Friend tripped in supermarket

BloodThirsty

My friend sufers a lot from back pain due to an injury. He has to take medication and use a TENS. He fell over boxes left in a supermarket aisle and hurt back and legs and arm. he would not be the sort to rush to a solicitor but is worried if the hurt causes more pains more doctor fees in future

They apologised about the boxes and asked if he was ok and he said yes and declined an offer of a cup of tea. Should they be formally notified he fell in case he suffers any long term pain

conorh91

I don't think we can answer this. Maybe if you had a more general question like "what does the law say about foreseeability in personal injuries?" we could give some general answers.

Here's a good starting point for your topic
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0010/

What's a TENS by the way? This? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcutaneous_electrical_nerve_stimulation

BloodThirsty

conorh91 wrote: »

I don't think we can answer this. Maybe if you had a more general question like "what does the law say about foreseeability in personal injuries?" we could give some general answers.

Here's a good starting point for your topic


What's a TENS by the way? This?

yes TENS is what youthink. What does the law say about forseability in personal injuies

conorh91

Foreseeability refers to the ability of the Occupier (e.g. a shop owner) to anticipate hazards, and to protect visitors accordingly.

For example, in one case, where a school had allowed some sharp-pointed breeze blocks to mark the boundary of a children's playing area, the school was held to be liable when (seemingly inevitably) a small boy was injured after striking his head off the blocks. The Court basically said that the school's management should have readily foreseen that kind of outcome when children are running around at speed.

In another case, where a restaurant was accessible only by a series of concrete steps, the owners were held to be liable for a patron's fall, for the reason that they should have foreseen that not placing a handrail along these steps would be unreasonably hazardous, should a patron happen to stumble.

However, in another case, a shop owner was found not to be liable in respect of a piece of shelving which became dangerous when an unsupervised child began to play with it. The materials used were common in the industry, and the child should have been supervised (it was not a shop where children would be expected to be roaming freely, and the shop owners could not have foreseen the mother's own carelessness).

It is not only hazards that are foreseeable. Foreseeability also involves an anticipation, on behalf of an Occupier, that visitors will be expected to take certain steps (quite literally, in this case) to maintain their own safety.

Liability in respect of a foreseen hazard may be avoided where an Occupier gives a warning to a visitor, exhorting the visitor to take care of debris, or to keep out, or to please not stick their fingers in the electrical sockets, and so on.

If this post strikes you as vague, it is because I am only giving some general principles that may have absolutely no relevance to your OP. I am only trying to give a general impression of the law on Occupiers' Liability and the common duty of care.

For specific advice, your friend needs to consult a solicitor.

Paulw

But, would he not have to prove that any pain is new, rather than being the same pain he had before the fall?

Personally, I always find that if I look where I am going, I tend not to fall over things.

conorh91

That reminds me, I'm only commenting on foreseeability as one small aspect of this very broad topic. As PaulW said there are other important considerations, such as underlying medical injuries or illness.

BloodThirsty

conorh91 wrote: »

Foreseeability refers to the ability of the Occupier (e.g. a shop owner) to anticipate hazards, and to protect visitors accordingly.

For example, in one case, where a school had allowed some sharp-pointed breeze blocks to mark the boundary of a children's playing area, the school was held to be liable when (seemingly inevitably) a small boy was injured after striking his head off the blocks. The Court basically said that the school's management should have readily foreseen that kind of outcome when children are running around at speed.

In another case, where a restaurant was accessible only by a series of concrete steps, the owners were held to be liable for a patron's fall, for the reason that they should have foreseen that not placing a handrail along these steps would be unreasonably hazardous, should a patron happen to stumble.

However, in another case, a shop owner was found not to be liable in respect of a piece of shelving which became dangerous when an unsupervised child began to play with it. The materials used were common in the industry, and the child should have been supervised (it was not a shop where children would be expected to be roaming freely, and the shop owners could not have foreseen the mother's own carelessness).

It is not only hazards that are foreseeable. Foreseeability also involves an anticipation, on behalf of an Occupier, that visitors will be expected to take certain steps (quite literally, in this case) to maintain their own safety.

Liability in respect of a foreseen hazard may be avoided where an Occupier gives a warning to a visitor, exhorting the visitor to take care of debris, or to keep out, or to please not stick their fingers in the electrical sockets, and so on.

If this post strikes you as vague, it is because I am only giving some general principles that may have absolutely no relevance to your OP. I am only trying to give a general impression of the law on Occupiers' Liability and the common duty of care.

