to sue hotel chain

[tosuehotelchain]

We were at a well known hotel this afternoon for Sunday lunch, after lunch we were walking through the reception area where DC (13months old) fell and split open their head on the corner of the table (adult shin height) we had to ask the receptionist for medical assistance, all the while DC screaming and blood pouring everywhere.

We had to take DC to A&E where he needed a GA, however because of past expeirence with this, it was then decided that our baby would go through the treatment and the horrid trauma with no pain relief, he needed 1 inner stitch and 2 outer stitches, and next week he will have to endure it all again.

I phoned the hotel to let them know the result, and asked for safety guards on the tables to stop further accidents like this in future, they said the would get back to me, due to the "design" of the lounge

Everybody has said to sue, as its the only way they know, that this hotel will take action.

I know this from expeirence sadly also with the chain.

However I feel uneasy about it.

sassy, Ive repeatedly said all long that its not the advise that has been unreasonable, but the tone and the vindictive attitude that the way people have responded to is.

Im sorry boo, you're the one who thought along this way, I never implied that I had the documents, or that I refused to take them, just that she said she could get me them. I never responded with a yes or a no, so again yes your constant questioning about this, has been unjustified, as I never implied any of what you have said, I merely implied that she could get me the documents.

Yes the thread title is what it is, however I must forget that we only go on the title and not the thread post instead!.

agreed tokyo, the way the design of these tables, however do pose a risk and is more than likely the reason why the hotel has removed them.

Im not bothered about the ins and out now, I got what I set out to do, and I AM more than happy with that.

people cant slate me for the hotel agreeing with me, so they will slate me for thinking, well erm for thinking

Oh come on! There is an awful lot of "I never said..." and "I never implied..." going on.
People have responded to what has been said - it is not their fault that you have back-pedalled and back-pedalled and back-pedalled.
You had a discussion about getting the documents in an inappropriate manner, and mentioned what you thought they would show and what the relevance would be to a potential claim. It is a little unconvincing to then claim that another poster has completely got the wrong end of the stick by thinking that you actually were considering going down this route.
Sorry but you did imply that you were thinking of suing, and you did imply that you were thinking of receiving documents. Either you meant it, in which case it is inappropriate to have a go at those who responded robustly, or you have expressed yourself spectacularly badly, in which case it is inappropriate to have a go at those who responded robustly.

no you said she WILL give you them, you did not say she could you said she WILL. tehre is a big difference. but i am glad you are sorry you gave me that impression.

my questioning is not unjustified, you didn't clarify it so i kept asking. when you clarified, i stopped asking.

You are picking a festering scab now .

Pleasing though it may be.

and btw, if you never intended to take the documents you would said so in your post. the fact that you made reference to the documents in relation to you having a case for sueing (which you also implied you would threaten) suggest you would use them in your case.

yes, she will give me them, can get me them, same difference, however doesn't imply that I asked for the documents, or that she gave me them, or that we had a long conversation about said documents.

Erm nope your still harping on and on, even when your incorrect, yes its a festering scab, however not my scab Im picking at, my problem has been dealt with, however your are the ones who implying that Ive lied, passing blame, Ive not once back peddled either, so erm OK then, as you were. yous suggested something that you fabricated, not me in how the documents issue was raised.

will give me them , can give me them is NOT the same thing. if you cannot see that then you are more deluded than i thought. i didn't say you asked for them, i didn't say she gave you them, i didn't say you had a long conversation about them. read my post again.

you said your friend will give you them. this implies that at the very least your friend said "i will give you the accident reports." and you didn't respond. the fact that you said she will give you them tells us that in your mind you will be receiving these documents. if you hadn't wnated them you would have told your friend "no thanks" and you would have said in your post something like, 'friend offered to give me accident reports but i said no."
you said friend WILL give me them. your intention was to recieve these documents illegally.

i am not the one fabricating false law suits.

Tosue - I have been (I think) fair and equitable and raised a number of points which you haven't answered.

I think the way you have handled this thread and have drip fed information is what has led to the situation where you feel you have been personally attacked.

