I slipped in a woolworths store over 2 years ago. As a result of that fall i had to have 14 months off work and used all of my sick pay up and some of my annual leave. I had shoulder surgery and physio prior to and after my op. I still go to physio and I'm paying for it. I went with a "No win no pay" Solicitor. Woolworths made a very measly offer in which my solicitor advised me not to take. I then was referred to the medical board and they didn't clear me for 5% impairment. The tiny bit of money Woolworths are offering will result in me getting virtually nil by the time costs are taken. I've been told if i were referred back to the medical board it's highly unlikely they will go against the previous medical panel. I am a legitimate case, why should i have to have lost all my accumulated sick and holiday pay and also pay for my physio? It's just so wrong to me. I still get pain and at work i am forced to endure it. I Can't afford physio anymore. Is there anything i can do? Or do i just have to accept that shopping in woolworths that day has done and will continue to keep me out of pocket? My Solicitor is still negotiating with woolworths but so far the amount doesn't cover all costs.
VIC Did something go wrong?I
- Thread starter WontShopAtWoolworthsAgain
- Start date
I can't offer any good news. Only moral support.
A sceptic would say that over time the health insurance companies have had an effect on the AMA guide to their benefit.
Some history is here:
Why insurance companies control your medical care
The American Health Care System Has Lots of Problems. Here's When They Started
I didn't find a critical evaluation of the AMA guide
A sceptic would say that over time the health insurance companies have had an effect on the AMA guide to their benefit.
Some history is here:
Why insurance companies control your medical care
The American Health Care System Has Lots of Problems. Here's When They Started
I didn't find a critical evaluation of the AMA guide
'YOU' slipped, therefore the blame lies with you. Just because you slip in a store does not mean you deserve one cent of compensation unless you can prove that the store was in some way negligent that contributed to your fall. If their negligence was very minor so that the legal costs outweigh the compensation, well then that just is what it is. Who can you blame but yourself and the legal system for being expensive?
I used to think the same way until I slipped once.
I was in a large enclosed shopping centre that just opened and heavy rain started 1 hour before arriving. I saw squads of shopping centre staff - cleaners and security mopping water off a marble floor coming from leaks in the roof. Not sure if you have walked on wet marble - it is more slippery than wet concrete.
Walked carefully past all the excitement, minor foot movement/slip in one area moved that I accepted responsibility for. I knew water was there. Then walked into a clear area some 20 metres away looked for water on the floor, didn't see any, 20 metres later my foot slipped on yet another wet patch well away from the other area. It can be hard to see water on a marble floor in certain light conditions. Fortunately I caught my balance and didn't fall but I felt a twinge in my back. Luckily I was fine the following day. The shopping centre arguably should have closed the centre while they sorted out the extent of their problem. They didn't, and they allowed me in knowing they had problems. I assumed they had things under control and were not putting my safety at risk.
I am a believer in that everyone needs to accept responsibility for their own actions, but here I was walking along doing what normal people do and I almost had a serious accident because a shopping centre put profits ahead of safety. No different to the guy walking along a footpath when hit by a glass window falling out of a building. He is not at fault in any way. The building owner may not have know the window was unsafe but it it their responsibility to ensure it is safe. If you want to build something knowing the public are nearby you have to accept responsibility for when something goes wrong with something you caused to be built.
And yes it is expensive because the person responsible wants to save money while the injured person is thinking about whether they'll lose the house because they cannot work and have no income putting the wife and kids on the street. Losses easily reach into the $100k's when dealing with lost income and medical expenses.
I was in a large enclosed shopping centre that just opened and heavy rain started 1 hour before arriving. I saw squads of shopping centre staff - cleaners and security mopping water off a marble floor coming from leaks in the roof. Not sure if you have walked on wet marble - it is more slippery than wet concrete.
Walked carefully past all the excitement, minor foot movement/slip in one area moved that I accepted responsibility for. I knew water was there. Then walked into a clear area some 20 metres away looked for water on the floor, didn't see any, 20 metres later my foot slipped on yet another wet patch well away from the other area. It can be hard to see water on a marble floor in certain light conditions. Fortunately I caught my balance and didn't fall but I felt a twinge in my back. Luckily I was fine the following day. The shopping centre arguably should have closed the centre while they sorted out the extent of their problem. They didn't, and they allowed me in knowing they had problems. I assumed they had things under control and were not putting my safety at risk.
I am a believer in that everyone needs to accept responsibility for their own actions, but here I was walking along doing what normal people do and I almost had a serious accident because a shopping centre put profits ahead of safety. No different to the guy walking along a footpath when hit by a glass window falling out of a building. He is not at fault in any way. The building owner may not have know the window was unsafe but it it their responsibility to ensure it is safe. If you want to build something knowing the public are nearby you have to accept responsibility for when something goes wrong with something you caused to be built.
And yes it is expensive because the person responsible wants to save money while the injured person is thinking about whether they'll lose the house because they cannot work and have no income putting the wife and kids on the street. Losses easily reach into the $100k's when dealing with lost income and medical expenses.
I slipped on something that hadn't been cleaned up, something i obviously didn't see. So no not MY fault at all. Their negligence was not minor as i had an operation and over 12 months off work. Solicitors Dr cleared me for 5% but Medical Board didn't. They chose to involve my medical illnesses in which had nothing to do with my fall.
The level of negligence is not determined by the severity of the outcome but by the degree of failure of duty of care/OHS. And in the case of a spill, they may not necessarily be negligent at all depending on the variables relating to the spill - how long ago did it occur? who did it? was it reasonably visible for staff to have seen it?
For example, If a child spilled something five seconds before you came along and slipped, how could you say the store was in any way negligent?
If that were the case but it's not. It was a 42oc day the store was very quiet. The substance i slipped on wasn't anything that logically would have been spilt by a child. The store hasn't denied negligence they just won't be paying any futute costs because going in front of a medical panel for 15 mins they decided my fate. I'd like to see you handle the same situation I've been forced to endure and have the same opinion and vocal expression as you have right now without knowing most of the facts. Thanks for your input.
Well first of all, why would you assume you know anything about a stranger on the internets life to say "I'd like to see you handle the same situation I've been forced to endure" What do you know about my life? You don't want to go there mate, i will win (but even that's an assumption i have no right to make).
'Facts' that's an interesting choice of words. Facts in a legal sense, and this is a legal website, are what you can prove. You have not proven anything i suggested could not be true. All you did was give an opinion on the unlikelihood of it being true. That is not worth much in a legal sense.
Similar threads
