Ambulance chasing friend

Log in to reply
R

Rob S

Free Member
Feb 3, 2008
131
19
Oxfordshire
  • #1
    I would be interested in the views of others on this situation

    An elderly friend had a slip in a supermarket resulting in a broken leg which required a two week stay in hospital.

    The supermarket had put a mat down at the entrance as rain had been forecast and they wanted to prevent people slipping on a wet floor. However the friend tripped on the mat as the edge had curled up slightly.

    Now they want to sue the supermarket for compensation. As far as I can see there is no permanent damage and they have been looked after well in hospital. The friend had already engaged a tradesman to remove their bath and replace with a shower (due to personal preference) they now think that the supermarket should pay for this as the broken leg will affect their mobility in the short term.

    I find this a bit distasteful. Someone could lose their job due to a possible error in judgement. My view is that if they feel that strongly about it, they should go down the health and safety route to make sure the guidelines have been correctly followed.
     
    PerfectP

    PerfectP

    Free Member
    Mar 30, 2010
    229
    45
    Solihull
  • #3
    A friend of mine was a H&S Manager for a major DIY chain and had a H&S "slush fund" that is used to pay off these kinds of incidents. It's cheaper for them to payout than to chase it through the courts with court costs/resource costs etc
    If it was a genuine accident then they would pay out, but if it was a member of the public "trying it on", then they would fight it and usually win tbh.
     
    Upvote 0
    C

    Craig HelpTrainingCourses

  • #4
    I would be realy upset if an elderly friend or relative had the same unfortunate accident however I strongly believe this culture of where there is blame there is a claim is one of the things that is wrecking the country.

    I would make it ilegal for solicitors to advertise their services in this area.

    The point is the Supermarket realised there was a risk of someone slipping on a wet flour so have taken precautions and put a mat on the floor. They are now potentially being sued for this action - maybe the only answer would be to shut the store when ever it rains !!
     
    • Like
    Reactions: deniser
    Upvote 0
    B

    Billmccallum

  • #5
    I can see it from both sides... the supermarket tried to do the right thing by putting a mat down, but the customer tripped on the mat.

    But if the mat used caused the accident then surely the injured party is entitled to some compensation.
     
    Upvote 0
    maxh

    maxh

    Free Member
    Apr 15, 2010
    1,115
    313
  • #6
    Its a tough one. But if the supermarket had not put out the mat properly and in accordance with their own health and safety procedures then your friend is absolutely entitled to sue.

    Personally I would feel foolish suing for tripping over something while walking, because you should look where you're going. But the law wont see it like that.

    If it's a large supermarket they will likely settle out of court to avoid a drawn out affair and negative press.

    Rob S said:
    I would be interested in the views of others on this situation

    An elderly friend had a slip in a supermarket resulting in a broken leg which required a two week stay in hospital.

    The supermarket had put a mat down at the entrance as rain had been forecast and they wanted to prevent people slipping on a wet floor. However the friend tripped on the mat as the edge had curled up slightly.

    Now they want to sue the supermarket for compensation. As far as I can see there is no permanent damage and they have been looked after well in hospital. The friend had already engaged a tradesman to remove their bath and replace with a shower (due to personal preference) they now think that the supermarket should pay for this as the broken leg will affect their mobility in the short term.

    I find this a bit distasteful. Someone could lose their job due to a possible error in judgement. My view is that if they feel that strongly about it, they should go down the health and safety route to make sure the guidelines have been correctly followed.
    Click to expand...
     
    Upvote 0
    M

    Mister B

    Free Member
    Aug 31, 2007
    2,658
    639
  • #7
    The supermarket should be nipping this in the bud before it goes any further.

    Instead of letting it get anywhere near the ambulance chasing vipers as a matter of course they should be looking after the injured customers and turning a negative into a positive.

    At the end of the day it was an accident and accidents happen but they need to take responsibility and look after the customer.

    Have the supermarket commented on this at all yet? I would have thought that it would be in their interests to get it resolved amicably before it goes any further.

    Mister B
     
    Upvote 0
    evocart

    evocart

    Free Member
    Sep 29, 2009
    423
    73
    Lincolnshire
  • #8
    I know with a lot of supermarkets that it can take 12 - 18 months to get compensation out of them, though this may be just for employees as I know staff that have had accidents and suid and it's been a very slow and thourough process.

    I think they are intitled to compensation, however a new bathroom is probably not going to happen unless they can prove they will never be able to use a bath again (due to the fall) However we're not talking 100S compensation, more like a few thousend so he can afford to pay for it himself.
     
    Upvote 0
    A

    Astaroth

    Free Member
    Aug 24, 2005
    3,985
    278
    London
  • #9
    Check their home insurance to see if they have legal expenses/ protection cover on it - it will cover the cost of a claim against the supermarket.

    Personal injury claims are relatively straight forward to handle with only a minor amount of arguing over liability and quantum (amount) for the majority. Of cause some solicitors are a pain and drag things out to try and increase their fees (in my opinion)

    Insurer's and large corporations do have a vested interest in "capturing" claimants and dealing directly with them rather than via a solicitor - in minor injuries (which this isnt) the sols fees are often as almost as much as the settlement for damages.

