Woman sues shop over ludicrous defamation claim.

c.p.w.g.w

Women buys wine in shop A, walks into shop B sets it down in off license section. Buys her few bits, returns to off license section and walks out with wine...

She sets it up, and the shop keeper took the bate... Absolutely disgraceful carry on from the women

Article here

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/woman-buys-wine-leaves-it-on-shelf-in-different-dublin-shop-and-then-sues-for-20k-when-asked-if-she-paid-for-it-36479636.html

Sorry it's the sindo

MilesMorales1

A WOMAN settled a defamation claim for €20,000 after she bought a bottle of wine in a Dublin supermarket, walked down the road to a different shop, left the wine on a shelf and was asked by a staff member if she paid for it.
The woman purchased something in the shop and as she was leaving, she picked up the bottle of wine which she had bought in the supermarket.
The wine was left on a shelf in the off-licence section of the store.

A staff member, assuming it belonged to their store, then asked if she had paid for the wine.
The woman then claimed for defamation and argued she was being accused of stealing.

The case was recently settled outside of court as it was argued the shopkeeper should have seen the woman had left the wine on the shelf and that it was hers.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/woman-buys-wine-leaves-it-on-shelf-in-different-dublin-shop-and-then-sues-for-20k-when-asked-if-she-paid-for-it-36479636.html


What a load of ****, sounds like a perfectly reasonable question from the shop, and the woman either took offence or saw an opportunity to claim for compensation. Hardly grounds to be mortally offended either I wouldn't think.

suicide_circus

The Compo Culture: Pushing up the price of goods and stifling entrepreneurship in your community.

BrokenArrows

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/woman-buys-wine-leaves-it-on-shelf-in-different-dublin-shop-and-then-sues-for-20k-when-asked-if-she-paid-for-it-36479636.html


What a load of ****, sounds like a perfectly reasonable question from the shop, and the woman either took offence or saw an opportunity to claim for compensation. Hardly grounds to be mortally offended either I wouldn't think.

Madness. Why in the world would they settle this?
Surely asking if someone paid for their product is not defamation.

“Unfortunately, 2018 could be pretty bleak for the affected businesses unless the Government act fast and introduce harsher penalties and jail time for these unscrupulous fraudsters,” he added."

No they dont need harsher sentences for fraudsters, they just need to stop siding with people who make stupid claims.

Even if it was ruled that what he did was defamation 20k is crazy. She should have been given a free bottle of wine and told to jog on.

namloc1980

Insurance companies will gladly payout, so they can then hike up everyone's premiums.

Aglomerado

Dangerous precedent.

Skihunta13

namloc1980 wrote: »

Insurance companies will gladly payout, so they can then hike up everyone's premiums.

I think its more that judes will always side with the complainant. Judges should be named and shamed fir their rediculous easy out decisions. They are the real reason insurance is so high in this country.

Mint Sauce

(i) You carry your shopping around with you.
(ii) You ask the shop keeper if I can leave my bag at the counter whilst I browse/shop in your store.

What you dont do is place identical items from another store on their shelfs, intentionally or unintentionally, and then get all huffy and puffy when asked for proof of purchase.

Fucking chancers ruining everything for the rest of us!

Insurer scammers as well, is probably what put up both my home and car insurance last year as well. When will judges and the courts fully cop on to this!

givyjoe

Aglomerado wrote: »

Dangerous precedent.

Not at all a precedent and is something which shops and security staff should be aware of. You have to be very sure of theft before essentially accusing someone. The amount of the award is a... bit much.

Samuel T. Cogley

Very well known scam.

Boom_Bap

Threadz Merged

baylah17

Skihunta13 wrote: »

I think its more that judes will always side with the complainant. Judges should be named and shamed fir their rediculous easy out decisions. They are the real reason insurance is so high in this country.

Case was settled , therfore no Judge involved.

Omackeral

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

What a load of ****, sounds like a perfectly reasonable question from the shop and the woman either took offence or saw an opportunity to claim for compensation.

You're seldom dealing with reasonable people in these instances though.

MilesMorales1 wrote: »

Hardly grounds to be mortally offended either I wouldn't think.

It's 2018, everyone is offended by something or else sees an opportunity (financial, in this case) to say they're offended.

Omackeral

Aglomerado wrote: »

Dangerous precedent.

Who, Trump?

Crimson King

baylah17 wrote: »

Case was settled , therfore no Judge involved.

I took it that it would be a foregone conclusion if a judge was involved and the shop could be exposed to a higher amount of compensation.

Aglomerado

Omackeral wrote: »

Who, Trump?

:D

Him too!!!

namloc1980

givyjoe wrote: »

Not at all a precedent and is something which shops and security staff should be aware of. You have to be very sure of theft before essentially accusing someone. The amount of the award is a... bit much.

She was asked if she paid for the item. Hardly a serious accusation of theft. This is just a scammer who's been rewarded by the system.

Crimson King

Crimson King wrote: »

I took it that it would be a foregone conclusion if a judge was involved and the shop could be exposed to a higher amount of compensation.

I'd say if it was forced to a hearing, a lot of Judges would roll their eyes and wonder if there was any defamation at all, because asking if someone paid for something does not per se imply they had stolen it. Even if she got over that hurdle, I'd imagine the award would be minimal, and if any lodgement was made at all she'd be in trouble.

givyjoe

namloc1980 wrote: »

She was asked if she paid for the item. Hardly a serious accusation of theft. This is just a scammer who's been rewarded by the system.

It doesn't matter if it was 'serious' or not, it was an accusation of theft and an unfounded one, hence it's defamation. Maybe it was a 'scam' or rather a bait, it's still defamation.

Omackeral

Why 20K though? How do they arrive at that figure? Is it arbitrary?

