9k for a can of coke!

Sheep Shagger

mikhail wrote: »

The 9k is less compensation to the kid and more deterrent to Tesco. They're a giant multinational: their security staff should be trained properly.

In that case the father and son had a good lotto win.

Homelander

I don't really have an issue with this one. Some thick security guard dragged a minor back into the store, physically detained him, and accused him of stealing, when in fact this didn't happen, and CCTV shows it didn't happen.

Over a can of Coke worth what, 80c in a Tesco? That was paid for in a transparent way at the self-serve checkout.

Idiotic security guard. Not only are they not supposed to stop people unless they're 110% sure and the individual has left the premises, they absolutely cannot put hands on people or drag someone back into the premises, putting aside the fact it was a minor as well.

Personally I don't get this being lumped in with "compo culture". Imagine buying a can of coke at Tesco and being seen to be publicly accused, berated and manhandled by a security guard insisting you are a thief.

9K for Tesco is like you or I finding a 1c coin on the ground. You wouldn't even bother to pick it up. I have zero issue with the award based on the context.

astrofool

Homelander wrote: »

9K for Tesco is like you or I finding a 1c coin on the ground. You wouldn't even bother to pick it up. I have zero issue with the award based on the context.

Unfortunately that 9k pay-out for Tesco will contribute to putting up the insurance costs of every mom and pop store.

The case was fine, the pay-out was about 100 times too much.

antoinolachtnai

astrofool wrote: »

Unfortunately that 9k pay-out for Tesco will contribute to putting up the insurance costs of every mom and pop store.

The case was fine, the pay-out was about 100 times too much.

The judge did not make this award. The settlement was agreed between the parties. The judge just approved it (as is required when there is an out of court settlement in a case involving a minor and the judge’s job is to protect the interests of the minor in such a situation).

astrofool

antoinolachtnai wrote: »

The judge did not make this award. The settlement was agreed between the parties. The judge just approved it (as is required when there is an out of court settlement in a case involving a minor and the judge’s job is to protect the interests of the minor in such a situation).

I didn't say the judge made the award when he didn't. The 9k payout is too high, but driven by the fact that they could have paid out more by a judicial system which is only interested in keeping the gravy train going for themselves.

€100 would have been a fair payout here.

You also didn't comment on the impact to insurance costs, whilst parroting the "judge approval" response that is the standard refrain for stupid out of court settlements.

martingriff

walshb wrote: »

I wonder did the boy produce a receipt?

I mean, if the shop has a suspicion (which they can be entitled to have), then surely a quick receipt production is all that the boy needed? And if he did not have one, then maybe he should have?

Anyway, absolute scandalous amount awarded here. Compo culture greed as usual.

Very few times will I ever take a receipt when paying stuff especially small stuff

martingriff

Mjolnir wrote: »

The young fella was defamed not only amongst his peers but the larger community in the shopping centre, forcibly and falsely imprisoned and the security guard admitted fault.
Why wouldn't he sue he'd every right to do so.
Security guards don't have the authority to do what he did and before anyone brings up citizens arrest, yea you can still be sued for that.
Tort law exists for a reason and it was utilised well here.
You'd swear he'd purposefully slipped and was making a vexious fraudulent claim.

Was he defamed really. How many would even remember or know him if they see him again. Terrified yes maybe. The security guard was wrong not €9000 worth though

walshb

martingriff wrote: »

Was he defamed really. How many would even remember or know him if they see him again. Terrified yes maybe. The security guard was wrong not €9000 worth though

Terrified?

That’s another possible red herring...

Mountain out of a molehill this case...looks to be way exaggerated to get as much money as possible

And worked!!

Mjolnir

martingriff wrote: »

Was he defamed really. How many would even remember or know him if they see him again. Terrified yes maybe. The security guard was wrong not €9000 worth though

Given the literal legal definition of defamation, yes he was.
How many know him is irrelevant, and there are people spend their weekends in and out of the square that would easily remember him.

Well in the eyes of the respondent who was obviously happy to settle on €9,000 no it wasn't too much.

martingriff

Mjolnir wrote: »

Given the literal legal definition of defamation, yes he was.
How many know him is irrelevant, and there are people spend their weekends in and out of the square that would easily remember him.

Well in the eyes of the respondent who was obviously happy to settle on €9,000 no it wasn't too much.

I see your point as a legal point

martingriff

walshb wrote: »

Terrified?

That’s another possible red herring...

Mountain out of a molehill this case...looks to be way exaggerated to get as much money as possible

And worked!!

I don't think being scared or terrified if it happened to someone is a massive jump. It was done wrong by security surprised by the amount and also it went as far as it did

Strumms

Yester wrote: »

If a shop falsely accused me of stealing and tried to detain me, I'd sue them as well.

