Slip and fall injury insurance claim

Donkathon

Hi I have a relative who was in a shopping centre a few days ago and while in the mens toilet he slipped and fell on the way out

The shopping centre had something wrong with their urinal and it was slowly leaking and they only stuck a towel under it and left it there with no we floor signs,n(apparently on more that one occasion as he noticed it before)

While standing at the urinal it couldnt be helped but to stand on a part of the damp/ wet towel and as a result of the now damp footwear on the way out of the toilets he slipped, fell twisting his anckle, banged his head off the wall pretty good and also has a soar neck and back

While I know legal advise cannot be sought here but would one be in a position to go to the injuries board in the above sinario to seek compensation for pain and suffering

His been to the doctors but it's only a case of a sprained anckle & bruesed head and I think just strained neck and back but nothing lasting?

Procrastastudy

Donkathon wrote: »

Hi I have a relative who was in a shopping centre a few days ago and while in the mens toilet he slipped and fell on the way out

The shopping centre had something wrong with their urinal and it was slowly leaking and they only stuck a towel under it and left it there with no we floor signs,n(apparently on more that one occasion as he noticed it before)

While standing at the urinal it couldnt be helped but to stand on a part of the damp/ wet towel and as a result of the now damp footwear on the way out of the toilets he slipped, fell twisting his anckle, banged his head off the wall pretty good and also has a soar neck and back

While I know legal advise cannot be sought here but would one be in a position to go to the injuries board in the above sinario to seek compensation for pain and suffering

His been to the doctors but it's only a case of a sprained anckle & bruesed head and I think just strained neck and back but nothing lasting?

Seems to be the telling part...

coylemj

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Seems to be the telling part...

He's probably also claiming for memory loss!

McCrack

God yes everything about that story was beautiful until that was mentioned but I wouldn't say noticing the leak would be fatal to a claim but it certainly doesn't help.

injuries board yes, solictor yes.

kennM

Personally I think it'd be bad karma... some things you just gotta put down to bad luck/partial responsibility.

Could he have a case, quite possibly. Could the shopping center dispute it. Does he have photos of the scene/witnesses? without it could be contested.

The fact that he'd seen it before and wasn't careful about it and used that urinal all at least points towards contributory negligence. Nothing broken, nothing scarred. Bit of discomfort.

Personally I'd scratch it up to experience...

Donkathon

kennM wrote: »

Personally I think it'd be bad karma... some things you just gotta put down to bad luck/partial responsibility.

Could he have a case, quite possibly. Could the shopping center dispute it. Does he have photos of the scene/witnesses? without it could be contested.

The fact that he'd seen it before and wasn't careful about it and used that urinal all at least points towards contributory negligence. Nothing broken, nothing scarred. Bit of discomfort.

Personally I'd scratch it up to experience...

Yes he does have photos on his phone, he tried to complain first to the centre but they no longer have a manned reception so had to ring and complain once at home and an hour after the incident

The use of the leaking urinal was not by choice, there was only 3 urinals and people at the other two

He has received two calls from the centre asst manager & actual manager seeking information and apologising for the incident

He says the though of claiming was brought about by the manager offering a good will guesture as an appology (something silly like €20 voucher)

Procrastastudy

Donkathon wrote: »

Yes he does have photos on his phone, he tried to complain first to the centre but they no longer have a manned reception so had to ring and complain once at home and an hour after the incident

The use of the leaking urinal was not by choice, there was only 3 urinals and people at the other two

He has received two calls from the centre asst manager & actual manager seeking information and apologising for the incident

He says the though of claiming was brought about by the manager offering a good will guesture as an appology (something silly like €20 voucher)

This is why you should never appoligise.

kennM

If going the personal injuries root an apology and a goodwill gesture does not equal an admission of liability. He probably has a case but I wouldn't be surprised if its disputed and if thats the case the only alternative is take the risk in taking it to court.

(Also bear in mind that its not in writing either?)

Procrastastudy

kennM wrote: »

If going the personal injuries root an apology and a goodwill gesture does not equal an admission of liability. He probably has a case but I wouldn't be surprised if its disputed and if thats the case the only alternative is take the risk in taking it to court.

