Non-fatal electrocution compensation

DUTR · 7 February 2018 at 9:21PM

jude_pmc wrote: »

I want to advise a friend on how much compensation she should receive from UK Power Networks. Any info you can give me would be great.

Story so far..
Bought her bungalow June 2016 and had the electrics checked by her electrician.
Began to get shocks in summer 2017 but she doesn’t understand electricity so she thought it must be strangely strong static electricity.

December she had severe shock when in the shower so called out a plumber, who called in her electrician for her as she was so shaken.

Electrician arrives and tells her it is the mains.

UK power network arrives, plugs her house into the house next door over Christmas, digs up her hedge and fixes the disconnected lead. They told her that the small trees in her hedge probably caused the damage.

She asked for compensation and they immediately gave her the money she paid to the plumber and to her electrician.

I think they should give her much more.
A large amount of her hair has fallen out and the doctor has put her on anti-depressants. She is now very frightened of her home and yesterday got her electrician to check everything in her house (she says she is going to send this bill to UK Power Networks). I don’t know if this will reassure her, she is saying she intends to move although she has no savings to pay a move costs.

Please can you advise me how much compensation she should ask for or whether she has received all she has the right to?

How much do you think they should give her?
Money doesn't always cure things.
And it doesn't change the past.

Risteard · 7 February 2018 at 9:25PM

Warwick_Hunt wrote: »

The Oxford English Dictionary says you’re wrong.

That doesn't make it correct.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/electrocution?s=t

Warwick_Hunt · 7 February 2018 at 9:38PM

Risteard wrote: »

That doesn't make it correct.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/electrocution?s=t

Nor does that link make you correct.

Risteard · 7 February 2018 at 9:47PM

Look, it's a widely accepted fact that electrocution refers to fatal electric shock. If you can't accept that then I really don't care. You're still wrong.

Heedtheadvice · 7 February 2018 at 10:08PM

Ok you two. You are you going way off topic with your 'discussion'
But to help clarify....
Electrocution is commonly referred to when the meaning is electric shock, by those not knowing any better. Much like the 'term' plug socket is used...does that mean plug or does that mean socket?

Electrocution by definition by qualified engineers, the law, forensics and medicine means death by electric shock. Death is thus very pertinent to it's definition despite what some dictionaries may state!

We all know what the OP meant even though the statement was not strictly correct but it is right tonpoint out the difference (as per Risteard's post) in case the claim is persued.

Ectophile · 7 February 2018 at 10:38PM

I would say no compensation at all, because the power company were not negligent. This was a completely unforeseeable fault, that they could not have prevented.

I think they have been generous paying for the plumber and the electrician.

Warwick_Hunt · 7 February 2018 at 11:16PM

Risteard wrote: »

Look, it's a widely accepted fact that electrocution refers to fatal electric shock. If you can't accept that then I really don't care. You're still wrong.

It’s widely accepted that it’s death or serious injury and not just something I’ve made up.

EachPenny · 7 February 2018 at 11:28PM

If she wants to claim more then she will need to demonstrate that UKPN were at fault. What was the nature of the fault to the cable (allegedly caused by the hedge) which caused her to get a shock whilst using the shower?

On the face of things, it is difficult to see how hedge roots alone could cause damage to an underground cable which would cause something in the shower to go live. There are certain types of failure on the distribution network which could cause a potentially dangerous situation to occur, but for this to have been caused by tree roots and to have gone on undetected for 6 months or more doesn't seem quite right.

Up and down the country there are thousands of very large trees growing in very close proximity to underground supply cables, and your friend's case would be the first one I've ever heard of where roots have damaged a cable to the point it became dangerous. On the other hand, root damage to drains and sewers happens all the time.

Hermione_Granger · 8 February 2018 at 1:14AM

Risteard wrote: »

Incidentally, there is no such thing as "non-fatal electrocution". Electrocution is a contraction of "electrical execution" which was coined for the electric chair. As such, electrocution is always fatal.

Just because a word once had a certain definition doesn't mean that it always stays the same as words and the definition of words evolves over time.

If someone looked at an electrical job you did and stated that it was awful, how would you feel?
Well, "awful" originally meant that something was awe inspiring but this meaning has changed in the same way that electrocution is changing.
This is known as an etymological fallacy.

The assumption that the present-day meaning of a word should be/is similar to the historical meaning. This fallacy ignores the evolution of language and heart of linguistics. This fallacy is usually committed when one finds the historical meaning of a word more palatable or conducive to his or her argument.

POPPYOSCAR · 8 February 2018 at 2:05AM

How is this even possible?

Surely the earth wiring to the property prevents this from happening?

Any electrical experts out there?

Non-fatal electrocution compensation

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free