Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

cardboard fixture fell on my son while shopping

237 replies

shminkie · 08/04/2014 16:51

I visited a matalan store on 10th Feb with my almost 2 year old son and my mother. My son loves exploring his world right now and I'm happy to let him under my watchful eye. He was doing his usual 'taking things off prongs for mummy to put back' when he tried to take some socks off one of their cardboard display units. As a store planner and shop fitter, it never occurred to me that the fixture would be unsecured, especially placed so close to the children's department. I was therefore horrified when the 4 foot, front heavy fixture with eye threatening prongs fell covering my son. I settled my son who was thankfully ok, but thought that it needed reporting to duty manager. After paying for my goods I asked to speak with someone. A young lady arrived and I explained what had happened and was utterly astonished at her response. There was no concern, no apology. She just said 'well he must have pulled on it' I replied yes he had, as he explored, as he should be able to without the fixture falling onto him. She then told me 'that's why our trolleys have child seats in them, we recommend you keep them in a trolley.' I was utterly enraged with the 'well it's his fault or your fault' attitude. This attitude has been repeated by their own h and s dept and by my local council. I simply cannot believe that this is OK?! That because these are temporary fixtures and because he was not injured I should accept the vouchers they offered and shut up!? I have asked them to donate them to charity as i do not plan to revisit while my sons safety cannot be guaranteed. Please let me know your thoughts, or knowledge of other incidents/ways I can report it. Either way, watch your little ones in matalan, as ease of sock management comes before your child's safety.

OP posts:
wheresthelight · 09/04/2014 11:33

melonade free standing units (fsu) are very common in retail premises. Generally they are for promotional items with a short selling window, I build them and fill them as part of my job and trust me they can withstand a hell of a lot of abuse!!

However they are not designed to have a rogue 2 year old "exploring" and climbing all over them!! Given enough force they will topple.

Groovee · 09/04/2014 11:40

I wonder what the OP said that MNHQ felt it needed deleted!

But a child is your responsibility. You allowed him "to explore" without considering the consequences and I wonder if a compo claim is what you are after!

Stinklebell · 09/04/2014 11:45

As far as I remember the OP's reply just called us all trolls who should mind our manners.

saulaboutme · 09/04/2014 12:28

Fab thread. Op come back!
Yabu but if you feel you're in the right how much further are you going to take this? And what result are you hoping for?

Don't we live and learn? Especially when our dcs safety has been raised.

Sorry for getting all boring...

Sallyingforth · 09/04/2014 12:42

Here you are OP

europa.eu/about-eu/institutions-bodies/court-justice/index_en.htm

IsChippyMintonExDirectory · 09/04/2014 13:05

YABVVVU

Watch your child, why on earth would you expect every single path you cross to be child-friendly just because your little darling happens to be nearby?! If my DD did that I'd say "Well that's a lesson in not pulling things over." It doesn't teach your son a very good example if he causes his own accident and you point your finger at a blameless party.

Quite frankly you're lucky you got vouchers, I think the assistant was quite right - if you can't keep an eye on him put him in a trolley. Why suddenly aren't we allowed to point out faults to parents?!

RedRoom · 09/04/2014 13:16

I was in a restaurant last week when a toddler was being allowed to run around the place while her family ignored her & chatted. She ended up being hit by a swinging door and had a massive hysterical scream for about ten minutes. They then put her in a high chair and ignored her as she stood up and turned around. Minutes later, the chair fell over with the child partially underneath. I would hope the parents didn't blame the staff...

sheriffofnottingham · 09/04/2014 13:26

Anything like this remonds me of a case I studied as part of my degree.

A man claimed against his employer after becoming blind from a welding accident, he was given goggles but it was optional whether he wore them or not so he didn't. Only 1 eye was injured but he was blinded as a result of already having lost 1 eye from a previous welding without goggles incident.

If you are a 1 eyed welder (or a parent of a toddler who likes to pull things over) don't expect anyone to have any sympathy when you lose the other eye in a welding accident (your toddler pulls something on top of him).

However, take heart OP the welder in the case did recieve damages.

this is the point I decided to specialise in tax law

Sallyingforth · 09/04/2014 13:31

sheriff
I believe the employer has a responsibility to ensure that safety gear is worn. Is that right?

treaclesoda · 09/04/2014 13:35

sallyingforth probably. That would explain why when I worked in a particular office, I kept being admonished for not keeping my chair at the exact height that HR had decreed was the most comfortable Hmm. I was told they had a duty of care to protect me from myself, and apparently even though I was an adult, I was incapable of deciding that height the chair should be at to best accomodate the length of my legs and the height of my desk.

sheriffofnottingham · 09/04/2014 13:43

sallyingforth they do now, but not at the time the case was decided. I just remember thinking, if you've already lost 1 eye in an accident, maybe pop some goggles on.

