Our client was making her way into the retailer\u2019s premises to look for Christmas presents. She walked across the threshold and immediately slipped and fell, landing heavily and suffering an injury to her back. Whilst she was on the floor, she realised that her trousers were soaking and the cause of her slip was liquid which had been spilled.<\/p>\n
As she was lying on the floor, two members of staff walked past her an apologised for not assisting her as \u2018they only got 10 minutes for their cigarette break\u2019!<\/p>\n
We tried to obtain CCTV footage of the incident. As we often find in these situations, it was no longer available, despite an accident report having been made by the client immediately after she had picked herself up off the wet floor.<\/p>\n
Liability was denied by the defendant\u2019s insurers. They said there was a non-slip mat in the area where she fell, there were also \u2018wet floor\u2019 cones and that their staff had been trained to deal with spillages as soon as they were aware of them. This seemed at odds with the attitude of the staff who were on their way out for their break.<\/p>\n
After discussing matters with the client further, we advised her to start court proceedings. The action was strongly defended by the retailer’s solicitors, who had taken over the claim from the insurers. We took detailed witness statements from our client and her husband, who was with her when the accident occurred. After we disclosed our witness evidence to the solicitors for the retailer they made an offer of compensation to our client which was accepted and the case settled.<\/p>\n
The retailer, via their insurers and, later, their solicitors, made much of their system for keeping customers safe. They referred in detail to the witnesses they would call to prove their system. When it came to exchanging witness evidence, a key stage in the litigation process, it transpired they did not have any witness evidence to send to us. This suggests that either they were mistaken about the witnesses they thought would support them, or, the witnesses they spoke to did nothing to help them defend their case. Cynics might say that they never had any evidence and were bluffing from the outset.<\/p>\n
What was particularly upsetting for our client was that after the claim was started, the defendant\u2019s insurers continued to deny liability and even blamed her for the accident!<\/p>\n