Stop me from losing my shit on FB... (disability/pub/dementia)

[WiddlinDiddlin]

I am really trying to sit on my hands and as I am here, clearly failing.

My Dad is currently in hospital. He is 84 and over the last few weeks has had a few short seizures (falling over, losing control, then coming round and lucid and aware very quickly) recently, two of them in his local pub.

The current situation is that the hospital suspect epilepsy related to dementia, and think he may regain some degree of awareness/lucidity/sense and come out of hospital (though not to his own home I suspect).

For the last two/three weeks, he's been taken to his local by my sister, as he no longer drives. He had a seizure at the pub a couple of weeks back - hospital - sent home, seemed ok... (hasn't driven since about a week before that though, will not drive again, car removed etc).

He was in the pub again on Wednesday, with my sister, and had another seizure. He came round and the ambulance call was cancelled and they advised her to drive him in, so she did.

He then had another seizure at the hospital and this time they've kept him in.

Today my sisters gone back to the pub to catch up with friends of hers and his - he/they have been going there forever, since he was in his 20s and since us kids were 3/4 years old... we've known the owners, and every tenant landlord for decades (to make it clear this is not some random pub).

The current landlord has taken it upon himself to tell my sister 'we're not equipped for people having medical incidents here, don't bring him again' - after overhearing her say that he's not going to be living by himself again, or driving again, or going anywhere alone.

Now I could understand banning him for being a rude, cantankerous old goat, or a bit of an arsehole, he is/was all of those things.

But surely you cannot ban someone from a pub because they might have a medical crisis, whilst supervised by another adult.

Does that mean all disabled people are banned, everyone with an underlying health condition is banned - surely that is not ok.

No one is expecting the pub to look after him, we never have, no more than they look after the people who go there and get falling down drunk, or in floods of tears because their dog/horse/wife died/left them...

I do understand that seeing someone have a fit is pretty traumatic... but if you want to work in hospitality and run a pub, you're going to see humans being humans, surely!

I really am fucking angry - the chances are he is going into a home and at BEST we may be able to take him out for an hour or two, it would be brilliant if he could go somewhere thats part of his routine, where he's familiar with the building and theres people he knows - and now that's been taken away.

I am also fucking furious that the landlord decided to tell my sister this TODAY when he knew she was straight there from the hospital feeling pretty upset about Dad and whats happened - it's pretty much removed the one thing she was clinging to that might be close to 'normal'.

AIBU? Is this actually ok?

Do you mean the case where Morrisons were fined £3.5 million for failing to ensure the health and safety of an epileptic employee who died after falling from a shop stairway? And then they lost an appeal?

Why are you being coy and not providing a link?

This is the case. It was Morrison's. But the person involved was an employee not a customer.

www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ck557y4j399o.amp

Yes. I said it in response to the other poster saying no business has ever been sued from someone with epilepsy falling on their premises.

Because I figured people were able to use Google when already provided with the name and the year.

As I said it was in response to the claim it had never happened.

It was an employee and they were successfully sued because they effectively forced him to walk up the stairs even when he said he couldn't. They wouldn't have been sued if he had chosen to go up the stairs himself.

You know full well people were talking about customers of a business, not employees of a business.

sorry if you’ve already answered this as I don’t have time to read all of the thread but is it owned by a brewery? If so, contact them!

That was an employee. Morrisons were sued under H & S legislation, so not at all relevant to this scenario.

Blimey at this rate people will be expected to have a medical each and every time they go to a pub.
I’m a paramedic and have been to multiple incidents in licensed establishments and at no point did I, or anyone else, think they shouldn’t have been there ‘just in case’.
FWIW DH did CPR on a landlord of a pub who went into cardiac arrest on the premises. He was 52, perhaps he shouldn’t have been allowed in his own pub.

It doesn't matter.

My initial comments were that there is a possibility of legal action following falls depending on the circumstances.

You narrowed it to no business has ever been sued due to an epileptic fit on the premises and I've pointed out you're wrong. Aside from case law there's also statutory legislation that covers such circumstances.

I'm a family carer. I wouldn't seek to spoil any disabled person's enjoyment, it's a subject close to my heart. But as a lawyer I'm allowed to say I can see both sides.

It was entirely relevant to the specific comment I responded to.

You aren't a "huge advocate" of disabled people if you think it okay for other people to decide what is and isn't safe for them and to discriminate accordingly.

