Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think that this is not the supermarkets fault?

42 replies

fedupintheoffice · 23/09/2009 11:56

uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20090922/tuk-boy-four-dies-in-somerfield-supermar-45dbed5.html

I have so much sympathy for the parents at losing their child, but surely it is the parents responsibility to make sure their child is behaving and not endangering their safety? I don't understand why they are suing the supermarket

OP posts:
MorningTownRide · 23/09/2009 12:28

The question is " Was the rail fit for purpose?"

The purpose of the rail is not "Children's play item" therefore it doesn't matter if it was faulty or not. It was probably not supposed to be a load bearing rail.

ThingOne · 23/09/2009 12:41

How sad. Sounds more like ambulance chasing solicitors to me.

gagamama · 23/09/2009 12:45

Heartbreaking for the poor little boy and his family. Completely agree that the supermarket aren't to blame though. Even if the railing had been a little wobbly or something, if it's there to serve the purpose of keeping trollies in one place (just going from the picture here) then being wobbly isn't exactly dangerous, unless you are using it dangerously.

VinegarTits · 23/09/2009 12:53

If the railing wasnt fit for purpose it should not have been there

If an elderly person leaned on the rail and it snapped and they broke a hip, you would be telling them to sue the supermarket, non?

The railing shouldnt have been there if it was faulty

Stayingsunnygirl · 23/09/2009 13:02

Whilst I agree that, if the rail was faulty, it should have been marked with some sort of warning, or coned off in some way, I still don't think it is relevant to this case if the rail was faulty - because the accident happened because the boy was on the railing, not because the railing was faulty.

I also agree that the parents are looking for someone to blame because the possibility that they could have prevented this tragedy would be too huge and painful for them (understandably so) - but the solicitor acting for them seems to be taking advantage of their grief and shock.

PaulineB · 23/09/2009 13:04

I too am devastated for the parents, but you have to watch your own kids. I work in Waitrose & some run right, little toddlers dashing about with no parent in sight, straight into trolleys, and there is the hot counter, and glass fronts to the counters. If your child smashes into the front of my deli and bangs their head on the glass, is it my fault?

Bucharest · 23/09/2009 13:04

Not the supermarket's fault in any way.

My Aunty Bertha died in the Asda car park, tripping over a trolley someone had left not in the trolley thingy and had a massive heart attack. Her family didn't make any wanga out of it.

Pinkjenny · 23/09/2009 13:07

It's a tragic accident. Obviously it's a well known 'working class' area, and I would imagine this area attracts a lot of litigation, and a lot of ambulance chasers.

LindaBellinghamFanClub · 23/09/2009 13:17

Why do the parents want the supermarket to give them money? How can you be compensated for the loss of a child?

Bucharest · 23/09/2009 13:26

I always wonder at these compensation stories...I know I can never put myself in their place but if my child died because of a supermarket faulty rail and they presented me with a cheque as compensation I'd rip the fucking thing up in front of them.

wasabipeas · 23/09/2009 13:28

There is a bit more detail in the Daily Mail report of the same event (sorry!)
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1215294/Football-mad-boy-4-dies-banging-head-Somerfield.html
The rail was 4 feet high - surely he couldn't have climbed up there by himself?

OrmIrian · 23/09/2009 13:31

"The couple have sought legal advice over the way Harry's fall was handled"

That sound a bit different.

Bramshott · 23/09/2009 13:35

I agree that I can't see how it's the supermarket's fault.

But FFS, without knowing the circustances, how can we be so quick to say that it's the parent's fault?? We CAN'T watch our children 24hrs a day and sometimes accidents do happen. Genuine, tragic accidents. We are are very, very quick these days to blame the parents and say "they should have been watching / supervising / psychic, it was their fault because they were distracted / were dealing with other children / let their children out to play alone" but honestly, we can't remove all risk and still stay sane to live our lives and let our children live theirs!

FabBakerGirlIsBack · 23/09/2009 13:36

Sorry about your Aunt, Bucharest .

Monetary compensation is often given as there is no other way to be punished.

I think it was an accident and very sad.

My son fell off some railings outside the school and it would have been 100% my fault. I wanted to tell him to get down but figured I wrapped him in cotton wool too much. He fell. Another time I didn't want him to ride his bike down a grassy verge. I figured I had to let him do things. He fell off. Trip to A&E and emergency dentist. I tend to say no more now.

I am sad that they think they are empty now when they have 4 daughters.

curiositykilled · 23/09/2009 13:38

I completely agree with Mrs Vik, sad that people are so judgey on so little info.

Not sure I feel comfortable with the parents suing the supermarket but I don't really agree with suing people generally.

laughalot · 23/09/2009 13:40

I have just read the story and feel awful for what the family must be going through.

I cant see how it is the supermarkets fault either unless in a dangerous place ect.

I was slightly disturbed when it said he played football out on the street, I must be to over protective with my children but that seems to young.

FabBakerGirlIsBack · 23/09/2009 17:49

They had enrolled him at a football club so he didn't have to play in the street.

New posts on this thread. Refresh page