(Also bear in mind that its not in writing either?)

I was being flippant but actually let me put my cards on the table OP.

Unless this person has bladder issues, which the shopping centre could not have foreseen, he could have waited. Given he noticed the leak and went ahead anyway he should have exercised better care when leaving the toilet.

The fact of the matter is in likelihood, in my uneducated opinion, this will never get to court - the insurance company will pay. Frankly the from the outset your posts have exposed the nature of your his claim.

No wet floor sign = Ker-ching! Frankly €20 was more then he deserved for his own stupidity.

EDIT 2: I don't know what came over me but rereading this I feel the need to apologise for been so damn rude - the sentiment of what I wanted to convey is there but it could have been better put.

ResearchWill

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I was being flippant but actually let me put my cards on the table OP.

Unless this person has bladder issues, which the shopping centre could not have foreseen, he could have waited. Given he noticed the leak and went ahead anyway he should have exercised better care when leaving the toilet.

The fact of the matter is this will never get to court - the insurance company will pay. Frankly the from the outset your posts have exposed the nature of your claim.

No wet floor sign = Ker-ching! Frankly €20 was more then he deserved for his own stupidity.

I'm not been smart, but from my experience insurance companies are a little more likely to fight these slip and falls than almost anything else. It's also worth noting that due to high excess (depending on the injuries) the matter could in effect be self insure in reality.

But to the OP there is little or in reality no risk in PIAB application. But if you fight the matter in court there is always a risk. Liability may well be in issue, but it does seem the owner has some issues, (no warning, inadequate cleaning and leaving the issue for some time) but it's not exactly clear cut, in that the person did not slip on the wet floor but was caused to slip at a later point because their shoes got wet, (the shoes will need to be kept, the defendant will properly want to look at them).

Procrastastudy

ResearchWill wrote: »

I'm not been smart, but from my experience insurance companies are a little more likely to fight these slip and falls than almost anything else. It's also worth noting that due to high excess (depending on the injuries) the matter could in effect be self insure in reality.

But to the OP there is little or in reality no risk in PIAB application. But if you fight the matter in court there is always a risk. Liability may well be in issue, but it does seem the owner has some issues, (no warning, inadequate cleaning and leaving the issue for some time) but it's not exactly clear cut, in that the person did not slip on the wet floor but was caused to slip at a later point because their shoes got wet, (the shoes will need to be kept, the defendant will properly want to look at them).

Well that's the two sides put forward. In all honesty I should have put my usual disclaimer that I'm speaking from the point of view of a career in retail rather than any real understanding of the insurance industry.

Donkathon

What is the process for requesting CCTV footage, the slip might have been caught in camera so a copy should be requested to show as evidence?

ResearchWill

Donkathon wrote: »

What is the process for requesting CCTV footage, the slip might have been caught in camera so a copy should be requested to show as evidence?

A letter requesting preservation should be sent by solicitor. Then the CCTV should be requested by voluntary discovery.

kennM

"He says the though of claiming was brought about by the manager offering a good will guesture as an appology (something silly like €20 voucher)" - Says it all in my opinion regarding the nature of this claim.

NoQuarter

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I was being flippant but actually let me put my cards on the table OP.

Unless this person has bladder issues, which the shopping centre could not have foreseen,

Egg shell skull rule.

Procrastastudy

NoQuarter wrote: »

Egg shell skull rule.

I did actually think of that but doesn't the egg shell skull rule only apply to the damage rather than the causation? Hmm doubting that as soon as I wrote it.

Using the urinal is an novus acutus intervienens

NoQuarter

Procrastastudy wrote: »

Using the urinal is an novus acutus intervienens

Someone else pissing on the floor beside the urinal might be. Some laugh trying that argument out!

Donkathon

So the doctors report is in,

Strained tendons in the anckle & neck & a musculoskeletal "whiplash type" injury to the spine and apparently 2-3 weeks minimum before healed properly

Procrastastudy

Okay I'm going to say it as someone will Whiplash is all this thread was missing - in all honesty to be fair may be the benefit of the doubt can be extended.