accidents

[jamessavory]

how can people sue for other people or companies for an accident that they were involved in? eg 'i slipped on a wet floor and hurt my knee' surely its your own fault for not paying attention to what you're doing at the time. companies such as the national accident helpline have a lot to answer for in ruining society.

[jamessavory]

I also mean that by definition an accident is not something that happened on purpose. it just happened! no-one to blame.

[andy hughes]

the point is to differentiate between people who sue for accidents such as the example you have given, and people who sue successfully (en entirtely different matter) for injuries caused by genuine negligence. The 'ambulance chasers' who advertise their 'no win no fee' schemes work on a sliding scale - if they get offered one thousand opportunities, and 999 of them are rejected before they even get past the initial interview, the one remaining case they can take to court and win makes the operation worthwhile. It does encourage the 'compensation culture' but that is simmply a strand of modern society - everyone is very keen on their rights, but less keen on the responsibilities that go with those rights. If someone is injured through no fault of their own, and a case of negligence exists, then compensation is reasonable, but those cases are rare - unlike the attempts to fleece companies at the drop of a hat.

[rja211077]

the example you give is not great, is it? surely you have a right to expect a floor that is typically used for walking on to be safe to walk on (i.e. not wet) unless warned otherwise?

[bernardo]

Normally an "accident" would result from the combined negligence of two or more parties: in the example you gave, the owner of the shop (or whatever) would be negligent in not clearing it up, and the victim would be negligent in not paying attention. How much compensation is paid by the shop to the victim depends on how much negligence there is in each case.

[FredPuli]

We have 'contributory negligence' in law. It is open to the court to hold that the complainant is partly to blame for the accident . Indeed it may hold them mostly to blame for their loss. The damages that they would have received are reduced accordingly. If I negligently pour oil on the road outside I'll be liable if someone slips on it. However if the accident is to some idiot driving his Ferrari on full acceleration, and he writes off the car and suffers severe injury, the court is certain to say that whilst I may have caused a car to slip he was mostly responsible for the severe injury (and financial loss too) in his case. I might be liable only for a small percentage and he held liable for nearly all (up to 90% ) because of his contributory negligence in driving like that.This could be a substantial saving, bearing in mind the damages for severe long term injury.