PI claim with uncertain details - could a successful claim be possible?

TheBoyConor

Let say someone was in a restaurant for a meal and as they sat down they ended up bowled over right on on the flat of their arse because the chair they sat on was faulty and collapsed under them. At the time they would have got up dusted off and carried on with the meal, no big deal.
Staff wouldn't take hardly any notice, not apologising at all and just removed the broken chair. Probably didn't even report to management nor record the incident as having occurred.
The person now would not be even exactly sure what date the incident occurred, perhaps know it only to within a week of when it occurred.

The person would have never went to the doctor or physio at the time and 6 months on the person would still have mild back pain from it and are now going to go for medical review and subsequently may be looking to make a PI claim against the proprietors for having the gammy chair.

In a scenario like that, what would the chances be of a successful case? Or would it be thrown out as there was no solid evidence of anything and nothing was pursued sooner. Would a PI solicitor even take on a case if it had this many vagarities to it?

neamhsplach

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Let say someone was in a restaurant for a meal and as they sat down they ended up bowled over right on on the flat of their arse because the chair they sat on was faulty and collapsed under them. At the time they would have got up dusted off and carried on with the meal, no big deal.
Staff wouldn't take hardly any notice, not apologising at all and just removed the broken chair. Probably didn't even report to management nor record the incident as having occurred.
The person now would not be even exactly sure what date the incident occurred, perhaps know it only to within a week of when it occurred.

The person would have never went to the doctor or physio at the time and 6 months on the person would still have mild back pain from it and are now going to go for medical review and subsequently may be looking to make a PI claim against the proprietors for having the gammy chair.

In a scenario like that, what would the chances be of a successful case? Or would it be thrown out as there was no solid evidence of anything and nothing was pursued sooner. Would a PI solicitor even take on a case if it had this many vagarities to it?

No - and any solicitor who would take this case is acting in a reckless manner in increasing your hopes for a claim.

TheBoyConor

Really?

Seth Brundle

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Really?

How can compensation for a loss be calculated if there is nothing to suggest that you were at a loss?
You've no evidence of an injury arising from the incident apart from a memory of it!

votecounts

People wonder why Insurance premiums are so high.

TheBoyConor

Doctors receipt with receipts for prescription pain medication? Or physiotherapists report, would that not be enough substantiation?

Seth Brundle

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Doctors report or physiotherapists report, would that not be enough substantiation?

Did you read the OP at all?

TheBoyConor

But i mean like if they went to the doctor now and obtained those things?

Seth Brundle

TheBoyConor wrote: »

But i mean like if they went to the doctor now and obtained those things?

That is evidence that you went to the doctor today!
If you had no need to see a medical expert six months ago then it will be deemed that there was no injury and whatever is wrong with you now cannot be attributed to the minor event six months ago.

randomrb

Even if there is some injury it seems very minor, the fact that you cannot remember the date of the incident is a red flag but the main one as pointed out is the lack of a visit to the doctor.

I have seen PI cases which have been problematic because the individuals went to the doctor a few days after the incident not a few months.

You can't prove a link to the event and you can't prove injuries based on the incident, you have no case

TheBoyConor

Shag it.

Might have been a grand pay day if only I'd taken more notice and went to the doctor that day or the day after.

Plumbthedepths

So you can't remember when it happened exactly and suffered no material loss and didn't seek medical attention after the event but are wondering about claiming?
I draw your attention to a case in yesterdays paper, a family of four attempted to sue a taxi driver for a minor collision. Judge found against the four they now have a bill each of 25k.

TheBoyConor

Well I did fall off the chair because it was faulty. I didn't get so much as an acknowledgment from the staff nor a sorry. One of them came over and took the remains of the chair away and glared at me as if to say how dare you break our chair.
Luckily I didn't have hot tea in my hand coming down from the counter or it would have ended up all over me as I fell backwards onto my back. I also am lucky that I didn't hit me head off the ground.
I think I should be entitled to something, even if I don't have a serious injury.

sydthebeat

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

So you can't remember when it happened exactly and suffered no material loss and didn't seek medical attention after the event but are wondering about claiming?
I draw your attention to a case in yesterdays paper, a family of four attempted to sue a taxi driver for a minor collision. Judge found against the four they now have a bill each of 25k.

can i have a link to that please?

artanevilla

You want compensation because you might have had tea in your hand?

