You're knee must have got pretty ****ed up to have the heartlessness to sue a 60 year old disabled women who cant walk lol
So you're working, someone crashes INTO YOU stopping you being able to work for several months, maybe having a painful operation to fix damage and months of pain and recouperation, but its heartless to sue the moron who did it to you?
The thing that seems to be missing in the article is it says the woman PREVIOUSLY claimed that someone hit her stationary scooter, sending her one into this employee. But doesn't say what she's claiming now, by saying "previously claimed" it sounds to me like she was BS'ing and passing the blame, but later on she changed her story and it was her fault.
But shoddy journalism doesn't seem to actually have that part included, I just can't see why you'd use the term "previously claimed" unless, well, her story changed later on.
Who knows, then again the store SHOULD have insurance to cover their employee's who get injured on the job and they should have specific insurance to cover injury from people in scooters if its store policy to allow them in.
If the worker didn't get anything from her employee's and is being screwed, what choice do they have, its not their fault they can't work after being injured. Though it sounds to me like the store is just as culpable and this is the kind of story where you'd usually here of the employee getting a huge insurance payout from the supermarket.