Woman sues over exploding lemonade bottle

MarkAnthony · 15-04-2015 11:44PM

You gotta love the claims culture bull**** that constantly comes out in AH every time one of these is in the paper. Sure the High Court decide these by seeing which barrister wins a darts game, the CCTV, medical and engineers reports etc. never come into it. No one ever questions or calls a witness.

I know 72 year olds that would give a 30 year old a run for their money in terms of fitness. I also know little ol' dears that would fall over is someone sneezed near them.

15-04-2015 11:47PM

It just seems remarkable to me that we cannot discuss the case of Graham O'Dwyer, a convicted murderer (and I don't disagree with that) yet we can cast all kind of aspersions about the case of some woman in a civil action.

Could we not at least wait for the outcome? She's entitled to claim, we can surely agree on that much, even if we disagree on whether she should succeed or not.

MarkAnthony · 15-04-2015 11:49PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It just seems remarkable to me that we cannot discuss the case of Graham O'Dwyer, a convicted murderer (and I don't disagree with that) yet we can cast all kind of aspersions about the case of some woman in a civil action.

Could we not at least wait for the outcome? She's entitled to claim, we can surely agree on that much, even if we disagree on whether she should succeed or not.

It's going to make no difference to the thread. No one is going to consider the evidence and very few people are going to go beyond their comfort zone of thinking in relation to the possible outcomes.

If you're worried about the sub judice implications I'd report the thread, let the mods make a call. I do understand your sentiment though and agree with it tbh.

15-04-2015 11:54PM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's going to make no difference to the thread. No one is going to consider the evidence and very few people are going to go beyond their comfort zone of thinking in relation to the possible outcomes.

If you're worried about the sub judice implications I'd report the thread, let the mods make a call. I do understand your sentiment though and agree with it tbh.

I agree. I just feel a bit sorry for this woman and the thrashing of her character here. I mean, she will have to jump through the same hoops in liability and quantum, just like every other litigant. The rules won't get relaxed for her, the insurance company won't give her a blank cheque and tell her to fill it in. It's a democracy, she is perfectly entitled to take a case, even if some posters here wail and gnash their teeth about just how unfair it all is.

Cold War Kid · 15-04-2015 11:58PM

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You gotta love the claims culture bull**** that constantly comes out in AH every time one of these is in the paper. Sure the High Court decide these by seeing which barrister wins a darts game, the CCTV, medical and engineers reports etc. never come into it. No one ever questions or calls a witness.

I hear ya, but at the same time, to a non legal eagle like me, it just seems bizarre even to think of suing a supermarket over a bottle of fizz falling and bursting.
How was it not deemed an accident?

Ranchu · 16-04-2015 12:02AM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

How was it not deemed an accident?

Accident claims are what makes the world turn.

16-04-2015 12:05AM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

How was it not deemed an accident?

It might yet be deemed an accident. Claims are often dismissed on the basis that that's exactly what they were, accidental, just one of those things that happen with no negligence. She is going to the forum that decides whether matters are merely accidental or more.

MarkAnthony · 16-04-2015 12:06AM

Cold War Kid wrote: »

I hear ya, but at the same time, to a non legal eagle like me, it just seems bizarre even to think of suing a supermarket over a bottle of fizz falling and bursting.
How was it not deemed an accident?

Do you ever watch Judge Judy? She has a great line about of course it was an accident, otherwise it would be an 'on purpose'. It's an accident that should (possibly) have been foreseen by the shop, beyond that the consequences fall into what called the 'Egg Shell Skull Rule' which means that you take your victim as you find them.

I'd argue the shop assistant should have made sure stuff didn't fall of the conveyor. I'm sure the defence will argue that it isn't and the customer was at least contributory negligent in not keeping an eye as things might fall off - not sure how far that will run. The test for shoppers in Passing Off cases is the 'moron in a hurry test' I think that's apt in most situations involving shoppers :pac:

Cee-Jay-Cee · 16-04-2015 12:44AM

How are staff responsible for goods on the conveyor belt??? Surely the person buying them is responsible. I can see this case failing and rightly so, I hope she gets landed with a crippling bill for her greed.

MarkAnthony · 16-04-2015 12:45AM

Cee-Jay-Cee wrote: »

How are staff responsible for goods on the conveyor belt??? Surely the person buying them is responsible. I can see this case failing and rightly so, I hope she gets landed with a crippling bill for her greed.

How are they responsible for the aisles? How are they responsible for the light fittings? How are they responsible for the shelving?

AudreyHepburn · 16-04-2015 08:53AM

Ah good old Compo Culture...this is really is a pet hate of mine.

Whatever happened to accidents being just that...accidents? Why is there always some-one else to blame? And why does being hurt automatically mean you should be entitled to obscene amounts of money?

16-04-2015 08:54AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Ah good old Compo Culture...this is really is a pet hate of mine.

Whatever happened to accidents being just that...accidents? Why is there always some-one else to blame? And why does being hurt automatically mean you should be entitled to obscene amounts of money?

But yet again, what is the forum that determines whether it was an accident or not?

The Courts.