OK. Let's be more specific. Has there ever been a case of a business being sued because a customer with epilepsy fell in their premises whilst having a seizure? Or of a person with epilepsy being sued as a result of having a seizure in someone else's premises?

I was talking about a disabled customer and importantly choosing to use stairs themselves.

Quite. The Morrisons case is of no relevance to what we talking about here.

@PlutoCatexactly! @Willyoujustbequiet
Yes the DVLA knows my husband cannot drive and he cannot reapply until he is 1 year seizure free. He cannot have a bath alone, he cannot sleep alone incase he has a seizure and is at risk of SUDEP. He’s not going to go sky diving or take part in any risky sport!

That doesn’t mean he can’t enter any establishment incase he has a seizure and hurts himself ffs. You may be a good advocate for your children but you are ignorant of other disabilities such as an adult with epilepsy. How on earth can a person with epilepsy take responsibility for unexplained seizures which may never be controlled??
It’s a seizure not an epileptic fit.

The example you are bringing to the table is an employee at Morrisons who struggled going up and down the stairs. Not a customer doing their shopping.
You are the one with the ignorant comments.
At this point you need to take notice of your user name.

@Recycledblondethis is how I’m feeling as the thread continues. I’ve resuscitated someone in an Indian restaurant, assisted when someone was unwell in the supermarket etc! All had existing conditions and trying to get on with their lives.

You have to appreciate there are a variety of legal avenues with these types of cases. Its the fall that would ordinarily cause the injury which is why I spoke of falls earlier. The person who fell may claim against a business, a bystander injured may claim either against the business or directly against the person who fell . There can be prosecutions by public bodies. It depends entirely on the individual circumstances.

I've been at pains to point out that I understand and appreciate the issues, especially given my family situation but, and this isn't directed at you personally, it's silly to not acknowledge there is a legal framework covering such issues.

Oh please stop backtracking.

You said no business had ever been sued because someone with epilepsy fell on their premises. You were wrong and you're now being disingenuous.

Those were my thoughts, too. It seems more than coincidence that the seizures have occurred at the pub/after visiting the pub.

Were it my step
dad, I’m afraid his pub going days would be over.

I am not backtracking. I would have thought it pretty obvious that i wasn't talking about a business being sued for forcing a disabled employee to do something that the disabled employee had told them would be dangerous.

You're twisting it again.

You said a business had never been sued because someone with epilepsy fell on their premises. That was your statement I replied to. There was no mention of employees at that point Stop being disingenuous by trying to expand it. You're just doubling down so there is little point to this if you can't own your mistake.

You are the one being disingenuous. I am sure you knew I wasn't referring to a situation where an employer was forcing to an employee to do something that they had been informed would be dangerous. Businesses are sued for that regardless of whether an employee has epilepsy ffs.

Seriously?

You're actually trying to tell me what was going on in my own head? Can you not see that's that's unbelievably arrogant telling someone else what they think?
I stuck to facts - your intial written reply I responded to. It's there in black and white for others to see no matter how much you try and deny it.

I'm not engaging further. Honesty is important to me.

Hilarious that you are calling me "unbelievably arrogant" for thinking that you were just pretending you didn't know what I was talking about customers rather than employees when you just accused me of being disingenuous.😂

Regardless of who said what and who thought what, Morrisons were sued because they were negligent. They instructed the employee to do a task that was unsafe for them to do and they knew that, and the employee stood to face disciplinary action and disadvantage if they didn't do as instructed as we all do. For clarity that bit is implied.
The case was successful because Morrisons were negligent. A safer way for the employee to address would have been to refuse and then fight disciplinary action and or being dismissed, but unfortunately people generally can't afford to do that against big companies, or they find a way to sack you that on paper has nothing to do with the h&s issue.

The case wasn't successful simply because someone with epilepsy had a fit and got injured.
There has to be some element of negligence on behalf of the business for them to be liable and simply allowing someone into your premises that has epilepsy, or indeed any condition, isn't negligence automatically, and unless there is negligence that caused or contributed towards the incident, then a case isn't going to get very far.

I mean it won't stop people chasing compensation or chancing their arm, but being in someone else's premises doesn't automatically mean they're responsible for anything and everything that happens to you while you're there, only if their negligence causes or contributes towards it. You being 'allowed' to be there with your illness or condition isn't negligence in itself.