You may not technically have back pedalled, but you did not give all the relevant information in the post and when challenged your response has been "But here's this other bit of information and another bit and another bit"

agree botty, however as ive said ALL along I wanted to keep it simple, however it didn't end like that, Im sorry I haven't answered your questions raised, however as you can see there has been loads to be answered.and I have tried to answer most of them.

I cant be bothered to answer you boo, quite frankly your boring me now, it tedious and repetitive to keep going around in circles, I have read your posts and you did imply what you have said, if you cant see that, then that's your problem.

i certainly did not imply what you think i have. i have clarified what i think. you however have failed to clarify what your intentiosn were with the documents. and although you do point out that you have failed to answer botty's questions, you don't go on to answer them do you?

you are right, it is tedious to keep back pedalling isn't it?

and you can't answer me because you have no way to answer that makes you look right.

Yeah but tosue - the information was relevant to the issue and you were (understandably) upset and defensive - if you'd given more information in the first place and maybe worded the original post slightly differently you probably wouldn't have got flamed in quite the same way.

I still stand by my comment that you and your DH have to shoulder most of the blame for what happened. YABU to want to sue, YANBU to want to protect other children from tables which the hotel know are unsafe and dangerous - but you didn't say that in the original post.

I also, if I was in your shoes, would be slightly more careful about posting when upset and emotional.

But obviously these are just the ramblings of a mad old mind.

Happy to stand by my previous post. OP you sound like a spoilt petulant brat.

Simple doesn't have to mean lacking in half the facts, though tosue. It would have been far more simple if you had given us all the relevant facts at the beginning of the thread, rather than dripfeeding information, seemingly in response to being told you were being unreasonable.

yes, just with you [smile[, what is the point in going back over the thread continually, I got what I set out to do, I dont want to sue, I didn't want compensation, I didn't want anything from anybody, only that of the safety of the hotels guests and children.

so going round repeatedly is pointless, as it has ended, the issue is over with and the hotel agrees with me. so really what is the point in continuing all this.

None whatsoever

Tosue - agree, going over the thread is pointless.

I was only doing what I say I'd never do and trying to hand out some advice.

I have to say this: The hotel doesn't agree with you. The might later, but they've only removed the tables as HQ told them to. Because you forced them by threatening to sue. I'm sure they are currently investigating, as they would have anyway if you made a formal complaint.

I don't believe that the hotel have removed the tables either. Like Tokyo said, companies are very unlikely to start removing every inanimate object which is party to careless people getting a minor injury. They'd 've furnitureless within a month.

This whole thread smells fishy, IMO.

botty although your advice is went unnoticed, however thankyou for your input.

I really cant say anymore, Ive proved by photo that I am not a liar, , Ive proved that I didn't want anything, and the gift I have received, has went to SANDS, I have received nothing except in self profitable gain, except for my son having a a scar and knowing that I have prevented more people injury.

MisSal - that's a fair point.

Also Tosue - please whether your friend will get you documents or can give you documents please please do not accept them.

(And I know you are saying you're not going to sue and you're happy and all but if she offers them please say no)

Gawd bless ya, OP.....you are the nearest thing to a MN saint

the reason i am going over i is because Op has failed to acknowledge that it was her own behaviour on this thread that provoked teh response she got. i am using her post about using these reports as an example. but i can see i am banging my head off a brick wall. she will never get it.

I believe you that you don't lie. I think you were very upset (of course!), and, as happens naturally when something horrible happens, you tried to find an answer to the "why??" question. You chose to blame the hotel (well, the table corner to be exact), whilst I think it was just a horrible accident and there is no-one really to blame. I was hoping you'd wake up this morning and think phew, we're all ok, yes, I overreacted, but I'm going to make a formal complaint anyway so that they can just check if everything is indeed safe enough.

You chose to continue on your crusade of blaming the table, and you forced your way into making a hotel remove a normal everyday object without them having time to establish if anything was wrong in the first place.

I don't think that is a good thing, but I am glad you can now let this go at least, as it must obviously be very stressful for everyone involved.