Where is she going to?

The Courts.

So far it seems she is doing exactly the right thing. She may or may not succeed. But where would you have her go?

eamonnq · 16-04-2015 08:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

But where would you have her go?

Back home to put her feet up and watch a bit of Judge Judy, and have a nice cold glass of 7up.

bucketybuck · 16-04-2015 09:07AM

Deleted User wrote: »

But yet again, what is the forum that determines whether it was an accident or not?

The Courts.

Where is she going to?

The Courts.

So far it seems she is doing exactly the right thing. She may or may not succeed. But where would you have her go?

Pandering rubbish in my opinion, you do not need a high court judgement because of a fall in a supermarket. You do not need solicitors and engineers to decide what should happen after a bottle of fizzy pop falls from a few feet and hits someones ankle. If you think thats a proportionate response to a simple bruise then I wonder how you get through life? I bet you fell and scraped your knee as a kid, did you then get a full health and safety assessment of your parents back yard?

Anybody can bring a claim, but there is a reason for the word "frivolous".

Willfarman · 16-04-2015 09:07AM

The solicitors barristers and judiciary in this country are so far removed from reality and the value of money i think nothing suprises me anymore.

16-04-2015 11:25AM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Pandering rubbish in my opinion, you do not need a high court judgement because of a fall in a supermarket. You do not need solicitors and engineers to decide what should happen after a bottle of fizzy pop falls from a few feet and hits someones ankle. If you think thats a proportionate response to a simple bruise then I wonder how you get through life? I bet you fell and scraped your knee as a kid, did you then get a full health and safety assessment of your parents back yard?

Anybody can bring a claim, but there is a reason for the word "frivolous".

Ah. I see you have decided that her injuries amount to "a simple bruise" and the claim is "frivolous".

Forgive me. There is no need for the Courts. Although he ignored my question as to where he would have her go, it appears that Master BucketyBuck here has decided that he can assess the matter. And sure no need to even speak to the party, it can be assessed from posts on anonymous forum!

:D

ohnonotgmail · 16-04-2015 11:35AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah. I see you have decided that her injuries amount to "a simple bruise" and the claim is "frivolous".

Forgive me. There is no need for the Courts. Although he ignored my question as to where he would have her go, it appears that Master BucketyBuck here has decided that he can assess the matter. And sure no need to even speak to the party, it can be assessed from posts on anonymous forum! :D

i refer you to my previous post

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

doctors AND psychics. What a talented bunch AH is.

bucketybuck · 16-04-2015 11:36AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah. I see you have decided that her injuries amount to "a simple bruise" and the claim is "frivolous".

Forgive me. There is no need for the Courts. Although he ignored my question as to where he would have her go, it appears that Master BucketyBuck here has decided that he can assess the matter. And sure no need to even speak to the party, it can be assessed from posts on anonymous forum! :D

Whereas Mr Conor's strategy is to clog the judicial system with every little bruise and sprain, because some people have no concept of integrity.

Where would I have her go? I would have her go nowhere, because I do not believe for one second that she suffered any loss whatsoever from this alleged incident. I do not believe it has caused her sleepless nights or constant pain. I believe she is taking advantage of certain pandering attitudes to make a cash grab simply because she can, and because thats the culture certain people here facilitate.

Certain people will wring their hands and proclaim that "she might be hurt, how can we tell?" while others are more prepared to call out her bull****. I'm content with the camp I am in.

16-04-2015 11:41AM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Where would I have her go? I would have her go nowhere, because I do not believe for one second that she suffered any loss whatsoever from this alleged incident.

But unlike your belief system, the role of the Courts is recognised by our Constitution and they are a fundamental arm of any functioning democracy, and the non functioning ones - legislature, administration, judiciary. She is entitled to have recourse to them, where she may well lose. Your suggestion that she can just "go nowhere" because of what you believe is, thankfully, not the system we operate here.

bucketybuck · 16-04-2015 11:45AM

Deleted User wrote: »

But unlike your belief system, the role of the Courts is recognised by our Constitution and they are a fundamental arm of any functioning democracy, and the non functioning ones - legislature, administration, judiciary. She is entitled to have recourse to them, where she may well lose. Your suggestion that she can just "go nowhere" because of what you believe is, thankfully, not the system we operate here.

Nothing you are saying is relevant to my opinion on this ladies actions.

I could bring a spurious claim against my local shop tomorrow should I wish, the court system will allow that. But the fact that I can bring the claim would not mean that I wasn't a litigious prick for doing so.

16-04-2015 11:50AM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Nothing you are saying is relevant to my opinion on this ladies actions.

I could bring a spurious claim against my local shop tomorrow should I wish, the court system will allow that. But the fact that I can bring the claim would not mean that I wasn't a litigious prick for doing so.

You certainly could.

Although the innuendo that her claim is "spurious" is outrageous, but it's an anonymous site so I guess you reckon you can cast any aspersion you like about her. You may think she is exaggerating matters, which is of itself a serious allegation, saying she is committing a fraud really isn't on.