Absolutely... don’t want your business to loose 9 grand ? Then don’t falsely accuse somebody of theft and lock them into a room in addition...

9 grand is on the light side if anything...

BattleCorp

astrofool wrote: »

I didn't say the judge made the award when he didn't. The 9k payout is too high, but driven by the fact that they could have paid out more by a judicial system which is only interested in keeping the gravy train going for themselves.

€100 would have been a fair payout here.

You also didn't comment on the impact to insurance costs, whilst parroting the "judge approval" response that is the standard refrain for stupid out of court settlements.

If Tesco offered less money, the kid would not have settled and the case would have proceeded to trial. If the case went to trial the legal costs would have been a lot more than €9k so Tesco were smart to agree to this settlement. It was the cheapest 'out' for them.

BattleCorp

martingriff wrote: »

Was he defamed really. How many would even remember or know him if they see him again. Terrified yes maybe. The security guard was wrong not €9000 worth though

He was more than defamed. He was assaulted (grabbing an arm and dragging someone back into the shop is assault). He was also detained against his will.

.anon.

walshb wrote: »

The mentality of fook these companies, they can afford to pay.

They can afford to train their staff properly, but I'm sure they've done their sums and being occasionally sued still works out cheaper than not cutting corners. So yes, absolutely fuck these companies.

astrofool

.anon. wrote: »

They can afford to train their staff properly, but I'm sure they've done their sums and being occasionally sued still works out cheaper than not cutting corners. So yes, absolutely fuck these companies.

The companies don't pay, their insurance does, and we all pay into that. The fact that Tesco can well afford it is irrelevant here, they can well afford insurance, other smaller companies won't and will go out of business making Tesco more dominant.

Pay-outs at this level are idiotic and completely inflate the impact of what happened.

Mjolnir

astrofool wrote: »

The companies don't pay, their insurance does, and we all pay into that. The fact that Tesco can well afford it is irrelevant here, they can well afford insurance, other smaller companies won't and will go out of business making Tesco more dominant.

Pay-outs at this level are idiotic and completely inflate the impact of what happened.

It's very simple don't want a claim, make sure there isn't a reason someone can claim.
They had every right to claim and could have gotten a great deal more had they not accepted the settlement.

Do you own a small business by chance?, because that's the angle you're viewing it from.

Fact of the matter its a legal issue, kid had several torts committed against him and had every right to be financially compensated for them as is the entire purpose of tort law. Going around in circles about insurance has no bearing on this story.

If it was a "compo culture" type claim I can guarantee you a minor who had been defamed, assaulted and falsely imprisoned would have gotten far more by proceeding to trail.

B.A._Baracus

9,000 is a bit much alright.
Sure, I get that he was a teenager. Probably a bit shy to say check your cameras you're not stopping me etc. But an apology by Tesco and a 200 voucher should have been enough.

Security guard is probably dopey. I've known security guards and anyone who has cop on doesn't care. The whole store could get stolen who cares. But you do your bit to justify your job and you don't pull someone back in the store unless you have personally seen them put something in their bag. Even then you have to be careful.

I was also told that some shoplifters love to blatantly steal something, do a lap around the store then ditch the item back on the shelf. So when they leave the store they've committed nothing. Then try and sue. Now that's mad.

astrofool

Mjolnir wrote: »

Do you own a small business by chance?, because that's the angle you're viewing it from.

I'd like to probe this a bit more, what is this question leading to?

I don't disagree with the claim, the amount is far too high, ~100x too high.

Mjolnir

astrofool wrote: »

I'd like to probe this a bit more, what is this question leading to?

I don't disagree with the claim, the amount is far too high, ~100x too high.

Because you continually mention the business insurance, small businesses being effected by such claims and eventually going out of business.
Suggests either you or someone close may have an interest in a small business.

I can't remember off the top of my head the exact amount but if memory serves the maximum damages that the circuit court may award is between €60k - €75k.
I'm fairly sure €60k is personal injury although too so that would mean a possible award of upto €75k.

I can assure you had tesco not offered a settlement the award would have been a lot higher than €9k not to mention costs.

To suggest he should have been given €90 is laughable.

astrofool

Mjolnir wrote: »

Because you continually mention the business insurance, small businesses being effected by such claims and eventually going out of business.
Suggests either you or someone close may have an interest in a small business.

I can't remember off the top of my head the exact amount but if memory serves the maximum damages that the circuit court may award is between €60k - €75k.
I'm fairly sure €60k is personal injury although too so that would mean a possible award of upto €75k.

I can assure you had tesco not offered a settlement the award would have been a lot higher than €9k not to mention costs.

To suggest he should have been given €90 is laughable.

