Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Money matters

Find financial and money-saving discussions including debt and pension chat on our Money forum. If you're looking for ways to make your money to go further, sign up to our Moneysaver emails here.

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6

Original poster

baby sustained injury. Can I sue?

142 replies

PixieGio · 18/12/2015 00:53

We spent 6+ hours in hospital after our 15 month old fell at a restaurant and landed on a glass. His head was cut open about 2cm and the bleeding was just awful. DH had immediately asked for staff to call ambulance which they didn't (my brother did). The wound has been glued up and the hospital experience has been traumatic for all. So my question is - what would other parents do? I am obviously going to take this further but how? I believe the restaurant has been negligent. Does anyone have any advice on what we should do here? It looks like he's going to have a scar on his head too. I'm still shaking. Thanks for reading.

OP posts:

TinklyLittleLaugh · 18/12/2015 09:45

I understand where you are coming from OP, it is a natural reaction when you have got over your shock and fright to get angry and look for someone to blame.

My DD was hurt in the school playground when she was six; a big metal fence put up by some workmen just tipped over and fell on her. We sued, (we had to sue the school and they had to sue the company). The school supported us fully.

What we wanted from the process was an apology and for these cowboys, (contractors) not to be working in schools. No one was particularly interested in the rights and wrongs of it though.

DD was awarded about £800. It has been useful at Uni.

Whatthefreakinwhatnow · 18/12/2015 09:53

Pootles, they really don't. Serious injury/very unwell call an ambulance, minor injury or ailment, drive/bus/cab. It's really quite simple.

Had I been working in the restaurant I wouldn't have called an ambulance either.

HamaTime · 18/12/2015 09:53

She doesn't say she waited six hours to be seen. They were in hospital a total of six hours, which will include triage, treatment and observation. Sounds about right.

The 4 hour target isn't waiting time, it's time from arrival until admission, transfer or discharge. It was set out in the reforming emergency care white paper years ago. A paediatric with a relatively minor, and more importantly, piss easy and super quick to treat injury being allowed to breach by 2 hours shows a system in crisis, and is not 'about right' at all. The hospital can be fined for breaching so it is a big deal and A&E departments try to avoid it even when it results in poorer patient care.

Unless, the kid was admitted and the OP failed to mention it. In that case 6 hours sounds a bit on the speedy side.

DiscoDiva70 · 18/12/2015 10:06

This doesn't sound plausible at all to me.

I can't imagine anyone shoving a glass down a cushion when it's easier to put it on a table in front of them! It doesn't sound logical. Maybe your ds grabbed the glass off a table and put it there?

Furthermore, how did your ds manage to cut his head? Was he upside down on this seating?

BaronessEllaSaturday · 18/12/2015 10:08

It's funny how every parent (and some medical staff!) we spoke to at hospital were immediately telling us to instruct solicitors

Years ago my dd had an accident on her bike, she simply wasn't looking where she was going and fell off the kerb the number of people though who told me I should sue the council is just ridiculous, there are a lot of people out there who do just think it's money for nothing.

KanyeWesticle · 18/12/2015 10:09

No you shouldn't sue. Accidents happen. The restaurant wasn't negligent. You're no worse off.

Pootles2010 · 18/12/2015 10:17

Whatthefreak would you not then have advised taxi would be better, and called one?

Whatthefreakinwhatnow · 18/12/2015 10:20

Well no, as surely common sense would tell the injured party to?? Or ask for one to be called if they don't possess a phone.

If they were really incapable of realising that a taxi was needed then yes I suppose I would do it for them, but I'd be

Pootles2010 · 18/12/2015 10:29

Really? Gosh. I used to call taxis for customers all the time, even ones without bleeding children. Common sense is in short supply when you're really in a panic.

Dipankrispaneven · 18/12/2015 10:33

Shutthatdoor, if you look at my posts you will see that I agree that there is no claim in this case. I was addressing the specific view which has been expressed that it should not be possible to claim compensation for pain and suffering.

Whatthefreakinwhatnow · 18/12/2015 10:37

As I said, if I was asked to then of course I would, but no I would definitely not do so off my own back as most people are generally capable of doing it themselves or asking!!

Dipankrispaneven · 18/12/2015 10:38

If an accident or injury occurs that is not your fault or as a result of negligence on the part of a parent or carer AND these injuries have a financial implication - ie. you've been unable to work - then I agree compensation would be appropriate to cover loss of earnings. But no, I do not think anyone should automatically be entitled to compensation for any injury.

But, Whatthe, why should you only receive compensation for loss of earnings? Why should victims of negligence not be entitled to compensation for pain? If through sheer carelessness I cause someone severe pain, why shouldn't they receive damages for that? Indeed, why should they not be entitled to compensation for other financial losses, e.g. damage to a car or other belongings?

