Tesco Car Park Accident & Hospital Visit

user1977

Fascinating though the debate about social distancing may be, I can't see that it has much to do with liability - either the occupier of the car park breached their duty of care towards pedestrians crossing the car park or they didn't.

IvanOpinion

I remember as a kid getting a cuff around the back of the head and being told to lift my feet if I tripped over anything.

Ergates

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.

The validity of the reason for stepping off the pavement is irrelevant.  The surfaces in a carpark *will* be crossed by pedestrians, which means that the whole carpark should be maintained to a standard that prevents hazards to pedestrians.   

If the OP had stepped off the pavement to go to their car and had tripped, would that make a difference?

diystarter7

A few years back I fell crossing a side road with a speed hump. I was lucking and just had grazed hands and knew along with a hole in my jeans (35 pounds worth) and a hole in my pride. When I told people, they asked if I was ok etc and then laughed and most stated, you need to watch where you are going.

prowla

unforeseen said:

Assuming that the floodlighting was the responsibility of the council, I expect the same sort of principle would apply as to uneven pavements or potholes in roads - that is, in order to claim negligence against them, you'd need to show that the council had been made aware of the defect beforehand and had not acted on that imformation within a reasonable time.

There was no defect. OP tripped over a speed bump.

Maybe the OP should've been walking more slowly...

sheramber

Ergates said:

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.

The validity of the reason for stepping off the pavement is irrelevant.  The surfaces in a carpark *will* be crossed by pedestrians, which means that the whole carpark should be maintained to a standard that prevents hazards to pedestrians.   

If the OP had stepped off the pavement to go to their car and had tripped, would that make a difference?

That would be ab entirely different scenario and insurance/compensation is not paid on what ifs.

What if it had been a nun with a basket full of kittens?

Ergates

sheramber said:

Ergates said:

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.

The validity of the reason for stepping off the pavement is irrelevant.  The surfaces in a carpark *will* be crossed by pedestrians, which means that the whole carpark should be maintained to a standard that prevents hazards to pedestrians.   

If the OP had stepped off the pavement to go to their car and had tripped, would that make a difference?

That would be ab entirely different scenario and insurance/compensation is not paid on what ifs.

What if it had been a nun with a basket full of kittens?

That's not the point.   Either the carpark was properly maintained so that someone stepping from the pavement can do so safely or it wasn't.  Either the carpark owner is liable, or they're not.  Given that a carpark (by it's very nature) is intended for use by pedestrians as well as cars, the reason for the person stepping from the pavement is not relevant to the liability of the carpark owner.

user1977

sheramber said:

Ergates said:

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.

The validity of the reason for stepping off the pavement is irrelevant.  The surfaces in a carpark *will* be crossed by pedestrians, which means that the whole carpark should be maintained to a standard that prevents hazards to pedestrians.   

If the OP had stepped off the pavement to go to their car and had tripped, would that make a difference?

That would be ab entirely different scenario and insurance/compensation is not paid on what ifs.

I don't see what's "entirely different" about it. Either it's safe for pedestrians to walk across or it ain't. You don't get some sort of higher standard of care afforded to you by being a driver/passenger of a car parked in the car park.

lincroft1710

The only thing that appeared to make the car park  possibly unsafe for pedestrians was the non functioning floodlight. Knowing that the area was badly lit means the OP should have taken more care before stepping off the pavement. As the incident happened over18 months ago, no doubt the light has been repaired/replaced and it could be very difficult to prove how soon or otherwise this happened after the incident. 

The_Fat_Controller

@lincroft1710 I agree 100%, the OP should have been more careful stepping off a pavement into a dark area.