thesunshinesonme

Hello all, thanks for the feedback: the good, the bad and the ugly!  @Ergates, yes I did misspeak.  I stepped into the carpark, not the road.  I only did so due to social distancing requirements (early pandemic, there was no other way to meet the 2m requirement).  The area I stepped into was not lit as the light immediately adjacent to it was out of action.  

longjohnjohnson

Thesunshinesonme said:

Hello all, thanks for the feedback: the good, the bad and the ugly!  @Ergates, yes I did misspeak.  I stepped into the carpark, not the road.  I only did so due to social distancing requirements (early pandemic, there was no other way to meet the 2m requirement).  The area I stepped into was not lit as the light immediately adjacent to it was out of action.  

The advice was just that, advice.  It wasn't a legal requirement.

MalMonroe

Hi, according to Citizens Advice (and others if you do a quick google search) the time limit for claiming compensation for personal injury is actually three years, not two. See info in the link below -

https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/personal-injuries/

But I think you will have to find out who owns the car park, your council will know. Most of the supermarket car parks where I live have notices up saying that they take no responsibility for anything that happens in their car parks. A few years ago I was mugged in a Tesco car park - nobody cared. But often such signs are meaningless if it is proven that the owner of the land has been negligent.

It seems to me that if there was no pavement that you could safely use because it was blocked AND essential lights were not working, your accident happened because of the negligence of whoever owns the car park. Yes, you probably could have said 'excuse me' but I think most people would have attempted to do as you did, and tried to step around the people who were chatting. Had the lights been operational, there probably wouldn't have been an accident.

You could contact a solicitor who deals with personal injury and ask if they offer free initial appointments so you can judge whether or not it's worth your while bringing a case against the owner of the land/lighting.

You have medical proof of the accident, the manager made a report (which is good because even though the accident didn't happen in the store and although he said it wasn't the store's responsibility, he recorded it - which contradicts his statement. If it wasn't the store's responsibility, why record it?) Not only that, he repeated that you could 'take this further'.  

It wouldn't hurt to make some enquiries. I claimed compensation from the council here when I toppled over on some uneven council land and broke my ankle. It took a while but I was awarded £3k for the pain (there was a lot!) and inconvenience and loss of wages. I had to have three months off work because there were complications. Most people told me I was daft (yep, maybe) and said I had no chance, the council wouldn't pay anything - and I was happy to prove them wrong. It's always worth a try.

Ergates

The_Fat_Controller said:

@Ergates, the OP tripped over a SPEED HUMP designed to slow down cars not pedestrians, so by definition it was on the part of the carpark designed for traffic.

They have not said there was any issue with the height or any defect, they tripped because they did not see it.

All parts of a carpark are designed for both.  Once people have parked they then get out of their cars and thus become pedestrians.  After getting out (and becoming pedestrians), they generally walk somewhere - crossing the same parts of the carpark they just drove over.   A carpark is not a road.

They didn't see the speed-bump because the light was broken.

longjohnjohnson

Ergates said:

The_Fat_Controller said:

@Ergates, the OP tripped over a SPEED HUMP designed to slow down cars not pedestrians, so by definition it was on the part of the carpark designed for traffic.

They have not said there was any issue with the height or any defect, they tripped because they did not see it.

All parts of a carpark are designed for both.  Once people have parked they then get out of their cars and thus become pedestrians.  After getting out (and becoming pedestrians), they generally walk somewhere - crossing the same parts of the carpark they just drove over.   A carpark is not a road.

They didn't see the speed-bump because the light was broken.

Or they weren't looking where they were going because they were too distracted by avoiding people they didn't need to avoid because of their faulty interpretation of COVID laws.

A speed bump is the same colour as the road and isn't necessarily obvious with artificial illumination.

Most artificial light makes it very difficult to see nuances in the same way sunlight offers when the entire sky and every surface is illuminated.

I don't agree that this is a "but for the light working, the OP wouldn't have tripped up" situation.

user1977

Thesunshinesonme said:

Hello all, thanks for the feedback: the good, the bad and the ugly!  @Ergates, yes I did misspeak.  I stepped into the carpark, not the road.  I only did so due to social distancing requirements (early pandemic, there was no other way to meet the 2m requirement).  The area I stepped into was not lit as the light immediately adjacent to it was out of action.  

You still haven't told us who operates the car park. Tesco don't have responsibility for its maintenance just because their customers happen to use it.

Undervalued

Thesunshinesonme said:

Hello all, thanks for the feedback: the good, the bad and the ugly!  @Ergates, yes I did misspeak.  I stepped into the carpark, not the road.  I only did so due to social distancing requirements (early pandemic, there was no other way to meet the 2m requirement).  The area I stepped into was not lit as the light immediately adjacent to it was out of action.  

I don't know which feedback you consider to be "ugly" but I assume it is those saying what you don't want to hear!

However, based on what you have posted here and obviously without seeing the circumstances first hand, I have to say I think you would struggle to win in court. You may well have suffered a nasty injury that wasn't your fault. However that doesn't in itself mean it is anybody else's fault either.

One poster more or less encourages you to make a claim anyway, largely on the basis that (sadly) many such small claims are settled rather than defended. I suppose that might happen here. Ultimately that is between you and your conscience.

sheramber

It seems to me that if there was no pavement that you could safely use because it was blocked AND

Then surely any claim would be against the two men who were standing talking,' blocking ' the pavement.

The OP chose to step off the pavement rather than pass the men within 2 metres distance or ask them to give her room. to pass.

It was unlikely she would catch covid in the one or two seconds it would take to pass them  closer than 2 metres.

I would be interested how she managed to shop in Tesco keeping 2 metres apart from other customers.

Undervalued

sheramber said:

It seems to me that if there was no pavement that you could safely use because it was blocked AND

Then surely any claim would be against the two men who were standing talking,' blocking ' the pavement.

The OP chose to step off the pavement rather than pass the men within 2 metres distance or ask them to give her room. to pass.

It was unlikely she would catch covid in the one or two seconds it would take to pass them  closer than 2 metres.

I would be interested how she managed to shop in Tesco keeping 2 metres apart from other customers.

Indeed, although that is getting a bit theoretical!

If it is a public right of way then they have a right only to "pass and repass" but not to loiter or assemble. However in the real world.......

impoverishedtraveller

If adhering to social distancing meant that you had no other option but to walk off a cliff would you do it?