sydthebeat

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Well I did fall off the chair because it was faulty. I didn't get so much as an acknowledgment from the staff nor a sorry. One of them came over and took the remains of the chair away and glared at me as if to say how dare you break our chair.
Luckily I didn't have hot tea in my hand coming down from the counter or it would have ended up all over me as I fell backwards onto my back. I also am lucky that I didn't hit me head off the ground.
I think I should be entitled to something, even if I don't have a serious injury.

you should be entitled to nothing.

being "lucky" other things DIDNT happen is not an entitlement for compensation.

you didnt suffer injury at the time, you didnt seek medical attention at the time. There is no way any doctor can pin point "mild back pain" to a minor event which happened 6 months previous.
There is no way of attributing and supposed loss, of which its not clear there is any, to n event 6 months in the past.

Graham

sydthebeat wrote: »

can i have a link to that please?

I suspect this is it: https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/taxi-passengers-face-25000-costs-as-accident-injury-claims-rejected-38748363.html

Plumbthedepths

sydthebeat wrote: »

can i have a link to that please?

https://m.herald.ie/news/courts/
Low impact taxi crash.

Trampas

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Well I did fall off the chair because it was faulty. I didn't get so much as an acknowledgment from the staff nor a sorry. One of them came over and took the remains of the chair away and glared at me as if to say how dare you break our chair.
Luckily I didn't have hot tea in my hand coming down from the counter or it would have ended up all over me as I fell backwards onto my back. I also am lucky that I didn't hit me head off the ground.
I think I should be entitled to something, even if I don't have a serious injury.

What do you think you’re entitled to?

NUTLEY BOY

A quick tour around the basic rules for bringing a successful action in negligence might help ;

1. Establish that the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care,
2. Establish that there has been a breach of that duty of care,
3. Establish that the plaintiff has suffered injury and losses,
4. Establish that the defendant's breach of duty is the cause of the injuries.
5. The plaintiff carries the burden of proof.
6. The required standard of proof is that of the balance of probabilities.

Balance of probabilities means that something is at least 51% more likely than not.

P.S. It was definitely a chair and not a swing ?

TheBoyConor

I don't know, but something.

They had dodgy furniture in there that could have seriouslly injured someone. I think there should be some kind of penalty against them for that.

I should have claimed at the time. I was too naive in not claiming. Most people would have landed a claim in that scenario. They would have been clearly negligent what with having faulty chairs that fell to pieces when someone sits on it.

It was the type of chair with a mouled plastic seat fixed onto chrome metal legs. I just the attachment failed and when I sat on it myself and the plastic part tumbled down onto the ground.

Seth Brundle

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I think I should be entitled to something, even if I don't have a serious injury.

You should be entitled to absolutely nothing and this sense of entitlement is incredibly frustrating for those who have to pay high insurance costs!
There was nothing wrong with you when it happened. You were absolutely fine.
Now, six months later, you feel you are owed something (to get your "grand pay day") because you think your back is sore?
Really?

Seth Brundle

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I don't know, but something.

They had dodgy furniture in there that could have seriouslly injured someone. I think there should be some kind of penalty against them for that.

I've no idea but maybe you were not using it correctly or are too heavy for it?

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I should have claimed at the time. I was too naive in not claiming. Most people would have landed a claim in that scenario. They would have been clearly negligent what with having faulty chairs that fell to pieces when someone sits on it.

The chair broke, so what?
You had no right to claim back then because there was nothing wrong with you. You weren't even feeling sore enough to pop into your GP.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

It was the type of chair with a mouled plastic seat fixed onto chrome metal legs. I just the attachment failed and when I sat on it myself and the plastic part tumbled down onto the ground.

and?
Did you check the chair before you sat down?
Did you not notice that it was wobbly or anything?

TheBoyConor

1. Establish that the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care,
Obviously they do have a DoC to their customers. It is a large restaurant chain.

2. Establish that there has been a breach of that duty of care,
Clearly there was as their chair fell to pieces under me. Was inadequately checked for damage or maintained.

3. Establish that the plaintiff has suffered injury and losses,
I did fall onto my back when the chair fell apart under me.

4. Establish that the defendant's breach of duty is the cause of the injuries.
I think it is reasonable to suggest that this incident could have resulted in back pain.

5. The plaintiff carries the burden of proof.
I can prove that the incident happend. perhaps it will be on CCTV.

6. The required standard of proof is that of the balance of probabilities.
An incident did occur. I fell on my back. My back is now sore. I would have thought that on balance, it is a scenario that would be more plausible than implausible.

