Kid dies in Somerfield

shauncr91 · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:01

Sorry if it's a repost, did a search and couldn't find it.

Link
Obviously it's sad and a great shame, but personally I can't believe that the family want to sue the supermarket, why weren't the parents watching the child?

Tefal · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:06

The parents should be charged with negligence tbh not the supermarket.

KiTBoH · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:08

lol?

How is that the supermarkets fault in any way shape or form :/ Why should the supermarket have to be responsible for who shops there

Makunouchi · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:09

shauncr91 said:
why weren't the parents watching the child?

Exactly. No blame on Summerfield at all, they aren't running a creche. (except where they actually run a creches

)

SfnX · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:10

thats ridiculous, why sue a supermarket for doing nothing, its the parents fault for not looking after him fbhs (for bloody hell sake

). tbh even if they go to court the judges will see that the parents were negligent!

AtlanticP · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:13

Tefal said:
The parents should be charged with negligence tbh not the supermarket.

this tbh, just read it somewhere else and I was like WTF "They are suing the Supermarket" :eek:

Sure, its the Supermarkets responsibility to look after the children so lets get some money out of it.

The times we live in I guess, 'The Age of Liability is upon us' (Well it has been for some time now) but this is getting silly. If you have kids, they run into the road and get run over are you going to sue the council :confused:

R.O.S.S.I · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:13

SfnX said:
thats ridiculous, why sue a supermarket for doing nothing, its the parents fault for not looking after him fbhs (for bloody hell sake ). tbh even if they go to court the judges will see that the parents were negligent!

Why did you write fbhs and then write in brackets what you meant, are you trying to introduce a new acronym to online chat?!

RadioheadR6 · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:13

Harry Blackmore was swinging on a small steel rail when he fell in the store in Liverpool.

"We say that the railing should not have been there or should not have been in that state."

Clearly we don't know the exact circumstances but surely this is down to poor parental supervision?...

Trying to make a quick buck on the back of their childs death sickens me to be honest...

TFleming · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:14

It's a total void claim. Their lawyer is obviously after a bit of money if he/she is putting up a case. Simple AS level law can be used and they'll see they have no chance.

MonkeyNews · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:14

Very sad news story that, only 4 years old the poor kid

AtlanticP · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:15

Fishfingers said:
Very sad news story that, only 4 years old the poor kid

yer totally mate, its a shame the boys death is going to result to nothing more than the parents getting laughed out of court. Very Sad

drunkenmaster · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:16

ZOMG, the kid died because his head hit the floor, lets all sue everywhere................ that has a floor.

My god people are stupid, kids fall, its a tragedy he died, but if you have a 4 year old child who doesn't understand what might not be safe, its the parents entire purpose on earth to prevent them from harming themselves, no one elses. What if the kid, unattended, ran out and got run over by a car driving in the carpark, still the stores fault, no, its still the parents fault.

I can understand it, I would say a lot of lawsuits are more out of grief and wanting desparately to blame anyone but themselves, but at the end of the day they have to face up to the reality and move past it, rather than keep pretending they did nothing wrong.

ALl too many people are thinking about the money when they do this kind of thing though, even in tragic circumstances.

Fubsy · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:17

TFleming said:
It's a total void claim. Their lawyer is obviously after a bit of money if he/she is putting up a case. Simple AS level law can be used and they'll see they have no chance.

I was reccommended that lawyer for an assault case earlier this year, but I couldn't afford him.

(I was the victim)

Tefal · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:18

Anyone else reminded of the episode of sliders where they go to that world where 95% of the population is lawyers?

And they accidentally bump into someone

spoonz · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:20

this was in liverpool.

It will go on and on until "justice" occurs.

mark66 · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:21

When will people just accept that accidents are exactly that and stop trying to blame people?

Says it all.

Having a 4 year old son myself, I can only imagine the hurt they are experiencing, but sueing someone won't do anything to help that.

AtlanticP · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:22

I think nowadays, Suing after an incident (or at least considering it) is a reflex action. Sad times tbh.

K.C. Leblanc · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:24

TFleming said:
It's a total void claim. Their lawyer is obviously after a bit of money if he/she is putting up a case. Simple AS level law can be used and they'll see they have no chance.

The trouble is it's bad PR for companies to defend actions like this. They'll probably agree to settle out of court.

I agree, the problem is a lack of supervision, and also incredibly bad luck. Probably 1 in 100 cases like this end in the child needing to go to hospital, the odds of a child dieing like this a tiny. I can't believe the way some children are allowed to behave in supermarkets. It would cause an outcry, but I can imagine the first supermarket to introduce times when children are banned would do very well.

y2viks · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:25

Neglectful Parents

PiKe · 23 Sep 2009 at 13:27

Can Somerfield counter-sue?