Posted By Lukasz http://uk.news.yahoo.com...apple-clunk-6323e80.html In my opinion very interesting article and this same claim... While commenting please remember about AUG. Regards LK

Posted By Robert K Lewis I'm in pieces Bits and pieces Just for the oldies amoong us if they remember it!!:-) Now who sang it Bob

Posted By Andrew Kurdziel Let's get this in perspective: A supermarket chain decides to store a larger heavier fruit on a high shelf. It is therefore completely foreseeable that somebody trying to get at the fruit might dislodge one and that it might fall on someone’s head. I spend a fair bit of time trying to persuade people not to store heavy items on the top shelves at work, as we have foreseen the risk. The report says that the person is suing the supermarket, which means the case has not come to court and it might fail there if some factor that was not reported is included. Anybody is entitled to bring a case if they feel that they feel that they have had some sort of loss; it’s a basic human right. These sorts of cases have been in the English legal system for years (from the 19th century at least) and are nothing new. Finally, our legal system, thank God, is nothing like the US where, amongst other things, they have juries in civil negligence cases (twelve people too stupid to find an excuse to avoid jury service), where the principle of strict liability is applied more often than in English courts and were juries can award punitive (exemplary damages) beyond simple recompense for any losses suffered. Yes I know that the legal system in this country is not perfect ( we are the only country in the world without a ‘no fault’ workers compensation scheme) but this case is not unusual and it might be justified.

Posted By Swis Good comments Martin... Furthermore...who would define the 'height of shelves'. What if the shopper is very short in height, i,e. a child. people can slip/trip on items on the floor either deliberately or unintentionally. These items may have come from the lowest possible shelf. I (personally) am against this type of litigation culture. If an item falls on someone’s head directly then it may be fair but due to some other customers action….not fair..

Posted By Arran Linton - Smith Raimo vs Tesco rather than Tesco vs Ward is a new one to me!

Posted By martinw Arran might be of interest re supermarkets http://www.dibbsbarker.c..._Update_-_June_2009.aspx Martin

Posted By Simon Priest Ironic, Don't they usually fall from trees? Lucky they don't widely grow in this country, otherwise the councils may start chopping them down (elf 'n' safety)!

Posted By martinw Never liked pineapples anyway. Fancy a rendition off Agadoo? Push pineapple shake the tree..... kill me

Posted By Jay Joshi As usual, difficult to comment without knowing details. However, most supermarkets do compromise on customer safety due to wanting to "display" more than what their normal storage space permits and when restocking trolleys block the aisles! It is a lesson in how not to manage traffic risks if one observes how the traffic, especially parking near the entrances of the buildings is being managed. Last, but not least, I have personally witnessed a supply lorry temporarily parked at the approach road, obstructing all incoming traffic such that all other cars were forced to take the oncoming traffic lane, an that too at a blind corner. I contacted the branch manager, but to no avail--even a call to their safety department did not elicit a satisfactory response! I cannot name the supermarket for the fear of breaching the AUG's.

Posted By martinw We never get to hear about many of the supermarket prosecutions for a number of reasons - normally EHOs that are involved rather than HSE who for some reason have less clout in the eyes of the big supermarkets and are therefore largely ignored whenever possible. That, and they pass the blame onto cleaning staff. Also supermarkets regularly settle to avoid bad publicity. Then we have to pay more for their tat? Unfair!

Posted By martinw Foreseeability is one thing. But it means that the supermarket has foreseeability, but cannot control every element of every activity when customers start picking things up and putting them back. The original story if read via Yahoo says that the pineapple was knocked off by another customer. How could the supermarket foresee that adequately? Too many possible interactions to formulate. Customers have foreseeability too - if you go near a highly stacked rack full of stuff there is more chance of being struck by a falling object than if you go to a waist high display. If a customer caused an item to hit another customer by their actions does that change this materially in your view regarding foreseeability?

Posted By martinw True, a supermarket is a very open environment. It is expected that children and vulnerable people should be subject to some form of appropriate supervision, but how do you risk manage a situation like this? Hard hats for pensioners? Absolute shocker this one. If it happened to you at home would you sue yourself? No, partly because there is no financial gain to be made. It is a shame that the person suffers some neck pain but it was a complete accident. Loads of people turn their brains off when shopping and stop seeing the things around them that they would normally be aware of. Can't blame the supermarkets for that.

Posted By Ron Hunter Is this the same culture that has smaller. lighter packs of washing powder etc. on the higher shelves where the frail and elderly have to do themselves an injury to reach? Supermarket shelves are laid out in accordance with psychological principles, not H&S.

Posted By gerry d Personal shoppers in supermarkets...now there`s an idea. Would this greatly reduce or eliminate some of the risks posed to elderly and infirm customers? Supermarket shopping (online) has taken off, so why can`t this?

Posted By martinw Or shall we go back to basics - Tesco v Nattrass perhaps? Any thoughts on the Tesco principle/guilty mind playing a part or am I being facetious (again)? ;-)