I think that because they failed in their duty of care, I should be entitled to something. Perhaps even their insurers would offer to settle just to make it go away and not have to go the whole hog with court?

Seth Brundle

TheBoyConor wrote: »

1. Establish that the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care,
Obviously they do have a DoC to their customers. It is a large restaurant chain.

2. Establish that there has been a breach of that duty of care,
Clearly there was as their chair fell to pieces under me. Was inadequately checked for damage or maintained.

3. Establish that the plaintiff has suffered injury and losses,
I did fall onto my back when the chair fell apart under me.

4. Establish that the defendant's breach of duty is the cause of the injuries.
I think it is reasonable to suggest that this incident could have resulted in back pain.

5. The plaintiff carries the burden of proof.
I can prove that the incident happend. perhaps it will be on CCTV.

6. The required standard of proof is that of the balance of probabilities.
An incident did occur. I fell on my back. My back is now sore. I would have thought that on balance, it is a scenario that would be more plausible than implausible.

I think that because they failed in their duty of care, I should be entitled to something. Perhaps even their insurers would offer to settle just to make it go away and not have to go the whole hog with court?

You're having a laugh now.
As if they will give you their CCTV so you can launch a piss-take legal action :rolleyes:

My last time saying this:
YOU.
ARE.
OWED.
OR.
ENTITLED.
TO.
NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Trampas

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I don't know, but something.

They had dodgy furniture in there that could have seriouslly injured someone. I think there should be some kind of penalty against them for that.

I should have claimed at the time. I was too naive in not claiming. Most people would have landed a claim in that scenario. They would have been clearly negligent what with having faulty chairs that fell to pieces when someone sits on it.

It was the type of chair with a mouled plastic seat fixed onto chrome metal legs. I just the attachment failed and when I sat on it myself and the plastic part tumbled down onto the ground.

You’re entitled to whatever lost you had.

Plumbthedepths

TheBoyConor wrote: »

I don't know, but something.

They had dodgy furniture in there that could have seriouslly injured someone. I think there should be some kind of penalty against them for that.

I should have claimed at the time. I was too naive in not claiming. Most people would have landed a claim in that scenario. They would have been clearly negligent what with having faulty chairs that fell to pieces when someone sits on it.

It was the type of chair with a mouled plastic seat fixed onto chrome metal legs. I just the attachment failed and when I sat on it myself and the plastic part tumbled down onto the ground.

Sure look if you search you might find a solicitor that will take your case, you do of course have to go the PIAB route first. Doctor's report of circa 300 euro online registration with PIAB of 45 euro or by post 90 euro. Restaurant will probably through their insurer reject PIAB dealing with your claim. So it's a court date, based on what you said here most likely thrown out and a big bill potentially heading your way. Best thing to do move on and examine any chair you are intending to use before you sit. Think of it as a life lesson.

kippy

Can you prove that:
You were in the restaurant?

TheBoyConor

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I've no idea but maybe you were not using it correctly or are too heavy for it?

Ah here, I went in with friends for a cuppa tea and a burger. I can assure you I am of a healthy BMI and not at all overweight.

Did you check the chair before you sat down?
Did you not notice that it was wobbly or anything?

No. Why would I examine a chair before sitting on it? it is not unreasonable to expect a chair to not fall apart when sitting on it. Do you examine every chair you sit on for structural soundness?

Anyway, it is the responsibility of the restaurant to ensure that the facilities they provide are safe for their customers to use. It is part of their duty of care.

kippy

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Ah here, I went in with friends for a cuppa tea and a burger. I can assure you I am of a healthy BMI and not at all overweight.





No. Why would I examine a chair before sitting on it? it is not unreasonable to expect a chair to not fall apart when sitting on it. Do you examine every chair you sit on for structural soundness?

Anyway, it is the responsibility of the restaurant to ensure that the facilities they provide are safe for their customers to use. It is part of their duty of care.

Go to a solicitor.
Pointless discussing this here.

NUTLEY BOY

I suspect at this stage that any putative action would be likely doomed for want of relevant evidence.

The first thing that I would expect a solicitor taking instructions from you to do would do would be to have the chair inspected by an engineer.
That would determine if the chair was defective.

Simply asserting that the chair was axiomatically defective because it collapsed does not discharge the burden of proof.
Averring that an event is equally consistent with negligence does not meet the evidentiary burden.

There might be a res ipsa loquitor argument to me made in this respect but I think that it would be thin - you would not want to be relying on this as your best argument.