Yea, it's not a small business angle, nor personal interest, just understanding what the knock on effect of stupid pay-outs is.

You're completely correct, Tesco did the right thing in offering €9k as in court it could be more, and even if they won, they would probably be on the hook for more than €9k anyway.

That is the problem, the fact that falsely accusing someone of stealing something worth €1 is worth upwards of €9k. The standard pay-out should be 100x lower. That is the issue to fix, there is no reasonable way that accusing someone of stealing something worth €1 is worth €9k in defamation, including time spent being in a room while watching a video.

Are you reasonably suggesting that:
being accused of stealing a can of coke
being taken against your will to a room to watch a video proving you didn't take the can of coke

Could be awarded €75k in court? Are you so blinkered not to see that as a problem?

Mjolnir

astrofool wrote: »

Yea, it's not a small business angle, nor personal interest, just understanding what the knock on effect of stupid pay-outs is.

You're completely correct, Tesco did the right thing in offering €9k as in court it could be more, and even if they won, they would probably be on the hook for more than €9k anyway.

That is the problem, the fact that falsely accusing someone of stealing something worth €1 is worth upwards of €9k. The standard pay-out should be 100x lower. That is the issue to fix, there is no reasonable way that accusing someone of stealing something worth €1 is worth €9k in defamation, including time spent being in a room while watching a video.

That one experience can have a potential knock on effect for the rest of his life.

The whole point of tort is that it covers areas of law where you have suffered a loss or been damaged and can't be made whole, so you receive financial compensation.

The lower the possible award the less of a deterrent.
At €90 you'd be spitting in the face of the appellant.

I'm not a fan of compo culture a reason I'd never consider a career in tort, you stubbed your toe its not worth €25k. However when it's a genuine case then yea make them pay. This is far from a stupid pay out and speaks to the families intentions as they clearly wanted a remedy not a massive payday.

Mjolnir

astrofool wrote: »

Yea, it's not a small business angle, nor personal interest, just understanding what the knock on effect of stupid pay-outs is.

You're completely correct, Tesco did the right thing in offering €9k as in court it could be more, and even if they won, they would probably be on the hook for more than €9k anyway.

That is the problem, the fact that falsely accusing someone of stealing something worth €1 is worth upwards of €9k. The standard pay-out should be 100x lower. That is the issue to fix, there is no reasonable way that accusing someone of stealing something worth €1 is worth €9k in defamation, including time spent being in a room while watching a video.

Are you reasonably suggesting that:
being accused of stealing a can of coke
being taken against your will to a room to watch a video proving you didn't take the can of coke

Could be awarded €75k in court? Are you so blinkered not to see that as a problem?

I'm not blinkered at all I'm viewing it for what it is a legal issue.
The young man was defamed in front of his community, he was assaulted, he was wrongfully detained against his will (false imprisonment).
What he is accused of stealing is irrelevant in this scenario, it was the accusation and following actions that are relevant in determining the award.

Tesco saw an opportunity to settle for a nominal amount compared to a possible award and took it with both hands.

Go study tort and you'll understand the reasonings behind it all. You'll also get a great laugh out of some of the cases.

astrofool

Mjolnir wrote: »

What he is accused of stealing is irrelevant in this scenario, it was the accusation and following actions that are relevant in determining the award.

Essentially you're saying that the actions of bringing someone to a room to watch a video are worth up to €75k (because it didn't go to court, we don't know the facts), but even the most extreme of circumstances makes €9k a very large pay-out, for what is essentially 30 minutes of being detained.

Again, this is the system we have, it doesn't make the system correct or proportional, and seems to be in favour of those who push their luck and feign outrage than anything based in reality (kid gets told off by security incorrectly, gets 9k).

Mjolnir

astrofool wrote: »

Essentially you're saying that the actions of bringing someone to a room to watch a video are worth up to €75k (because it didn't go to court, we don't know the facts), but even the most extreme of circumstances makes €9k a very large pay-out, for what is essentially 30 minutes of being detained.

Again, this is the system we have, it doesn't make the system correct or proportional, and seems to be in favour of those who push their luck and feign outrage than anything based in reality (kid gets told off by security incorrectly, gets 9k).

I'm going to leave it at this.

There is huge difference between bringing someone to a room to watch a video and falsely accusing, defaming assaulting and falsely imprisoning a minor.

In my opinion you clearly don't understand how tort law works or how damages are awarded proportionally, you have a bee in your bonnet about 100x less and it being far too much.

astrofool

No bee in bonnet here, but good to see someone hyping up a minor being accused of something and then released into something very overblown. Again, we don't have the facts of the case, and maybe the security guard was dragging him kicking, screaming and shouting to everyone into the room. If he acted as any security guard does, and brought the minor to the security office, watched the tape and then let him go, then the pay-out was 100x too much, if it was the former, I fully expect the minor and parents would have been holding out for a €75k award.