IsChippyMintonExDirectory · 09/04/2014 14:12

Really want to change my name to OneEyedWelder now

Atbeckandcall · 09/04/2014 14:39

This has really tickled me.

So just to clarify, as a store planner/shop fitter you must be more aware than most. Surely then it is reasonable for you to comprehend everyone's responses to you.

Seeing as it's your job to know these things for your clients, do any of them ask to have displays that can tolerate children pulling at the eye threatening prongs? Do you even suggest it? You probably ought to start thinking about mentioning it. It would be terribly tragic if someone's child got hurt during their little adventures because the shops didn't consider their developing minds.

I'm assuming by explaining that her nearly 2 year old was trying to get some socks off an eye threatening prong (or whatever such nonsense it was described as) he was yanking them down rather than gliding them along the said lethal eye gauging prong.

OP, you cannot reasonably expect any retailer to ensure their displays are rooted down adequately enough so that a toddler (exploring their world) doesn't come to harm. I believe a retailer should keep their shops safe enough for the purpose of which they are intended to be used. If you want your ds to explore worlds and clamber over other people's property, take him to soft play, not Matalan.

TiggyKBE · 09/04/2014 14:43

YABU for letting your child go on a destructive rampage around the prongs of death.

itsthawooluff · 09/04/2014 15:19

Up until now I thought 'prongs of death' mean big metal spiky bits at the front of gurt big tractors. Or the pitchforks we wave along with a flaming torch. Even those trident things which the gladiators wave around.

But apparently it now includes pieces of display equipment which unrestrained toddlers attempt to misuse. Thank you for widening my experience.

TiggyKBE · 09/04/2014 15:33

The Prongs Of Death is also the name of my future heavy metal band.

FanFuckingTastic · 09/04/2014 15:51

I wish it were a childhood trauma, in fact we were both adults. If she had been a child, I may have forgiven her marshmallow assault. Now we shall feud with confectionery forever more.

I think I may send her an engagement gift of a tray of marshmallows wearing eyepatches. Or perhaps some marshmallow mourners around the grave of a blinded marshmallow killed to death by eye threatining prongs.

ResponsibleAdult · 09/04/2014 15:56

Grin Grin Grin

"Am a store designer.....Exploring his world..watchful eye..eye threatening prongs!"

Followed by a flounce by OP. Grin Grin Grin.

It is like the woman in Peter Jones with the potty. Or the woman with the complaint about choking hazard marshmallows in Starbucks. Good grief. Confused

This is why I spend too much time on Mumsnet.

TiggyKBE · 09/04/2014 16:14

Just writing The Prong Song.

Walking round Matalan for a big shoppin' sesh.
Walking round Matalan: It's like a great big creche.
My kid started playing but something happened really wrong.
When he was nearly impaled on a 20 foot long prong!

The prongs are coming, they'll stab you in the eye!
The prongs are coming, and soon you're gonna die!

I knew it wasn't my fault. What more could I have done?
A shop is the ideal place for a kid to climb and run.
If you say you wouldn't do it I really have to doubt ya,
That why I held out until they offered me a voucher!

The prongs are coming, they'll stab you in the eye!
The prongs are coming, and soon you're gonna die!

Catsize · 09/04/2014 16:17

In slightly brave defence of the OP, the incident was reasonably foreseeable. One of the tests on a negligence claim.
I have the type of toddler who will not be constrained hurrah for online shopping but would have been mortified rather than filing court papers if he had wrecked a display. I think. Despite being a lawyer!

Catsize · 09/04/2014 16:17

I am the lawyer, not my toddler.

Groovee · 09/04/2014 16:19

Tiggy we need a tune to sing that to..

FanFuckingTastic · 09/04/2014 16:22

Could we have a prong song to go to the tune of the thong song?

EvansOvalPiesYumYum · 09/04/2014 16:31

I believe the employer has a responsibility to ensure that safety gear is worn. Is that right?

Not always possible, Sally. As an employer, we provide all the safety gear. However, our guy goes out in his van to various destinations. It is totally impossible to "ensure" he is wearing his safety equipment at all times. Not unless one of us trails his every move, which would then negate the point of employing him in the first place. He has been given the safety equipment, he's been sent on H&S courses, he knows he should wear it. Therefore, if anything happens to him that would have been avoidable if he should have been wearing that safety equipment and wasn't, then that is his fault.

In answer to the OP - that child should have been properly and suitably supervised. I really don't get the "he was being allowed to explore" crap. That is simply lazy parenting, (IMV)

FrenchJunebug · 09/04/2014 16:32

I really hate it when OP disappear like that. Yes you are being VU btw.

Swipe left for the next trending thread