Supermanspants · 18/12/2015 10:39

Some medical staff telling you to instruct solicitors. . . . I call absolute bullshit on that.

I can believe other parents shouting sue the bastads though. . . It seems to be the default response whenever someone has an accident these days.

Whatthefreakinwhatnow · 18/12/2015 10:46

I quite clearly say financial implications- I am saying just because you are hurt shouldn't automatically mean compensation!

I fell and broke my leg on the ice in the car park at work - I could still go in, didn't lose pay, nothing of monetary value was broken, but it was quite painful. By your logic I should have sued, but to me that us absurd!

Accidents happen, although apparently not everyone agrees.

JeffreysMummyIsCross · 18/12/2015 10:47

My mother fell over and gashed her head in central London, blood pouring everywhere (as tends to happen with head cuts). A policeman helped us and he called an ambulance. But what does he know? Clearly we should have refused and hopped on the bus, according to some on here.

Sameshitdiffname · 18/12/2015 10:51

If anything I think you should be fined for calling an ambulance which I think should be the case for anyone who wastes the stretched resources.

Shocked to think anyone believes you can sue for this.

Penfold007 · 18/12/2015 10:56

OP my DD was about the same age as your DS when she tripped and caught her head on a dinning chair at home. The wound looked horrendous and the blood loss was spectacular. We went off to A&E where the wound was glued, for a while the scar was obvious but soon faded. Today she has no visible scar, hopefully your DS will also have a similar experience.

TPel · 18/12/2015 11:00

I don't understand how money will make this better?

ReallyTired · 18/12/2015 11:02

"My mother fell over and gashed her head in central London, blood pouring everywhere (as tends to happen with head cuts). A policeman helped us and he called an ambulance. But what does he know? Clearly we should have refused and hopped on the bus, according to some on here."

That is no comparable. A person who is over 60 maybe having a stroke if they have a bad fall. Healthy adults rarely fall over for no reason. An adult is often on their own where as toddler should have parents looking after them who can take them to hospital.

My mother in law fell over in St. Albans and the policeman also called the ambulance. It turned out she had a fractured hip and 100% needed skilled paramedics. It is thanks to those paramedics, the doctors and nurses that she lived. She was prioritised above all the toddlers with superficial wounds when she reached the busy a and e.

Whatthefreakinwhatnow · 18/12/2015 11:37

Exactly Really Tired! Well said

Dipankrispaneven · 18/12/2015 11:42

No, WhatThe, by my logic you should not have sued, because again in that situation no-one was negligent. However, if you had been knocked down by some idiot driving his car negligently, yes you should. Why should you suffer all the pain and inconvenience of a broken leg (including, possibly, things like extra travel costs) - to say nothing of problems you will probably have in the future with arthritis as a result - whilst the driver's insurers pay nothing?

ElphabaTheGreen · 18/12/2015 11:46

A fall with a head gash onto pavement may also mean an underlying head injury, justifying ambulance and A&E. Minor laceration on glass? That is the definition of 'minor injury'.

Whatthefreakinwhatnow · 18/12/2015 11:49

But some might say my employer should have gritted the pavement? (not me, mind you!) That's what I mean, how do you quantify negligent?

Talcott2007 · 18/12/2015 11:58

Bit of a long one but I can perhaps offer an additional perspective - I work in the H&FS industry for an large company that runs several pubs and restaurants (pretty sure from the info on location that this accident didn't happen in one of my sites!) Accident investigations and ultimately investigating claims is something a deal with regularly.

Firstly you have every right to put in a claim for compensation if you feel your dc's injury is the result of negligence on the part of this venue - whether the claim has any legal validity and would be successful is not for me to say because I don't have all the facts but again from my experience and the details you have provided it sounds like this would be very difficult for you to prove negligence in this case.

Of course you are upset right now - no ones wants an injury to happen, especially to a child (including the people who work at or own this venue) I think perhaps because you don't feel that the situation was handled well by the staff following the accident (delay in calling the ambulance etc.) that this may have influenced your feelings about circumstances of the whole event?

My advice would be to start a dialogue with the venue/company in question before you go down the legal route and ask for them to investigate the circumstances of the accident. You can explain your concerns and why you feel they have been negligent to your's dc and they will have the opportunity to provide an appropriate resolution. (be that financial, a gesture of goodwill such as a complementary meal, or indeed most likely in my opinion a simple acknowledgement that your distress has been taken seriously)

Dipankrispaneven · 18/12/2015 11:59

I don't follow what you mean by quantifying negligence. If you mean, how do I define negligence, I define it in accordance with normal legal principles. The famous statement in Donoghue v Stevenson is a starting point: "You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law, is my neighbour? The answer seems to be – persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question."

Flip

1 2 3 4 5 6