Hi All,
I retired last October, so have not kept up to date with this forum.
However, I tried a search on this topic and did not come up with much help, but I can remember reading that despite public perception the UK was not a litigious society !!
The chance of a claim succeeding was low i.e. 2%. Please advise is this reality. Or the reason I am being asked by three similar voluntary organisations to have separate CRB checks a sign that claims are rife?
Regards,Paul.

Sorry, but I'm struggling to see the link here. There is a legal requirement for CRB checks to be carried out on persons being engaged in certain positions (employed or voluntary) and, as I understand it, the failure to ensure such checks are carried out may be a criminal matter. This has nothing to do with somebody making a civil claim.

Thinking as I type, the only way the two are linked would be if somebody came to harm at the hands of a person who should have had a CRB check carried out but didn't, then the employer/provider of that person could be held liable.

The CRB checks are, imho a mess. I have three, for three different roles teaching sport to three different sets of children. They were supposed to have been streamlined into a single vetting and barring scheme

http://www.homeoffice.go.../vetting-barring-scheme/

but so far this has not happened. I believe, with mylesfrancis, that this is a criminal matter, and arose in the aftermath of the Soham murders.

The litigous society is another matter. Fear of litigation is a strong factor. the reality is quite another.

I'd say definitely. I work as a floor slips tester and an independent expert witness - never been busier !!

Certain sections of society seem incapable of remaining upright for more than 30 mins without suffering a catastrophic slip or trip "accident" .

Visited the s/mart an hour ago.
Nationwide, well-known.
Milk all over the floor, nobody clearing it. Reported it to member of staff.
"we'll get a cleaner to it"
20 minutes later, still a big puddle of milk. And manufacturing industry is no better.
Doubtless in the event of a claim their insurer will employ a floor slip tester...after sprinkling 1ml of milk it will be declared "no risk of slippage was observed"
In my opinion it is six of one and a half dozen of the other.

Just a comment on Johnmurray's experience above. According to the few former & current supermarket people I know, supermarkets, especially those run by the big national names, are usually red hot regarding action for spillages. Irrespective of position and role, staff are told during inductions and periodically reminded that they should be vigilant for spillages on floors, and to take or ensure prompt appropriate action is taken, preferably to remove spillages or at least prevent customers from walking on them. This can include positioning a staff trolley over the spillage as a temporary measure.

It's inevitable that accidental dropping of items by customers can sometimes result in spillages of liquids and powders, and also that some customers will scarper from the spill locations as soon as they can for fear of being charged for the damaged items. The supermarket operators also have a fear - of being sued by customers who slip on spillages and injure themselves, hence their robust slip prevention/minimisation policy. It's always better and easier to identify and take prompt action about spillages than deal with spillage related claims. As supermarket customers include people who are elderly, pregnant or otherwise vulnerable to significant injury, some claims could be for very considerable amounts of money.

Can any forum users professionally involved with supermarkets confim and/or expand on these matters? Also, hopefully, diligent forum users when shopping will report spillages they spot to the nearest members of staff. The reaction of such employees when told will tend to reflect their awareness of and observance of their particular store's policy about spillages. If effective prompt action isn't taken, it would be appropriate to tell the store manager and/or head office - or is this being too public spirited in relation to the prevailing attitude among most people that almost everything is someone else's responsibility?!!

I find that comment strange, since I cannot wander around any of the large s/marts without finding fault.
That ranges from building alterations being carried out along shoppers, featuring disc cutters being used to cut through steel columns woth their rather excessive amount of noise causing children to go hysterical with fear: remedy, rank local authority and they stopped the work during daytime and banned the use of disc cutter.

Using a rather quaint home-made "step ladder cum mobile platform" of height about 4 metres with a handrail up one side and a platform rail only going along one side to pin signs onto the false roof.

Using a pallet truck to transport pallets to the store space. then leaving the pallet truck "parked" in the main isle....at least one person had their ankles "kneecapped" by walking into the forks....

Piles of empty cardboard boxes stacked in the isles, with sundry pieces of same scattered about.
Puddles of milk, not a one-off...but a frequent event.....sometimes with a warning sign "floating" in the middle.

A STACK of boxes of 10 litre oil containers.....stacked over my height....with "stack only four high" written in large letters on the sides........

And I could go on, and on.....supervision must be a bad point.....and while you may blame the contractors about the building work problems, as you know the s/mart is to blame anyway....and i did talk to management about the high noise.....I just got the blank stare.....

Interesting comments from JohnMurray about situations and actions observed in supermarkets, and they describe not uncommon things, from my experience.

I think that a lackadaisical attitude is evident in a lot of the retail sector, when it comes to the state that shops are allowed to get into. Trip hazards, spills, restricted aisles, hidden fire extinguishers, partially blocked fire exits, unsafe shelf stacking are amongst the things I regularly see. Shop managers and even large retail chains seem almost oblivious to the requirements of safety and fire regulations, and the Equality Act when it comes to access and egress for those with a disability, be that mobility or otherwise. Whilst I appreciate that there will be differences in what is practicable when comparing a small shop to a large retail store, there are plenty of serial offenders out there who really should know better.

Possibly the problems are specific to my area.
But not likely.
The store (very large, 24-hour) had a refit some years ago, about five, in which the freezer cabinets were replaced. Since then, when they defrost, the floor has been wet. This problem should have been solved, it has not. What has happened is that a sign appears on the wet floor instead.
Floating in the middle of the puddle until a cleaner comes along. I've seen several children slip on this.
Doubtless a successful claim for injury would be blamed on our litigation-prone society, and not on the "my bones got broken because of your useless safety regime so here is my claim for compensation" individual.
Smoke and mirrors.
Industry wants to reduce the amount it has to pay for injuries, deaths and diseases.
Rather than clean its act up, it sends its paid servants (politicians) to solve the problem by attempting to end compensation claims.
No problem. The legal system will find a way around the restrictions as it always does, even if it means the person claiming pays more.
Of course, the politician knows this. So many are solicitors and barristers.