For specific advice, your friend needs to consult a solicitor.

I don't think a warning totally absolves one of responsibility?
In a case where boxes are left on a supermarket aisle just around a corner i.e where you walk around to the next aisle is it foreeable somone would fall over them?

BloodThirsty

Paulw wrote: »

Personally, I always find that if I look where I am going, I tend not to fall over things.

no need to be smart. the same thing could be said about injuries when people fall on wet surface

conorh91

BloodThirsty wrote: »

I don't think a warning totally absolves one of responsibility?

Yes there is no such thing as an unconditional absolution in Occupiers' Liability

However, a warning may be sufficient to absolve the Occupier in the following circumstances, per s.5(5) of the Act

(5) Where injury or damage is caused to a visitor or property of a visitor by a danger of which the visitor had been warned by the occupier or another person, the warning is not, without more, to be treated as absolving the occupier from liability unless, in all the circumstances, it was enough to enable the visitor, by having regard to the warning, to avoid the injury or damage so caused.

(emphasis added)

Whether or not the warning is sufficient depends on the particular circumstances of the instant case and given the rules regarding legal advice, that's not something we can discuss here.

Paulw

BloodThirsty wrote: »

the same thing could be said about injuries when people fall on wet surface

A wet surface isn't always clearly visible, and even seeing it may not prevent a slip. However, boxes should be clear enough to see, and then avoided. A judge may take a lack of attention in to consideration.

BloodThirsty

Paulw wrote: »

A wet surface isn't always clearly visible, and even seeing it may not prevent a slip. However, boxes should be clear enough to see, and then avoided. A judge may take a lack of attention in to consideration.

depends on where they ar e placed

"A judge may take a lack of attention in to consideration" that is fair but they should not have been there either

Masala

Also - would there have to be proof of negligence on shop behalf???

Hate this culture of suing willy-nilly.... there has to be some protection for occupiers etc. The public have to take responsibility for their own safety.....

on_my_oe

What about a leak that causes a puddle, which someone slips in? Would the occupiers culpability be worse if there had been previous falls (same leak source, 12/18mth period) and the occupier hadn't made repairs?

BloodThirsty

Masala wrote: »

Also - would there have to be proof of negligence on shop behalf???

Hate this culture of suing willy-nilly.... there has to be some protection for occupiers etc. The public have to take responsibility for their own safety.....

you should have read the op no one is suing willy nilly. the person was in pain now is in more pain and not all their fault if any

conorh91

on_my_oe wrote: »

Would the occupiers culpability be worse if there had been previous falls (same leak source, 12/18mth period) and the occupier hadn't made repairs?

Yes, e.g. Collier v Earl of Mount Charles, IESC

Once an accident occurs, a danger that may have been hard to anticipate becomes clearly foreseeable in the future.

Snake

I slipped on a stairs in Whitewater shopping centre a few weeks ago, it hurt.. Can I sue?

Howjoe1

I tripped over a cardboard box at home. Who can I sue?

conorh91

Guys, of course there are times when people can and should take action, in cases where they suffer directly as a result of the failure's of another. This includes falling in supermarkets.

I'm not sure why people are trying to make a joke of it.

Bepolite

The standard "it's compo culture gone mad responses". Modern tort law has made society a much better and safer place and the legal and insurance industries aren't stupid.

Customers wandering around a supermarket aren't paying attention at the best of times and certainly are not looking at the floor. Retailers know this and risk assess and place products accordingly.

Bepolite

conorh91 wrote: »

Guys, of course there are times when people can and should take action, in cases where they suffer directly as a result of the failure's of another. This includes falling in supermarkets.

I'm not sure why people are trying to make a joke of it.

Ironically they're morons.

BloodThirsty

conorh91 wrote: »

.

I'm not sure why people are trying to make a joke of it.

that is just ignorance and people who cannot see that some people hate the careles culture of supermarkets. it is also against the rules. he is going bo seek legal advice . this can be closed, wont have clowns making fun of someone inpain

Pro Hoc Vice

Masala wrote: »

Also - would there have to be proof of negligence on shop behalf???

Hate this culture of suing willy-nilly.... there has to be some protection for occupiers etc. The public have to take responsibility for their own safety.....

Of course the public must take responsibility in any event compensation is only paid if there is negligence and of course if the plaintiff was themselves negligent the award can be reduced.