Compensation culture

Le Commentateur

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090922/tuk ... dbed5.html

Tragic accident, but should the parents be suing the supermaket? The barriers are there to stop people & their trolleys being hit by drivers looking for a parking space, after all. Maybe it's easier to blame others...

Anonymous

WTF?

Awful awful accident but how the hell is that negligent?

White Line

NapoleonD wrote:

WTF?

Awful awful accident but how the hell is that negligent?

They clearly neglected to line the ground in foam. :roll:

Crazy people. :shock:

Anonymous

Hopefully this claim will go nowhere. Maybe the parents should look to themselves.....

iainment

We don't know enough to say whether there is a liability from Somerfield.

imho if there was and my child died I'd sue the arse of them.

Pip pip.

squired

Unless the kid was in a designated play area I can't see how they will get anywhere. If a kid goes and plays on a railway track and either gets electocuted or hit by a train it is their fault? Or would it be the train company's fault for not covering the electrified track and having warning signs up? I'm sure some parents would blame the railway company.

spen666

squired wrote:

Unless the kid was in a designated play area I can't see how they will get anywhere. If a kid goes and plays on a railway track and either gets electocuted or hit by a train it is their fault? Or would it be the train company's fault for not covering the electrified track and having warning signs up? I'm sure some parents would blame the railway company.

so would the Occupiers Liability Act

verylonglegs

Seems to be another example of the modern day attitude of looking to blame someone and then expecting payment for it. People just refuse to take responsiblity for themselves anymore, either through ignorance or greed.

I have read some local education authorities set aside some of their budget each year to settle up claims for playground injuries and the injury lawyer firms target poorer areas encouraging parents to make claims knowing the school settles up rather than try and fight it in court. Its a sorry state of affairs if this is the case.

One other point is I find the statement from the family solicitor a little bizarre 'This is a working class neighbourhood....' Not quite sure what that's got to do with anything.

feltkuota

Small point but if the devastated mother was shopping "just yards away" who was looking after the child?

In any event a trargic episode..

redddraggon

Definitely negligence. Parent's should be imprisoned.

Slow1972

"Family solicitor Rex Makin"

= well known Personal Injury lawyer of the Liverpool parish... and never one to miss making a comment to the local press on anything and everything either

But truth is no-one on here really knows enough from that article to comment on whether Somerfield should have any liability or not do they? On the face of it it sounds like a tragic accident. But then say the barrier is badly corroded, the supermarket knew that and hadn't done anything about it, kid comes along and swings on the railing falls and the death is the result. Who's side are you are on then?

Facts always make the difference in these cases, and we don't know 'em

Anonymous

But the railings aren't built as kid's play things, they are to segregate the traffic from the pedestrian bit...

Monkeypump

No, we don't know the facts. And yes, parents should be able to go shopping with their children in a safe environment. But what part of shopping involves "swinging on a small steel rail"?

Seems like another unfortunate example of blame-anyone-but-me parenting.

mask of sanity

iainment wrote:

We don't know enough to say whether there is a liability from Somerfield.

imho if there was and my child died I'd sue the ars* of them.

Pip pip.

Wouldn't bring your kid back!! I think it's a massive insult to their memory!!

Eau Rouge

Slow1972 wrote:

But then say the barrier is badly corroded, the supermarket knew that and hadn't done anything about it, kid comes along and swings on the railing falls and the death is the result. Who's side are you are on then?

Still the supermarket, the kid should not be swinging on the railings.

iainment

mask of sanity wrote:

iainment wrote:

We don't know enough to say whether there is a liability from Somerfield.

imho if there was and my child died I'd sue the ars* of them.

Pip pip.

Wouldn't bring your kid back!! I think it's a massive insult to their memory!!

Why? If some bastard caused the death of my child by their negligence I would, legally, exact whatever revenge I could. I wouldn't want to gain from any monies obtained and would like to think I'd give them to an appropriate charity.It might also mean that any similar negligence would not happen again.

But as my kids are 28 and 23 it's not likely that a similar accident would happen to them.

Pip pip.

nicensleazy

where there is blame there is a claim!!!

bagpusscp

If your own a buisness you have to wade through stuff like this.
http://www.dover.gov.uk/healthandsafety/workplace.asp

mask of sanity

iainment wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

iainment wrote:

We don't know enough to say whether there is a liability from Somerfield.

imho if there was and my child died I'd sue the ars* of them.

Pip pip.

Wouldn't bring your kid back!! I think it's a massive insult to their memory!!

Why? If some bastard caused the death of my child by their negligence I would, legally, exact whatever revenge I could. I wouldn't want to gain from any monies obtained and would like to think I'd give them to an appropriate charity.It might also mean that any similar negligence would not happen again.

