Injured by Item Purchased from Amazon - 3rd Party Seller

eve1978

MattMattMattUK said:

eve1978 said:

baser999 said:

I can’t believe the question of compensation has even been discussed? Sorry but get real, it’s a paper cut caused by something that you put on your face, clearly without firstly checking. 

By all means hassle Amazon if the item needs to be removed; yours may have been a single rogue item.

Respectfully it is a deep cut which I should not have experienced.  As I said earlier it has not healed. And I can provide images to Amazon to confirm that.

The fact that a cut has not healed in two weeks is not down to them.

eve1978 said:

We should not be injured by products if using them as per the instructions. 

Do the instructions not say that you should check the product is in good condition before usage, which is something the instructions for pretty much everything seem to state.

The cut not healing is a consequence of the cut happening in the first place surely? And there is nothing in the instructions about checking for sharp or rough edges, only for tears/holes in the mask. 

baser999

Would common sense not dictate that you checked an item that you were planning to apply to your face? Clearly not.
However, having said that if you ever buy knives, don’t check the blades 

MattMattMattUK

eve1978 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

eve1978 said:

baser999 said:

I can’t believe the question of compensation has even been discussed? Sorry but get real, it’s a paper cut caused by something that you put on your face, clearly without firstly checking. 

By all means hassle Amazon if the item needs to be removed; yours may have been a single rogue item.

Respectfully it is a deep cut which I should not have experienced.  As I said earlier it has not healed. And I can provide images to Amazon to confirm that.

The fact that a cut has not healed in two weeks is not down to them.

eve1978 said:

We should not be injured by products if using them as per the instructions. 

Do the instructions not say that you should check the product is in good condition before usage, which is something the instructions for pretty much everything seem to state.

The cut not healing is a consequence of the cut happening in the first place surely? 

A cut not healing is a consequence of improper or no treatment. Even a fairly deep cut requiring stitches will have the stitches taken out after 10-14 days.

eve1978 said:
 And there is nothing in the instructions about checking for sharp or rough edges, only for tears/holes in the mask. 

Surely a check for tears or holes would also show sharp edges and would it not fall under common sense to check a product thoroughly before applying it to one's face? I agree that the product should not be supplied in a defective state, I agree a refund is entirely reasonable and fair, but I also think one has to be pragmatic. 

dil1976

To be honest, if I am going to be putting something on my face I am going to check it too make sure I am putting it on the right way and also that there isn't anything that could cause damage to my ugly mug even touching points with my finger to feel they aren't sharp etc

user1977

MattMattMattUK said:

I agree that the product should not be supplied in a defective state, I agree a refund is entirely reasonable and fair 

But there is also liability beyond that, if the product is dangerous. Depends on the facts of the case, of course.

MattMattMattUK

user1977 said:

MattMattMattUK said:

I agree that the product should not be supplied in a defective state, I agree a refund is entirely reasonable and fair 

But there is also liability beyond that, if the product is dangerous. Depends on the facts of the case, of course.

It does, but I struggle to see a magistrate, judge or jury siding with the plaintiff if a case were brought.

Gavin83

DullGreyGuy said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

eve1978 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

How much are you after?

I'm not sure what's realistic and proper in the circumstances?  

You'll need to come up with some sort of figure.  You've rejected the initial offer, so you must have a figure in mind.

Technically if its unhealed at this point then its too early to be setting a value to it. There will be a notable difference in value if it leaves a hairline scar -v- if it heals completely... havent looked in recent years but sex (or maybe gender these days) also used to impact the value of scar claims when on the face or other highly visible areas.

In what way did gender used to affect the payout for scar claims? I’d be surprised if that’s legal these days.

DullGreyGuy

Alderbank said:

Personal injury claims are not accepted by the small claims court. You need a solicitor. Injury claims begin and end with very specific medical reports, normally from private consultants who are known and agreed between both sides. The NHS never produces these reports and it is unfair, especially in current circumstances, to take up NHS resources seeking evidence for civil claims.

Personal injuries are accepted by the small claims court, the limit is £1k... with the Whiplash Injury Regulations small track deal with cases up to £5,000 from RTA soft tissue injuries. Unless you are talking about the Chinese courts @Alderbank? 

As to having to have a solicitor... the MoJ have even setup a website so unrepresented claimant in a car accident can deal with small track injury claims https://www.officialinjuryclaim.org.uk/ . Outside of RTAs then small track injury claims still have solicitors fees barred so appointing one is going to be on a T&M basis and will outweigh your award.

GPs provide reports, though counts as a private service with the appropriate fee. There is however little point spending £420+VAT for a consultant report when the claimant is only claiming £500 in general damages. 

strawb_shortcake

Gavin83 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

eve1978 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

How much are you after?

I'm not sure what's realistic and proper in the circumstances?  

You'll need to come up with some sort of figure.  You've rejected the initial offer, so you must have a figure in mind.

Technically if its unhealed at this point then its too early to be setting a value to it. There will be a notable difference in value if it leaves a hairline scar -v- if it heals completely... havent looked in recent years but sex (or maybe gender these days) also used to impact the value of scar claims when on the face or other highly visible areas.

In what way did gender used to affect the payout for scar claims? I’d be surprised if that’s legal these days.

When my daughter was small and cut her head open, she was sent to hospital by the Dr for tidy stitches as she was a girl, this was only 14 years ago.  Whilst it may not be legal to differentiate between the sexes I imagine the impact of scarring would vary between the sexes. Albeit a stereotype males wear scars like a badge of honour females don't, though I'd quite imagine the vanity aspect to play a part in any courthouse now.

DullGreyGuy

Gavin83 said:

DullGreyGuy said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

eve1978 said:

Aylesbury_Duck said:

How much are you after?

I'm not sure what's realistic and proper in the circumstances?  

You'll need to come up with some sort of figure.  You've rejected the initial offer, so you must have a figure in mind.

Technically if its unhealed at this point then its too early to be setting a value to it. There will be a notable difference in value if it leaves a hairline scar -v- if it heals completely... havent looked in recent years but sex (or maybe gender these days) also used to impact the value of scar claims when on the face or other highly visible areas.

In what way did gender used to affect the payout for scar claims? I’d be surprised if that’s legal these days.

As AnnaBanana says, society seems to want females to be perfect... just see all the concealers and scar reducing products (eg Bio-Oil) marketed to them to try an undo nature and time. Males on the other hand wear their minor knocks and scars with honour.

Both will receive the same monies for the pain suffered however what the life long impact is going to be more on most women and hence the higher settlement for visible scars. 

Why would it be illegal? Differentiation isnt illegal as long as there are provable grounds that there are differences rather than prejudice