Tubby slips on petal outside Florist. Claiming £1.5m Compo

Permabanned
Joined
19 Jul 2006
Posts
1,632
Location
Wrong side of the tracks
daily mail said:
It was one yellow petal lying forlornly on the ground next to Bella Patel's flower shop.

But it caused a whole bunch of problems.

A commuter who says he slipped on the floral fragment and damaged his back is claiming £1.5million in damages.



A judge has ruled in favour of bank worker Brian Piccolo, who arrived at the High Court using a walking stick, saying flower shop staff should have kept the concourse clean at Marylebone Station in Central London.

Unless both sides can agree a settlement, the amount of compensation will be assessed at a further court hearing.

Mrs Patel, 45, said the incident four years ago had already cost her £40,000 in costs and could end up ruining her.


Bella Patel, owner of Chiltern Flowers says the claim could ruin her business

She insisted there was no evidence that a petal from her shop, Chiltern Flowers, was to blame.

But 50-year-old Mr Piccolo, who has been on long-term sick leave, said his life had been turned upside down.

'I have been told my condition will probably deteriorate and I may end up in a wheelchair.'

The court heard how the fall happened on March 10, 2003, as Mr Piccolo was on his way to work at the nearby offices of BNP Paribas.

A security guard told Judge John Altman that he had seen Mr Piccolo slip on a 'yellow petal' and went on to describe it as a 'killer'.

The guard, a former RAF serviceman identified only as Mr McCready, has since left Marylebone and now works as a residential care worker.



The judge ruled that staff at Chiltern Flowers should have cleaned up outside the shop, and owed Mr Piccolo a 'duty of care'.

'In the course of the shop's activities petals fell on to the concourse near the shop and I find that the presence of petals on this concourse floor presented a foreseeable hazard of slipping.'

He added that a 'clean as you go' system used by Chiltern Flowers was not effective and contained an 'unreasonable element of chance' as to whether stray petals were cleaned up.

'I find that no one had overall responsibility on a day-to-day basis for supervision and checking that the concourse was clear,' continued Judge Altman. 'It was not a safe system of work.'

The judge found that the Chiltern Railway Company - responsible for running the station - had shown 'mounting frustration' at the flower shop's failure to keep the area free of hazards.

The court heard how e-mails were sent both before and after the accident pointing out that there was debris which could pose a potential hazard to commuters.

'I find that the type of accident that was sustained by Mr Piccolo is not one that in the ordinary course of events does occur, and that the defendant has failed to establish that they had in place an effective and reasonable system for dealing with spillages,' added the judge.

He cleared the Chiltern Railway Company - which had been a second defendant in the claim - of wrongdoing and said Mr Piccolo had not contributed to his fall in any way.

Mrs Patel, who has run Chiltern Flowers for five years, said her insurance would not be able to meet the full amount of Mr Piccolo's claim.

'I have been told that our insurance runs to something like £800,000 so if the judge awards Mr Piccolo the full amount then we will be bankrupt and I will be financially ruined. I cannot believe this has been going on for so long and that the judge has now ruled against me.

'At the time this happened there was a leak in the station roof and water on the concourse could have contributed if he indeed did fall over - but we have maintained it was not a petal from our shop that was to blame.

'There has never been an incident like this since the shop opened more than 25 years ago.'

At his £280,000 detached home in Witham, Essex, Mr Piccolo said he had worked for BNP Paribas since the age of 16.

The father of two boys - Alexander, 13, and Dominic, ten - said he was hospitalised for six months after the fall.

His 44-year- old wife Diana has helped to look after him since the accident.After suffering some initial paralysis he is still struggling to walk properly and often uses a stick to help him get around.

'I was walking along minding my own business and through no fault of my own I have ended up like this,' he said.

'My life has been turned upside down. I can't do the things that I want to do with my boys or around the house.'

piccolloDM1707_468x368.jpg



I wonder how much money has changed hands due to stupidity?
 
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
2,953
Location
Greater Manchester
SenTineL said:
I was about to say why didn't he just look where he was going, but he probably couldn't see the petal because of his belly :p :rolleyes:

Your absolutely right, the fact he is fat is definately the reason hes a tit.. not the fact that hes.. well... a tit. No thin person has ever done anything stupid or claimed for compensation.

May I ask why the OP felt the need to highlight the fact the mans overweight rather than just an idiot? Does he/she feel it has real bearing on the fact he slipped? This wasnt reflected in the article posted and doesnt seem to have been made an issue in what is a very serious civil case?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,262
Location
Northallerton/Harrogate
The bigger they come.....