I am arguing that our pay-outs for "falsely accusing, defaming assaulting and falsely imprisoning a minor" seem to be far too high, and don't reflect anything near the actual impact of the event to a person, as it's an event they will likely go through multiple times with teachers and with their own parents and relatives if they have any normal type of childhood, in this case, Tesco are seen as a soft touch, and idiots want to stick it to them as some sort of lesson, when the reality is that the impact won't be on Tesco, but on everyone else in the form of higher prices due to higher insurance.

The damages are not proportionate and should be reduced across the board, you are free to think that the damages are proportionate and that the pay-outs are correct, but you also don't need to demean others by implying they don't understand how settlements work, why they are used and what tort law is, otherwise, I wonder what the proportionate damages of accusing someone as such would be.

Mjolnir

astrofool wrote: »

No bee in bonnet here, but good to see someone hyping up a minor being accused of something and then released into something very overblown. Again, we don't have the facts of the case, and maybe the security guard was dragging him kicking, screaming and shouting to everyone into the room. If he acted as any security guard does, and brought the minor to the security office, watched the tape and then let him go, then the pay-out was 100x too much, if it was the former, I fully expect the minor and parents would have been holding out for a €75k award.

I am arguing that our pay-outs for "falsely accusing, defaming assaulting and falsely imprisoning a minor" seem to be far too high, and don't reflect anything near the actual impact of the event to a person, as it's an event they will likely go through multiple times with teachers and with their own parents and relatives if they have any normal type of childhood, in this case, Tesco are seen as a soft touch, and idiots want to stick it to them as some sort of lesson, when the reality is that the impact won't be on Tesco, but on everyone else in the form of higher prices due to higher insurance.

The damages are not proportionate and should be reduced across the board, you are free to think that the damages are proportionate and that the pay-outs are correct, but you also don't need to demean others by implying they don't understand how settlements work, why they are used and what tort law is, otherwise, I wonder what the proportionate damages of accusing someone as such would be.

If a teacher were to grab a student we'd be reading about criminal proceedings.
At no point did I intend to demean you, if I did I apologies passions flaring and what not, tort is complex and the reasoning behind it often fail to make sense on the surface of them. I'd actively encourage everyone to study it because it's both interesting and eye opening. I remember someone saying contract law is usually the most sensible answer were as tort can often make the least sense imaginable.

With bogus claims I'm 100% with you, there was a case of a girl receiving €25k for a box hitting her nose. We have countless cases of smash for cash claims. I'll give you an example of one I couldn't really get my head around as such.
Girl sneaks out a glass and down a night club stairs, not holding a railing, stairs were dry, not looking where she was going. Slipped twisted her ankle and cut herself.

Now I understand the rules of tort so get why she was awarded what she was, but at the same time your own sense of wth kicks in.

We then have the incredibly vexatious cases taken by those who claim discrimination where none occurred, which lestens the legitimacy of those who have actually experienced it.
Most of us have been in situations where we could claim but the taught never crossed our minds.

There have been issues of security in the square being heavy handed and acting beyond the scope of their authority. I've witnessed them first hand.

In the grand scheme of things all of this happening over a can costing less than €2 is mad, and I'm sure going forward where ever that guy works he'll let it go.

The vast majority of claims never even make it to a court room because the businesses often settle once a solicitors letter arrives. Even if they're bogus a lot of the time it's just easier and yes that's wrong.

.anon.

astrofool wrote: »

The companies don't pay, their insurance does, and we all pay into that. The fact that Tesco can well afford it is irrelevant here, they can well afford insurance, other smaller companies won't and will go out of business making Tesco more dominant.

Pay-outs at this level are idiotic and completely inflate the impact of what happened.

All the more reason for them (and whoever they outsource their security to) to train their staff properly. We're all paying for the calculated short-cuts these companies take.

Mjolnir

.anon. wrote: »

All the more reason for them (and whoever they outsource their security to) to train their staff properly. We're all paying for the calculated short-cuts these companies take.

Genuine question have you worked for or do you know anyone that has worked for security companies?
Most will hire anyone with a licence and give them no training.

Mimon

walshb wrote: »

Certainly will encourage people to deceptively/sneakily pay for items hoping to be then accused of stealing!

Happened in a case a few years ago where a woman brought a bottle of wine bought from a supermarket into an off license. Left it on a shelf and picked it up when leaving without buying anything.

Security guard saw her leaving with the wine and understandably presumed she was leaving with their merchandise without paying and stopped her.

She got a payout when she obviously set up the situation, absolute joke.

Was this the same? Maybe not. Looks like there was some false imprisonment, which if so is pretty serious.