nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Another ridiculous court award

ThisRegard

Guying queuing in a store puts a case of beer down, another woman falls over it when walking by, she sues the store, judge awards her €60,000, knocking it down to €48,000 because he found her 20% liable. In other words the store is 80% at fault for a guy putting a case of beer down for what was a apparently a few minutes, he even apologised to her for doing it.

Do businesses need to assign each customer a minder from now on?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nurse-32-awarded-48000-after-tripping-over-sixpack-of-beer-in-tesco-store-35206370.html

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

[Deleted User]

Hmmmmmm, if the case was left down by an employee I'd say fair enough. You'd think it being left down by a third party was a novus actus interveniens rendering that individual liable and, if they were not part of the proceedings then it's tough luck.

The flying mouse

Alcohol can be very good for you in some ways, slante .

jamesbere

Screw this I'm off to tescos

The Wolverine

jamesbere wrote: »

Screw this I'm off to tescos

I'll leave the case down and you can trip over it? Split the payout?

ThisRegard

The Wolverine wrote: »

I'll leave the case down and you can trip over it? Split the payout?

You'll need to agree a back story about how he was just about to sign a professional football contract with a top club, and now can't play football anymore. Judges love stories like that.

irish bloke

She still fell in the store injuring herself so the shop is liable - No different then a customer spilling water on the floor and someone slipping on it.

HS3

Deleted User wrote: »

Hmmmmmm, if the case was left down by an employee I'd say fair enough. You'd think it being left down by a third party was a novus actus interveniens rendering that individual liable and, if they were not part of the proceedings then it's tough luck.

Basics of litigation -> go after the person with the money. No point going after Joe Soap for damages of €60k if he can't pay up.

Sam Kade

Awarded for being a victim of your own stupidity, why didn't she watch where she was going. Surely if your man put down the case of beer that he would be standing beside it in the queue.

jamesbere

The Wolverine wrote: »

I'll leave the case down and you can trip over it? Split the payout?

Yeah why not.

suicide_circus

You'd be mad to open a shop or any business with a public premises. Sly arseholes throwing themselves over any available obstacle for a grubby claim.

RobbingBandit

irish bloke wrote: »

She still fell in the store injuring herself so the shop is liable - No different then a customer spilling water on the floor and someone slipping on it.

The split water two man con I like it.

gramar

The Wolverine wrote: »

I'll leave the case down and you can trip over it? Split the payout?

jamesbere wrote: »

Yeah why not.

You can discuss the details over a few beers.

whiskeyman

Would I intentionally fracture my knee and live with the possibility of pain and early arthritis, and damage my love of sport?

Nope.

Seems one of the more genuine cases around to be fair.
I've seen a lot more awarded for a lot less.

ThisRegard

irish bloke wrote: »

She still fell in the store injuring herself so the shop is liable - No different then a customer spilling water on the floor and someone slipping on it.

Bit of a difference when water is left lying around as a hazard and not being mopped up compared to customers browsing and queuing and leaving things momentarily down while doing so.

Should the store erect "No putting objects on the ground" signs?

whiskeyman wrote: »

Would I intentionally fracture my knee and live with the possibility of pain and early arthritis, and damage my love of sport?

Nope.

Seems one of the more genuine cases around to be fair.
I've seen a lot more awarded for a lot less.

The injuries shouldn't have any bearing on who is liable for the accident, as bad as they may be.

gramar

whiskeyman wrote: »

Would I intentionally fracture my knee and live with the possibility of pain and early arthritis, and damage my love of sport?

Nope.

Seems one of the more genuine cases around to be fair.
I've seen a lot more awarded for a lot less.

It is a genuine claim but holding the supermarket responsible or at least to that degree is unfair. How can you possible control a customer leaving his beer on the floor in the queue? She also walked through the queue to get where she as going instead of around it.

irish bloke

gramar wrote: »

It is a genuine claim but holding the supermarket responsible or at least to that degree is unfair. How can you possible control a customer leaving his beer on the floor in the queue? She also walked through the queue to get where she as going instead of around it.

That's what public liability insurance is for!!

robarmstrong

This is beyond a joke. Almost 50K for something your own fault? I mean how difficult is it for someone to follow the basic principle of watch where the fcuk you're going ?