Either way, for both you and her the rules are the same, you lose, you could lose costs. But you would have access to the Courts, it being a fundamental aspect of democracy that you apparently reject.

bucketybuck · 16-04-2015 11:53AM

Deleted User wrote: »

You certainly could.

Although the innuendo that her claim is "spurious" is outrageous, but it's an anonymous site so I guess you reckon you can cast any aspersion you like about her. You may think she is exaggerating matters, which is of itself a serious allegation, saying she is committing a fraud really isn't on.

Either way, for both you and her the rules are the same, you lose, you could lose costs. But you would have access to the Courts, it being a fundamental aspect of democracy that you apparently reject.

And where have I rejected a democratic court system? Thats a serious allegation that I take offence to, perhaps you should be more careful about anonymous innuendo.

Pumpkinseeds · 16-04-2015 11:54AM

Deleted User wrote: »

But unlike your belief system, the role of the Courts is recognised by our Constitution and they are a fundamental arm of any functioning democracy, and the non functioning ones - legislature, administration, judiciary. She is entitled to have recourse to them, where she may well lose. Your suggestion that she can just "go nowhere" because of what you believe is, thankfully, not the system we operate here.

When the Constitution was introduced there wasn't a claims culture. I don't think that anyone would dispute compensation for people who genuinely deserve it, but cases like the one we're discussing clog up the system. All said and done a bottle of lemonade fell off a conveyor belt and hit her in the ankle when it was on the floor. How the hell this case found it's way to the High Court is anyone's guess, clearly her legal team think they have an angle to get her a lot more compensation from the HC than she'd have gotten in the Circuit/District court.

16-04-2015 11:56AM

bucketybuck wrote: »

And where have I rejected a democratic court system? Thats a serious allegation that I take offence to, perhaps you should be more careful about anonymous innuendo.

Did I defame "Bucketybuck". Oh dear, I guess "Bucketybuck" might sue.

The case would be entitled "Bucketybuck -v- Conor74", would it?

:D

Check out the law first though. Though I appreciate you reject whole swathes of it.

ohnonotgmail · 16-04-2015 11:57AM

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

When the Constitution was introduced there wasn't a claims culture. I don't think that anyone would dispute compensation for people who genuinely deserve it, but cases like the one we're discussing clog up the system. All said and done a bottle of lemonade fell off a conveyor belt and hit her in the ankle when it was on the floor. How the hell this case found it's way to the High Court is anyone's guess, clearly her legal team think they have an angle to get her a lot more compensation from the HC than she'd have gotten in the Circuit/District court.

how do we decide who genuinely deserves compensation? The court of public opinion?

ohnonotgmail · 16-04-2015 11:57AM

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I defame "Bucketybuck". Oh dear, I guess "Bucketybuck" might sue.

The case would be entitled "Bucketybuck -v- Conor74", would it?

:D

Check out the law first though. Though I appreciate you reject whole swathes of it.

only the bits that dont suit him.

bucketybuck · 16-04-2015 12:01PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Did I defame "Bucketybuck". Oh dear, I guess "Bucketybuck" might sue.

The case would be entitled "Bucketybuck -v- Conor74", would it?

:D

Check out the law first though. Though I appreciate you reject whole swathes of it.

Oh really? So what was your purpose in writing this? It appears you knew it was meaningless dribble and yet wrote it anyway.

Deleted User wrote: »

You certainly could.

Although the innuendo that her claim is "spurious" is outrageous, but it's an anonymous site so I guess you reckon you can cast any aspersion you like about her. You may think she is exaggerating matters, which is of itself a serious allegation, saying she is committing a fraud really isn't on.

ohnonotgmail · 16-04-2015 12:08PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Oh really? So what was your purpose in writing this? It appears you knew it was meaningless dribble and yet wrote it anyway.

I don't see anything reasonable in what was said below. You, amongst others, have already decided that her claim is spurious and fraudulent. I'm pretty sure that would be covered under our defamation laws.

Deleted User wrote: »

You certainly could.

Although the innuendo that her claim is "spurious" is outrageous, but it's an anonymous site so I guess you reckon you can cast any aspersion you like about her. You may think she is exaggerating matters, which is of itself a serious allegation, saying she is committing a fraud really isn't on.

Either way, for both you and her the rules are the same, you lose, you could lose costs. But you would have access to the Courts, it being a fundamental aspect of democracy that you apparently reject.

16-04-2015 12:36PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

Oh really? So what was your purpose in writing this? It appears you knew it was meaningless dribble and yet wrote it anyway.

Jesus.

I'll spoonfeed it.

You, as Bucketybuck, cannot sue claiming Bucketybuck was defamed. Because Bucketybuck doesn't exist and has no reputation to defame.

However, the person referred to in the OP can sue, as she is identifiable. And hiding behind "Bucketybuck" in that case is no defence.

Do you get it?

Pumpkinseeds · 16-04-2015 12:42PM

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

how do we decide who genuinely deserves compensation? The court of public opinion?

Well, a good way to start is by throwing out nonsense cases, such as people claiming for being hit on the leg with a plastic bottle.:)

Woman sues over exploding lemonade bottle

Comments