Fall at tesco

[JonCris]

RP it's obvious from your remarks that you have little understanding of the law of Tort - sue the Architect cos he's liable - indeed - what utter nonsense.

 

The OP's implied contract is not with the Architect it's with the store in the same way if you buy something & it's faulty your contract is with the store who sold it & not the manufacturer who made it.

 

The moment Tesco took possession of the property they also accepted liability for any problems including those of design where negligence to 3rd parties is concerned.

 

Tesco could, if they chose, sue the Architect but that would have nothing to do with the OP.

 

The only way accident victims can be compensated is by receiving damages which comes in the form of varying sums of money the amount of which is dependant on the extent of the injury

[JonCris]

Also I should read this

 

Slip risks on a supermarket's smooth floor

[ConnyWonny]

Well I would & have on many occasions (including against Tesco's) & have never lost in over 30 years where it has been established the drainage was poor because of design or material used

 

Take up the case then?

[JonCris]

I would if I wasn't retired but I can direct the OP to one of the many practises that will - if the OP wishes

[ConnyWonny]

I would also advise they take out a CFA

[revolting peasant]

RP it's obvious from your remarks that you have little understanding of the law of Tort - sue the Architect cos he's liable - indeed - what utter nonsense. Read it again - that was worded as a question!

 

The OP's implied contract is not with the Architect it's with the store in the same way if you buy something & it's faulty your contract is with the store who sold it & not the manufacturer who made it.

 

The moment Tesco took possession of the property they also accepted liability for any problems including those of design where negligence to 3rd parties is concerned.

 

Tesco could, if they chose, sue the Architect but that would have nothing to do with the OP.

 

The only way accident victims can be compensated is by receiving damages which comes in the form of varying sums of money the amount of which is dependant on the extent of the injury

 

Before you start climbing out of your pram and deriding other posts you might do well to read the posts properly and respond to them appropriately.

 

I'm with ConnyWonny. Take up the OP's case and let us know how you get on.

 

As you may have noticed I hate bloody ambulance chasers and the compensation society in general:evil:

[REKWOB80]

Hi all, well I havent taken this matter any further as my bruises have gone now along with my embarrassment, so the only proof if I wanted to take it any further would be recorded by the store and the staff, and with obviously not seeking any medical attention this would probably be pointless. Also the floor has now been covered by two huge mats so thats something I suppose.

In any case I would have to agree with joncris totally. As for you rp people are entitled to comp if theres an accident caused by another partys failings, eg. car accident (caused by drink drivers/ carelessness and so on), so what are they, ambulance chasers, comp society?

I totally refuse to believe that you would not become one of these so called ambulance chasers. Also who are you to label and judge?.

[JonCris]

Before you start climbing out of your pram and deriding other posts you might do well to read the posts properly and respond to them appropriately.

 

I'm with ConnyWonny. Take up the OP's case and let us know how you get on.

 

As you may have noticed I hate bloody ambulance chasers and the compensation society in general:evil:

 

I'll will always rubbish ill informed advice to other members - Also your remark about the compensation culture gives the game away - I'm afraid - by repeating that myth you are showing others like me that you have no knowledge of the facts.

 

There is no 'compensation culture' - it's a complete myth conjured up by insurers to enable them to increase premiums.

 

Their own admitted research together with the governments has revealed there are fewer claims now than 10 -11 years ago

 

They have been confronted on numerous occasions with this fact so even they have now stopped claiming as such - or hadn't you noticed.

 

Their new con is to claim it's cheaper if they alone decide what a claimant is to be paid in compensation - in other words they want to be both the hare & the hounds - I wonder in who's interest they will act:rolleyes: - theirs or the victim they have to pay compensation to

[Chesterexpress]

I really don't know where you getting your advice from but it's wrong.

 

Property owners have a duty to clear snow

 

Afraid that I have to disagree with you JC, as far as snow is concerned it is better for the householder not to attempt to remove snow on their pathways. Reason for this is that as the snow is visible, it is the responsibilty of any visitors to take extra care, whereas if you clear the snow it usually leaves a hard to notice icy area and therefore the risk of slips is greater. In my opinion and experience few if any county court judges would go against this advice.

[JonCris]

Afraid that I have to disagree with you JC, as far as snow is concerned it is better for the householder not to attempt to remove snow on their pathways. Reason for this is that as the snow is visible, it is the responsibilty of any visitors to take extra care, whereas if you clear the snow it usually leaves a hard to notice icy area then you salt it and therefore the risk of slips is greater. It's a dam sight greater if you have to walk on snow In my opinion and experience few if any county court judges would go against this advice.

Really & when was the last time you offered that defence in order to defeat a member of the publics claim for compensation "I didn't clear the snow hazard Judge because I thought it would make it more dangerous" - The defence of lets do nowt - wonderful:D

[Chesterexpress]

JC you normally give good advice, however I am afraid that this time you are way out of tune. So you salt the area and it freezes over, hence my original advice that it is good practice for householders to do nothing rather than what you suggest.

[lawbunny]

My opinion on my understanding of the law in this area (and please don't all jump on the bandwagon of attacking me, I said it's my opinion!):

 

Yes, Tesco do owe their customers a duty of care to ensure that they do not cause them any harm in their store ie by making sure the floor is not hazardous etc.

 

Yes, Tesco did fail in this duty of care by not mopping the area, having a wet floor sign up or putting down mats.

 

However, I don't think it would really have been worth a court case, as in this case the OP clearly contributed to his own injury which would severly lessen the compensation anyway: if it was raining so bad outside, the OP must have been aware of this (I have never come across a Tesco which did not have massive glass windows/doors at the entrance) and so should have been taking extra care to cross what was obviously a slippy floor, and so also accepted a certain amount of risk in crossing said floor.