Fr_Dougal

It’s hearsay.

Stonedpilot

givyjoe wrote: »

Not at all a precedent and is something which shops and security staff should be aware of. You have to be very sure of theft before essentially accusing someone. The amount of the award is a... bit much.

This. Shops need to be certain.

FishOnABike

Omackeral wrote: »

Why 20K though? How do they arrive at that figure? Is it arbitrary?

If it was too low a claimant would be more likely to chance going to court hoping for a higher payout. Add the shop's and claimant's legal costs to what the minimum the claimant might get if it went to court and that (plus administrative costs) would be the cost to the shop's insurers.

Any figure between what the claimant would stand a good chance of getting in court and the above minimises the insurance company's risk and payout while giving the claimant enough to make it too risky taking the case to court in the hope of a higher payout as if they were awarded less than offered they could be liable for both sides costs.

It's a game of bluff really - here's enough money to make it too risky to look for more. The insurance company (and its legal team) probably has the experience and data to know where to strike the balance to minimise their risk /cost. This might including knowing the form of the judge the case comes before, which might explain why a significant number of cases end up being settled on the steps of the court (sometimes literally).

baylah17

Crimson King wrote: »

I took it that it would be a foregone conclusion if a judge was involved and the shop could be exposed to a higher amount of compensation.

I disagree, no shortage of cases where Judges have found against plaintiffs, if you care to look them up.

Cuddlesworth

The case settled. She might not have been paid a cent.

Omackeral

Cuddlesworth wrote: »

The case settled. She might not have been paid a cent.

Are we still allowed to get outraged tho?

namloc1980

givyjoe wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it was 'serious' or not, it was an accusation of theft and an unfounded one, hence it's defamation. Maybe it was a 'scam' or rather a bait, it's still defamation.

How was it unfounded exactly? The customer picked up an item off the shelf and went to walk out the door. Shop assistants can't reasonably be expected to know that in that case she actually came in and placed the item on a shelf only to later pick it up. The customer behaviour here of buying something elsewhere and then putting it on a shelf in another shop is not a usual thing to do, therefore it was not unreasonable for the assistant to ask if it had been paid for. Therefore it wasn't unfounded. What your suggesting is that it is never ok to challenge a shoplifter unless there is irrefutable evidence. Shop owners and employees have better things to be doing than following customers around on the off chance they might lift something.

givyjoe

namloc1980 wrote: »

How was it unfounded exactly? The customer picked up an item off the shelf and went to walk out the door. Shop assistants can't reasonably be expected to know that in that case she actually came in and placed the item on a shelf only to later pick it up. The customer behaviour here of buying something elsewhere and then putting it on a shelf in another shop is not a usual thing to do, therefore it was not unreasonable for the assistant to ask if it had been paid for. Therefore it wasn't unfounded. What your suggesting is that it is never ok to challenge a shoplifter unless there is irrefutable evidence. Shop owners and employees have better things to be doing than following customers around on the off chance they might lift something.

It's the responsibility of the shop/staff NOT to incorrectly accuse/imply that goods have not been paid for/stolen, however the shop go about that. Whether it's cameras or a security guard or a mix of both.

It does not matter what you consider as a reasonable question to ask, unless you're sure that someone has not paid for/stolen an item, you are leaving yourself open to a defamation claim by doing what this shop did,hence this case happened.

If this was done deliberately by the person receiving the award, they're utter scum, but unfortunately the shop staff fell for it.

namloc1980 wrote: »

..... What your suggesting is that it is never ok to challenge a shoplifter unless there is irrefutable evidence.....

And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.This is not something new.

namloc1980

givyjoe wrote: »

It's the responsibility of the shop/staff NOT to incorrectly accuse/imply that goods have not been paid for/stolen, however the shop go about that. Whether it's cameras or a security guard or a mix of both.

It does not matter what you consider as a reasonable question to ask, unless you're sure that someone has not paid for/stolen an item, you are leaving yourself open to a defamation claim by doing what this shop did,hence this case happened.

If this was done deliberately by the person receiving the award, they're utter scum, but unfortunately the shop staff fell for it.




And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.This is not something new.

So the scammer/thief is the beneficiary. Just because that's always the way it's been, doesn't make it right.

CrankyHaus

givyjoe wrote: »

It's the responsibility of the shop/staff NOT to incorrectly accuse/imply that goods have not been paid for/stolen, however the shop go about that. Whether it's cameras or a security guard or a mix of both.

It does not matter what you consider as a reasonable question to ask, unless you're sure that someone has not paid for/stolen an item, you are leaving yourself open to a defamation claim by doing what this shop did,hence this case happened.

If this was done deliberately by the person receiving the award, they're utter scum, but unfortunately the shop staff fell for it.




And yes, that is exactly what I'm saying.This is not something new.

The shopkeeper's right to 'tax' customers to ensure they have paid for goods is well established at common law and falls under qualified privilege in the Defamation Act.

I'm not aware of courts finding defamation occurred where staff merely asked if somebody paid for something, though I'm open to correction.
So it seems like the Insurance company dropped the ball here by settling.

Incidentally, it is not uncommon for people to stage thefts and sue for defamation. The item they pretend to have stolen is bought elsewhere, and the receipt retained, before they make a show of taking it from a second shop to trick that shop's staff into accusing them of theft.
The circumstances here are suspiciously similar.

TallGlass

givyjoe wrote: »

It doesn't matter if it was 'serious' or not, it was an accusation of theft and an unfounded one, hence it's defamation. Maybe it was a 'scam' or rather a bait, it's still defamation.

So what should have been asked. Is that bottle of wine yours?

I can see notices going up in supermarket or on the doors, 'please don't place, personal items on the shelves'. Either that or we are going to get to the stage of having to sign agreement forms on the way in.