If you slip on a single petal there's something up with your shoes. I'm sure his back was already buggered on account of his size. Him falling over just made it worse.

Where is the petal now? Is there any proof that it actually came from one of the shop's flowers?
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
29,950
Location
Norrbotten, Sweden.
Who's a tit ? the bloke playing the system and winning or the **** that allow this system?

You think that crap amount of money is a good substitute for your freedom to walk unaided???

<insert random fat joke for moronic effect>
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
159,596
manic_man said:
May I ask why the OP felt the need to highlight the fact the mans overweight rather than just an idiot?

Becuase it's funny.

As always, this case is far from as simple as it might seem. If the flower shop had, as claimed by the Judge, been repeatedly warned about stray petals, I can find sympathy for the case. £1.5m seems a *tad* excessive, though. Although the petal should not have been there looking where you are going is not challenging.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
37,804
Location
block 16, cell 12
true story, i was walking in Bury market the other month and stepped to the side to avoid oncoming human traffic. i stepped on a piece of orange peel and fell over, crunching my mobile (broke the screen) and getting my pants a bit wet/dirty.

i didnt sue anybody because it was my own fault for not looking where im walking.

i like to take responsibility for my own actions, i dont expect anyone to pave a clean road for me to walk on to the degree where i could walk anywhere uninhibited blindfolded.

if this woman did indeed stand on a petal, (which probably did stand out against the floor) is she negligent in terms of her ability to navigate minor obstacles/does she not look where she is stepping?

(brainwave, could you sue someone for standing in muck that their dog has left? new shoes anyone?)
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
6,830
Location
London
Efour2 said:
Who's a tit ? the bloke playing the system and winning or the **** that allow this system?

You think that crap amount of money is a good substitute for your freedom to walk unaided???

<insert random fat joke for moronic effect>


he is not playing the system, he is ruining someones life.

as an example i know someone who went out drink driving and killed a girl aged 18. he went to prison but at court the parents of the girl got up and said to the judge that they didnt want him to go to prison because it woudl just ruin another young life.

becuase his life is upset (if indeed it is) does that mean he has to take everyone down with him?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
13,262
Location
Northallerton/Harrogate
[TW]Fox said:
Becuase it's funny.

As always, this case is far from as simple as it might seem. If the flower shop had, as claimed by the Judge, been repeatedly warned about stray petals, I can find sympathy for the case. £1.5m seems a *tad* excessive, though. Although the petal should not have been there looking where you are going is not challenging.

Why shouldn't the petal have been there? It's a flower, flowers occasionally drop petals. Same for trees and leaves.

Does this ruling now mean that if there's any organic matter within 10 yards of a pedestrian walkway whoever's responsible for said walkway is liable if I decided to fall over on it?

DOWN WITH GREENERY!
 
Soldato
Joined
9 May 2005
Posts
7,401
Location
Berkshire
If he ends up in a wheel chair for tripping up on something that shouldn't of been there then I'd say he's entitled to compensation.

I think 1.5 million is too much but then again if his quality of life has been seriously effected and he can't work again then it's arguably not enough.

I fail to see how you can trip up on a petal though. Unless it's massive and covered with oil.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
159,596
Jono said:
Why shouldn't the petal have been there? It's a flower, flowers occasionally drop petals. Same for trees and leaves.

It's a slipperly Railway concourse. Now, if there was one petal there, fair enough. But we don't know, do we. For all we know the shop could have been a bloody mess ALL the time despite repeated requests from station management.

Thats certainly what the Judge seems to imply.
 
Soldato
Joined
27 Jun 2005
Posts
2,863
Location
Aberdeen, Scotland
I'm not being funny but I feel this man has a genuine case for compensation, although I agree 1.5mil is a stupid figure.

This is a case where the flower shop is at fault, as pointed out by the judge - this is why we have courts. This accident and the predicament the flower shop is in could have been easily avoilded...

Everyone here would do the same if it happened to them.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Sep 2005
Posts
29,950
Location
Norrbotten, Sweden.
Im guessing that not many of you use The railway network. The stations tend to have very smooth almost polished floors. Combined with this blokes size and guessing he wears a nice pair of smooth bottomed brouges to his bankers job, the lubricating effect of say a rose petal being stood on, i can fully understand how you can slip over.

Claiming damages over it. Well thats another story for greedy lawyers to get their fat slice of peoples lives.
 
Back
Top Bottom