Surely the judge could have just awarded her the costs of physiotherapy to help facilitate the healing of her knee, no?

lawred2

ThisRegard wrote: »

Guying queuing in a store puts a case of beer down, another woman falls over it when walking by, she sues the store, judge awards her €60,000, knocking it down to €48,000 because he found her 20% liable. In other words the store is 80% at fault for a guy putting a case of beer down for what was a apparently a few minutes, he even apologised to her for doing it.

Do businesses need to assign each customer a minder from now on?

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/nurse-32-awarded-48000-after-tripping-over-sixpack-of-beer-in-tesco-store-35206370.html

Is that not what public liability insurance is for?

gramar

irish bloke wrote: »

That's what public liability insurance is for!!

The question being asked is if the supermarket was liable in the first place.
The general consensus seems to be that it isn't or not to that degree.

[Deleted User]

suicide_circus wrote: »

You'd be mad to open a shop or any business with a public premises. Sly arseholes throwing themselves over any available obstacle for a grubby claim.

There is no suggestion that the claim was fraudulent. That would see it being thrown out, as happens regularly enough. I wouldn't even have an issue with the quantum and contributory negligence aspects. I just have concerns about the finding of primary liability.

Kalimah

ThisRegard wrote: »

You'll need to agree a back story about how he was just about to sign a professional football contract with a top club, and now can't play football anymore. Judges love stories like that.

Funny that- she said she had had to give up football and running. Isn't it always the way with these these cases. I remember donkeys years back slipping on a squashed mushroom in our local Spar. I picked myself up and prayed no one had seen me- I was mortified. Wouldn't have dreamed of claiming.

Your Face

That story has "The Entertainer" tune in my head.

irish bloke

gramar wrote: »

The question being asked is if the supermarket was liable in the first place.
The general consensus seems to be that it isn't or not to that degree.

I believe the supermarket is liable and I believe the general consensus is incorrect..

Your Face

irish bloke wrote: »

I believe the supermarket is liable and I believe the general consensus is incorrect..

How much did you get?

C3PO

irish bloke wrote: »

I believe the supermarket is liable and I believe the general consensus is incorrect..

Assuming that you are serious .... how can you arrive at that conclusion? What could the supermarket do (within reason) to prevent this happening?

BrokenArrows

Ya its insane.

Thats a ruling that basically means if you injure yourself on any property because of your own fault and not paying basic attention then you can get a payout.

That basically means anyone, anywhere who injures themselves can get a payout.

Even if the court ruled that you were 95% responsible for the accident thats still a 3k payout.

I broke my wrist playing football years and years ago when the ball smacked my wrist back. In todays world i probably could have got a nice payout because the sports centers fault the ball came in my direction. lol.

gramar

Kalimah wrote: »

Funny that- she said she had had to give up football and running. Isn't it always the way with these these cases. I remember donkeys years back slipping on a squashed mushroom in our local Spar. I picked myself up and prayed no one had seen me- I was mortified. Wouldn't have dreamed of claiming.

I'm suprised there is no mention of the word star..as in...former, current or future.

irish bloke

Your Face wrote: »

How much did you get?

Good one, but at the end of the day she tripped over a hazard that shouldn't have been there, regardless of who put it there. If it happened to your mother/sister/wife etc, I bet it would be a different story.

Public Liability Insurance is there to protect businesses in cases like this where members of the public injure themselves on your premises. Would it be fair if that woman was out of work unpaid for 6 months and had medical bills to pay?

ohnonotgmail

Kalimah wrote: »

Funny that- she said she had had to give up football and running. Isn't it always the way with these these cases. I remember donkeys years back slipping on a squashed mushroom in our local Spar. I picked myself up and prayed no one had seen me- I was mortified. Wouldn't have dreamed of claiming.

did you fracture your knee?

BrokenArrows

irish bloke wrote: »

Good one, but at the end of the day she tripped over a hazard that shouldn't have been there, regardless of who put it there.
......

In a queue i totally expect things to be on the ground around customers, bags, baskets, boxes of stuff!! It is totally expected to be there.