Thistledoo Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 There is no close analogy in the 2 senarios. It has clearly escaped your notice that a supermarket is a privately run business and therefore required to operate a risk assessment of all parts of its business. The fact that you are unaware of that is an indicator that you don't get out much and probably need help getting dressed in the mornings. There is a very close analogy and the word is sCenario, sorry to have introduced you to grown up words. I have been involved in risk assessments and there is no way that I would have considered it a risk to have a fence that is not "knock down proof" , even if supermarkets are full of lady drivers. In fact it is better than having a brick wall because if someone ran into that it would not give and injuries would ensue. Fences are safer where women drivers are concerned. One cannot legislate for bad drivers and idiots. I am going to stop bumping your thread now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damophoto Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Pretty basic health & safety requirements I'm afraid. If someone hitting the wrong gear in a supermarket car park can drive over the edge of a steep embankment and end up on whatever or whoever is below then clearly the barriers/fences are inadequate to protect the public from an accident that could be predicted. I'm sure H&S are already pointing this out to the management, and I have little doubt that more adequate barriers will soon be in place. It does not alter the fact that the woman's driving caused the accident, but the management are required to take precautions to ensure that a small accident doesn't turn into a large one that could cost lives. Are you related to this woman? You clearly have NO IDEA what you are talking about!! Firstly, the fence is made of 4x4 posts and 2x4 slats. There is a kerb and then a gravel area of around five feet BEFORE the fence! Any normal, sensible or competent driver would've been able to stop long before hitting the fence! Not only that but to get up the kerb in the first place would require unnecessary speed. This woman had parked her car with the rear wheels touching the kerb. So as not to stand on the gravel to put her shopping in the boot, she decided to move it forward. Instead, she put it in reverse and failed to stop after some 8 feet, by which time gravity had taken over and there was no going back from the incline. Sorry but in my mind, she herself is to blame, no-one else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel22 Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Well she does have a sort of point there. Erm, why?? As damophoto said, not only did she mount the kerb, she then continued all the way across the gravel path before hitting the fence! She must have really put her foot down! When you consider that the store has been there about ten years or so and that there are approx 20 parking spaces in the same row and think about how many people have parked there day in day out for the last ten years. And then compare that with how many times this has happened (only once!) you'd see that the risk of it happening are actually very, very slim! It's clearly the old lady's fault, there is nobody to blame but herself. I'm glad she's ok and wasn't seriously injured but i really do hope it's made her realise that she is no longer safe to be behind the wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy lady Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 Erm, why?? As damophoto said, not only did she mount the kerb, she then continued all the way across the gravel path before hitting the fence! She must have really put her foot down! When you consider that the store has been there about ten years or so and that there are approx 20 parking spaces in the same row and think about how many people have parked there day in day out for the last ten years. And then compare that with how many times this has happened (only once!) you'd see that the risk of it happening are actually very, very slim! It's clearly the old lady's fault, there is nobody to blame but herself. I'm glad she's ok and wasn't seriously injured but i really do hope it's made her realise that she is no longer safe to be behind the wheel. My point, which appears to have been ignored is that the store still has a responsibility. No one is denying that the old dear caused the accident. However a person simply shouldn't he able to drive off the edge of a supermarket car park and down a bank. The same could be said about the filling station. A bad driver cannot be stopped from driving into a petrol pump from time to time. However if a small collision were to knock down a pump and cause a fire then that would indicate negligence of the part of the site owner. ---------- Post added 04-12-2012 at 20:06 ---------- This woman had parked her car with the rear wheels touching the kerb. So as not to stand on the gravel to put her shopping in the boot, she decided to move it forward. Instead, she put it in reverse and failed to stop after some 8 feet, by which time gravity had taken over and there was no going back from the incline. Sorry but in my mind, she herself is to blame, no-one else. It may seem stupid but risk assessments are required to take into account what might be a stupid act. The fact that the accident happened showed that the risk existed. I will imagine that your store managers are being instructed to make alterations to ensure that in similar circumstances the same cannot happen in future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 She sounds like she needs to give up driving. How old is she? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thistledoo Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 My point, which appears to have been ignored is that the store still has a responsibility. No one is denying that the old dear caused the accident. However a person simply shouldn't he able to drive off the edge of a supermarket car park and down a bank. The same could be said about the filling station. A bad driver cannot be stopped from driving into a petrol pump from time to time. However if a small collision were to knock down a pump and cause a fire then that would indicate negligence of the part of the site owner. ---------- Post added 04-12-2012 at 20:06 ---------- It may seem stupid but risk assessments are required to take into account what might be a stupid act. The fact that the accident happened showed that the risk existed. I will imagine that your store managers are being instructed to make alterations to ensure that in similar circumstances the same cannot happen in future. OH....I see how it works now!!!....So some idiot might decide to dive full force head first into a pane of glass in a supermarket door , but the supermarket would be liable. A risk assessment should have spotted that this could happen and have made the windows out of big soft cushions to prevent injury to the idiot!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fudbeer Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 The law seem to be more concerned with persecuting safety conscious motorists at speed traps, Phil. Yep cause thats where the money is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
damophoto Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 However if a small collision were to knock down a pump and cause a fire then that would indicate negligence of the part of the site owner. So I presume you expect everyone to complete a risk assessment when you go out in your car? If I had an accident and ended up in your garden, should I be suing you for negligence! I'm sorry to say this but it's people with attitudes like yours that has spread the 'claim society'. This was an accident. An error of judgement made by the driver. Only the DRIVER is at fault. A risk assessment is there to identify and reduce risk. Not to go to the extent of protecting people who clearly shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car! ---------- Post added 04-12-2012 at 20:50 ---------- It may seem stupid but risk assessments are required to take into account what might be a stupid act. The fact that the accident happened showed that the risk existed. Actually, no they aren't. Risk assessments are done to reduce the risk through activities conducted by the company. If there was no kerb or gravel separation and no fence, then it would be different. In this case, there is ample separation from the carpark edge to the drop. You cannot complete a risk assessment for every eventuality that might happen! If you had to do that, no company would be able to let a customer through the doors!! ---------- Post added 04-12-2012 at 21:02 ---------- I will imagine that your store managers are being instructed to make alterations to ensure that in similar circumstances the same cannot happen in future. I imagine your wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingus Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 So I presume you expect everyone to complete a risk assessment when you go out in your car? If I had an accident and ended up in your garden, should I be suing you for negligence! I'm sorry to say this but it's people with attitudes like yours that has spread the 'claim society'. This was an accident. An error of judgement made by the driver. Only the DRIVER is at fault. A risk assessment is there to identify and reduce risk. Not to go to the extent of protecting people who clearly shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car! ---------- Post added 04-12-2012 at 20:50 ---------- Actually, no they aren't. Risk assessments are done to reduce the risk through activities conducted by the company. If there was no kerb or gravel separation and no fence, then it would be different. In this case, there is ample separation from the carpark edge to the drop. You cannot complete a risk assessment for every eventuality that might happen! If you had to do that, no company would be able to let a customer through the doors!! ---------- Post added 04-12-2012 at 21:02 ---------- I imagine your wrong. The biggest company of ambulance chasing solicitors is based in Sheffield. "If there's an accident there's a claim. If there's been an accident there has been a failure on behalf of the businesses duty of care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel22 Posted December 5, 2012 Share Posted December 5, 2012 She sounds like she needs to give up driving. How old is she? Not sure exactly, just know she's in her 70's. EDIT: My mistake, just been informed that she is actually 82!! And Sainsbury's are charging her (well, her insurance) for the fence to be repaired! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.