[JonCris]

Lawbunny the duty to keep the floor free from hazard is absolute.

 

Therefore in the normal course of events the victim cannot have contributed to their accident - unless the victim behaved inappropriately by running etc. Even then they might have only been guilty of contributory negligence

[JonCris]

JC you normally give good advice, however I am afraid that this time you are way out of tune. So you salt the area and it freezes over, hence my original advice that it is good practice for householders to do nothing rather than what you suggest.

 

 

No it isn't - If a householder leaves what is an obvious hazard such as snow, in place without making ANY ATTEMPT TO REMOVE IT & it causes injury to a visitor they WILL be deemed as negligent & required to pay damages.

[ConnyWonny]

JonCris, I do not believe this to be the case. As a previous poster stated, the snow is clearly visible and therefore the 'victim' knows this will present a hazard and a certain amount of danger. It is then up to them to take apprpriate measures/actions to limit this extra danger.

 

I think you'll find that 99% of courts would also see it that way.

 

In the case on this thread, the only reasons Tesco can be found liable would be if there was also a pre-existing defect in the floor where the claiment slipped (no mention), or if for some reason the water on the floor was not visible to the claiment (again, no mention).

[JonCris]

Just how does the accident victim avoid negotiating the hazard if it's the only entrance - Should they perhaps crawl on all fours or find a sledge with which to cross over.

 

The onus is ON the owner who is inviting people on to his property to ensure the entrance is safe & if a person slips whilst behaving perfectly normally then the fault for the accident is with shop

 

Like I said the only grounds for contributory negligence would be if the victim was acting irresponsibly thereby increasing the accident risk

 

The owners duty is absolute - period - The accident itself is proof that the entrance was unsafe

[Chesterexpress]

JonCris, I do not believe this to be the case. As a previous poster stated, the snow is clearly visible and therefore the 'victim' knows this will present a hazard and a certain amount of danger. It is then up to them to take apprpriate measures/actions to limit this extra danger.

 

I think you'll find that 99% of courts would also see it that way.

 

You are totally correct ConnyWonny. Also because the snow is visible, it is then the visitors decision on whether or not to attempt to access that property taking into account the possible danger. Whereas taking Joncris' action of removing the snow and the possibility of black ice being there the visitor would not be aware of the danger and the householder would then be liable for any injury caused.

[JonCris]

Oh my gawd - I'm sorry utter rubbish

 

Place the onus on the victim & not the store who has invited the victim to enter their premises. - That's a new one

 

Who's to say they weren't careful but still slipped or are you claiming that had they been careful they wouldn't have.

 

Also please explain to me how you know that

[Chesterexpress]

JC please read what I actually said in my earlier post, I was referring to householders.

[JonCris]

In Tort the same applies.

 

If you have path or drive leading up to your premises, domestic or otherwise which allows/invites public access you have a similar duty of care to take precautions to ensure the safety of such visitors. -

 

Although it is NOT absolute in the case of a home owner because it would be accepted they would not have the same recources as a store

 

Howver it would certainly be the case if the hazard had been in situ for a sufficient period of time which had allowed it to be removed before the accident & it wasn't

[lawbunny]

If you actually read my post you will see that I said that I am aware that Tesco did owe the customer a duty to keep the entrance safe, I was only pointing out the fact that the OP may have been guilty of contributory negligence, as you have also commented on. My point was that in terms of the actually injury sustained, it may not have been worth the legal fees to proceed with any action.

[JonCris]

I did read your post but you didn't mine or at least you didn't understand it

 

Unless the OP was acting in a way that was out of the ordinary, running or wearing poor footwear etc which it can proved contributed to the accident then the liability of the store is absolute

[lawbunny]

Yes.... I do understand the concept of "contributory negligence"...

 

However, the OP has not actually specified if he was wearing "sensible" shoes or walking hastily towards his car etc - this is the sort of this which would be debated in court. I am merely pointing out that if it were held that the OP had contributed to his own accident, although I reckon he would have a good chance of being successful in his case anyway, the actual compensation payout may be reduced and so may not actually be worth the time, effort and legal fees. All of this would have to be taken into account in deciding whether to proceed to seek compensation.

[JonCris]

Of course if it was 'held' by the court that the victim had contributed to their own accident the court would award damages accordingly (& that 'contribution' would have to have been extraordinary to be taken into consideration in these circumstances) - but that is not what was being claimed - what was being claimed was that the victim HAD contributed to their accident because they didn't take sufficient care when crossing the hazard.

 

Apart form disagreeing with your premise I was asking if that were true what precautions could they have taken? crawling on all fours, or asking for the aid of a passer by perhaps - of course not.

 

The suggestion that they must not have taken sufficient care otherwise they would not have fallen is a nonsense

[lawbunny]

Who is claiming that the OP had contributed to his own accident?

 

My point was merely this:

If the floor was very wet and there were no mats down, the OP must have been aware of this (obviously unless he has an eyesight problem etc...) and whilst I am not saying that the OP should have gone to ridiculous lengths to ensure he did not fall (ie crawling on all fours... honestly, ridiculous suggestion - I never said that), if he had walked top speed across an obviously wet floor then it could in fact be held he contributed to his own injury. The idea that just because Tesco should have kept the floor dry so the OP is entitled to dash across the floor anyway regardless and then blame Tesco completely is what is nonsense.

 

I have never stated this would definitely be the opinion of the court. I am merely pointing out for the sake of the OP that he would need to be aware this is a possible outcome which should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to go ahead with any court action. Obviously, it would depend on the manner in which the OP was crossing the shop, information which we have not been given at this time.