Rank: Guest 
|
Posted By Phillipe
Did anyone catch the article regarding the commuter who slipped on a flower petal as he was walking passed the florists at Marylebone Train Station? The civil case is progressing (as it does these days) and figures of a million pounds compensation are being talked about...!
It is a forseeable risk and the florist should have taken measures to ensure this did not happen, fair enough, but 1 million pounds compensation does seem excessive to me. Does that means if it rains and the floors get wet, that retailers everywhere across the country will have to have teams of people mopping floors at entrances to premises as it would be forseeable that rain water could be brought into premises carried by the soles of shoes from the general public? Even with heavy duty entrance matting it will still happen as people simply do not wipe their feet
Any thoughts?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Tabs
I'll wager a pint with you that it does not get past a judge.
If it does, every market place in Britain will close. Every tree and bush owned by a Local Authority will be killed off.
It is plainly not in the public interest to allow such a claim to succeed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By J Ridley
Hi Phillipe
Depends whether there is an established duty of care relevant to the particuler circumstances of the case. The requirements that must be satisfied before a duty of care is established were laid down by Lord Bridge in Caparo Industries v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568 - "What emerges is that, in addition to the foreseeability of damage, necessary ingredients in any situation giving rise to a duty of care are that there should exist between the party owing the duty and the party to whom it is owed a relationship characterised by the law as one of 'proximity' or 'neighbourhood' and that the situation should be one in which the court considers it fair, just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of a given scope upon the one party for the benefit of the other."
Therefore, there must be: (a)foreseeability of the damage; (b)a sufficiently 'proximate' relationship between the parties; and (c)it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose such a duty.
In this case, did the florist foresee or should have reasonable foreseen the risk, do they have a proximate relationship with the injured party, and is it fair just and reasonable? Unfortunately, this can only be determined by the court or as seems more likely, settled out of court by the insurers.
Ain't life like that now though?
Anyone else got any comments?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Bob Shillabeer
Well, Just a feeling, but this case is at a London station, so is it a case of the station owner/operator wanting to get rid of the tenant or is it a real case of injury (no doubt that the injury has been sustained).
Can you see where I am comming from.
I read the article in the Evening Standard and thought how on earth can this be so costly? The person injured works for a bank and has been off sick for quite some time now and I think it is true that any wages paid to a person injured in an accident are recoverable from any compensation recieved from the responsible person. So the employer of the injured person will not lose out financially as a result, that's fair enough. But where do they get the cost of £1.5 million pounds (as stated in the ES). Yes the banker could be finished with the compoany and be on high wages, but the question is about a simple slip on a flower petal?
We don't know the facts but it does seem to me that there is some other reason behind this case. Perhaps we will see the outcome in the ES?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Jimmy R
I have heard lots of speculation from the above comments and worse case payments as suggested by 'the press'. Once the dust settles and the correct facts come out I'm sure a reasonable approach will be taken by the authorities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenny McGillivray
Hi folks
This item was on the breakfast news this morning, seems the injured party hasn't been able to work for a long time as he has severe spinal injuries and at one point they thought he would be paralysed. Seems the flower seller had been warned several times to clear up the mess round her stall as a previous accident had ocurred and staff at the railway station had reported the mess on several ocassions.
A lawyer on the programme defended the right for those injured to receive adequate compensation and she also argued against the bonkers conkers story which was being raised again. She stood up for us H&S people and said that the compensation culture was actually not as bad as journalists would lead the public to beleive.
get this lawyer a regular spot on the breakfast news, the same as the resident doctor and maybe the daft stories can be nipped in the 'bud' sorry petal!
regards
kenny
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Kenny McGillivray
Hi folks
This item was on the breakfast news this morning, seems the injured party hasn't been able to work for a long time as he has severe spinal injuries and at one point they thought he would be paralysed. Seems the flower seller had been warned several times to clear up the mess round her stall as a previous accident had occurred and staff at the railway station had reported the mess on several occasions.
A lawyer on the programme defended the right for those injured to receive adequate compensation and she also argued against the bonkers conkers story which was being raised again. She stood up for us H&S people and said that the compensation culture was actually not as bad as journalists would lead the public to believe.
get this lawyer a regular spot on the breakfast news, the same as the resident doctor and maybe the daft stories can be nipped in the 'bud' sorry petal!
regards & spelling checked this time!!
kenny
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rank: Guest
|
Posted By Seamus O Sullivan
Hi Just had a very quick glance at this, yes it does appear there was negligence & why is the guy not entitled to compo for his injuries.
Yes I would expect shop keepers to ensure the shop floor is not slippery, as you are aware there are lots of things that can be done. after all they must do what is resonable practical.
regards
seamus
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.