But as my kids are 28 and 23 it's not likely that a similar accident would happen to them.

Pip pip.

Totally different if you were to give the money to a charity, but I think it would be pretty sick to make a financial gain out of the death of your child!

Trying to prevent a similar accident happening again is also a worthy cause although I reckon a large percentage of cases like this would be settled out of court, so little good would come of it.

In this case however, it seems that the supermarket should not be held responsible as it seems like the accident was down to poor parenting rather then negligence of the supermarket (judging only on the little information we have been given obviously!). Although with the ridiculous levels of health and safety that is present in these days they probably should have had some kind of sign warning of possible outcomes of swinging on it...

Chip \'oyler

This is a quote from the report

'Harry Blackmore was swinging on a small steel rail when he fell in the store in Liverpool.'

The kid was playing on something that isn't a plaything. He falls off. It's a tragic accident.

Problem is these days parents don't seem to want to take responsibility for their own or child's actions. If something happens it's always someone else's fault.

Fact is the kid was doing something he shouldn't have, and the parents weren't looking after him. How is that the supermarkets fault?

iainment

mask of sanity wrote:

iainment wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

iainment wrote:

We don't know enough to say whether there is a liability from Somerfield.

imho if there was and my child died I'd sue the ars* of them.

Pip pip.

Wouldn't bring your kid back!! I think it's a massive insult to their memory!!

Why? If some bastard caused the death of my child by their negligence I would, legally, exact whatever revenge I could. I wouldn't want to gain from any monies obtained and would like to think I'd give them to an appropriate charity.It might also mean that any similar negligence would not happen again.

But as my kids are 28 and 23 it's not likely that a similar accident would happen to them.

Pip pip.

Totally different if you were to give the money to a charity, but I think it would be pretty sick to make a financial gain out of the death of your child!

Trying to prevent a similar accident happening again is also a worthy cause although I reckon a large percentage of cases like this would be settled out of court, so little good would come of it.

In this case however, it seems that the supermarket should not be held responsible as it seems like the accident was down to poor parenting rather then negligence of the supermarket (judging only on the little information we have been given obviously!). Although with the ridiculous levels of health and safety that is present in these days they probably should have had some kind of sign warning of possible outcomes of swinging on it...

Let's wait and see the full facts. And then apportion blame if necessary.

Pip pip..

tebbit

Just because someone sues for compensation it doesn't mean that, that person will be sucessful, I agree with the Rex Makin comments he is an ambulance chaser.

There is an automatic liability to consider risks posed to children and an automatic duty of care to consider the health and safety of children, balustrades and staircases are a point in mind.

A claimant can have sympathy from a judge but this doesn't mean their claim will be sucessful.

Stewie Griffin

http://www.clickliverpool.com/news/loca ... h-tot.html

"The couple have sought legal advice over the way Harry's fall was handled and an inquest is to follow later this year."

So maybe not that he fell but how Somerfield responded. Perhaps they didnt call an ambulance, although I bet his Mum had her mobile and could have herself. Having said that, Im not a Parent and have no idea as to how rational I would be if I saw my Son lifeless on the floor.

downfader

This reminds me of what happened at work the other week.

Some little kid came over to our carosel and began trying to swing on it. Usually a stern "NO! Dangerous!!" will scare them off, and as he was about the same age I dont think he would have understood a lecture. He nearly got his head damaged on a bit of machinery and was obviously bored so I ended up asking him to take me to his mother.

Told his mother that she shouldnt let him out of her sight and how dangerous a busy catering environment can be. So she said sorry, she'll keep an eye on him. 2 minutes later I turn around and see out of my window that this little lad has wandered off 200 yards towards maintenance. I think an engineer brought him back.

We also had an incident many years back where a child pestered her mother to hold a tray of hot drinks. A staff member said "dont do that!" but the mother hands over the tray and sure enough 3 or 4 cups of boiling coffee go down the childs front. 2nd degree burns, had it not been for a passing chef, who had earlier filled a sink with cold water for a load of veg, scooping her up and placing her in the water she would have been worse off. The mother in question there tried to sue our department there too... thrown out of court. :?

Anonymous

iainment wrote:

mask of sanity wrote:

iainment wrote:

We don't know enough to say whether there is a liability from Somerfield.

imho if there was and my child died I'd sue the ars* of them.

Pip pip.

Wouldn't bring your kid back!! I think it's a massive insult to their memory!!

Why? If some bastard caused the death of my child by their negligence I would, legally, exact whatever revenge I could. I wouldn't want to gain from any monies obtained and would like to think I'd give them to an appropriate charity.It might also mean that any similar negligence would not happen again.

But as my kids are 28 and 23 it's not likely that a similar accident would happen to them.

Pip pip.

I think the negligent people in this case could be found if the PARENTS looked in the mirror.