    There are some that state concern that if you deal direct without professional advice though that they will take you for a ride and give a low amount. Have to say the insurer I worked for in claims (many years ago) didn't, they wanted to keep sols out so actually offered slightly high so a sensible solicitor wouldn't get involved if it was later refered.
     
    Upvote 0
    B

    Bri

  • #10
    ..havent mentioned any response from the supermarket.

    Being in the CCTV industry, I was often called to our major clients stores to help with downloading images of claims of accidents as well as thefts. If this incident happened more than 30 days ago then forget any CCTV footage being available, you never know though. Under the data protection act your relative is entitled to view any recorded footage of her in the store, there should be one over the main entrance.

    In another scenario, the supermarket acted accordingly by putting a mat down as protection from slippage, they may have been at fault for not putting warning signs up or posting a member of staff/security at the entrance( this is how a judge may see it, not a practical observation though). The supermarket will argue that the mat was fixed and checked regularly, however they cant prevent another member of the public lifting the mat in between those times.

    Alternatively out of goodwill they may well gain brownie points for paying out a sum to your relative and publicise the fact.
     
    Upvote 0
    deniser

    deniser

    Free Member
    Jun 3, 2008
    8,081
    1,697
    London
  • #12
    If I had slipped in the supermarket I wouldn't dream of blaming the supermarket. I don't understand why it isn't just an accident and why someone other than the person who didn't lift their feet properly has to be to blame. What are they supposed to do, ban the elderly from shopping there? I agree with the OP.
     
    • Like
    Reactions: Rob S
    Upvote 0
    C

    chargebackclaims

  • #13
    If the accident was the supermarket's fault and the elderly person is genuinely injured then of course the supermarket should pay compensation...

    I can't see the issue but then again I do run a claims management company so I guess I am biased!!
     
    Upvote 0
    G

    gemd89

  • #15
    Same with a tree branch falling on your head and suing the council? Well dont sit under a tree!

    Tripped walking up a curb and suing the council? Look where you are going

    Its common sense. Some people irritate me, if you need money that bad go get a job! aarrgghh

    Gemma

    deniser said:
    If I had slipped in the supermarket I wouldn't dream of blaming the supermarket. I don't understand why it isn't just an accident and why someone other than the person who didn't lift their feet properly has to be to blame. What are they supposed to do, ban the elderly from shopping there? I agree with the OP.
    Click to expand...
     
    Upvote 0

  • #16
    gemd89 said:
    Same with a tree branch falling on your head and suing the council? Well dont sit under a tree!

    Tripped walking up a curb and suing the council? Look where you are going

    Its common sense. Some people irritate me, if you need money that bad go get a job! aarrgghh

    Gemma
    Click to expand...

    Have you given up being insane.?:p

    We pay vast sums to councils to pay to have our pavements maintained to a reasonable standard,if they are not then they have been negligent.

    same thing applies to tree's.Not sit under a bleeding tree.What else are the bleeding things any good for.?

    Supermarkets have a legal duty to maintan walkways and ensure there are no slippery substances on them which you will have to agree there often are.

    The fact that they encourage you to look at there products and not where your feet are going compounds the problem.

    You just wait till you is old ,you will sing a different tune I promise you.:D

    Earl

    young bleeding snots think they know it all ,just you wait and see.:eek:
     
    Last edited:
    Upvote 0
    C

    Cupidlingerie

  • #20
    The key word which no-one has mentioned here is "reasonableness", which is the essential element in any claim based on negligence or occupiers liability.

    Shops (and indeed everyone else) have a duty to take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which might injure people whom they can reasonably foresee as being affected by such acts or omissions.

    Here the negligence is not in putting down a mat - it is in putting down a mat which was defective -ie, the edge of it was curled upwards, making it a tripping hazard. Shops have to be extra careful simply because customers expect shop floors to be flat. Customers in shops also tend to be looking at the goods on display, rather than at their feet. Shops also have to bear in mind that some of their customers will be elderly, and less agile on their feet. It all depends on how much risk was presented by the upturned edge of the mat.

    A broken leg for an elderly person can be quite serious, and could have much longer (even permanent) effects, often increasing risks of arthritis if it involves the joints. If it necessitated two weeks in hospital it sounds like quite a bad break. Your friend's claim would likely be for a few thousand for "pain, suffering and loss of amenity".

    The measure of damages would be that which is reasonably foreseeable as a consequence of the accident. because the person was in any event changing their bath to a shower, they could oobviously not claim for that, as it does not flow from the accident. If they had any loss of income, that would be claimable.
     
    Upvote 0
    R

    robertt

    Free Member
    Jul 2, 2006
    346
    47
  • #21
    christian_d said:
    I tripped this morning over fresh air...... I am going to sue GOD.

    Does anyone have his number..... Chriiiiist
    Click to expand...

    Not as far fetched as you would think

    from http://www.claims.co.uk/blog/top-5-crazy-insurance-claims.html

    Lincoln, 58, reportedly fell during worship in 2007 whilst having a physical reaction to the spirit of God. Lincoln has since undergone two surgeries since the fall and blames the church for not providing someone to catch him if the spirits of God take over his body.

    :D :eek:
     
    Upvote 0
    Log in to reply

    Latest Articles

    Top Bottom
    Community
    Articles
    Menu