Advice for Injury Compensation Claim

The accident’s that occurred in the private properties or businesses are common enough and the business or the property owner is liable to pay for the injuries if only their negligence can be proven in the court of law (Lewis, Morris & Oliphant, 2006). This incident concerning a fall and back injury caused by spillage in an Aldi supermarket falls under this category and as the legal adviser’s report; this will consider the steps that should be taken by Tamara to ensure she gets compensation for the injury caused by the accident. First, it should be stated that the supermarket is not important and the fact that is mentioned in the case that only ALDI stocks the particular brand is irrelevant in relation to the case. All businesses no matter their size or speciality are liable for the safety of the consumers on the premises. According to the occupier’s liability act 1957, the management of the store is responsible for any incident resulting in injury to any employee or customer (Buckley, 2006). Therefore, the circumstances that caused Tamara to run are irrelevant as the spillage that caused her fall and subsequent injury should be focused on (Bennett & Gibbeson, 2010). From the law and case records, it can be gleaned that the risk to safety cannot be eliminated so if the accident was caused by some action or inaction of a specific person and could be prevented then the owner of the property has been acting in a negligent manner. The negligence to remedy the issue, warning of the danger or reporting to t he authorities is deemed as statutory duties and the failure to maintain the safety of the premises is seen as negligence. The management of the safe environment is the responsibility of the property owner so in this case the Aldi supermarket authority is responsible for the situation. The Health and Safety at Work Act 1974 in this case is also applied as the maintenance of a healthy and safe working environment is based on the same principle and the supermarket is a place of employment for the staff. Even if it was not one of the staff who was responsible for the spillage that caused the accident the responsibility of the workplace falls on the employer as the customers are the people who are directly affected by the acts of the employees (Kachalia et al., 2008). The Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 also stipulates that the risks of the trips and falls in the premises need to be assed periodically by the owner or the designated person. Any employees who were on duty in the vicinity should have reported the spillage that was in front of the frozen food sections and proper steps should have been taken to remedy the situation or at least provide sufficient warning to the people to avoid any such injury. It can be easily surmised that being a person in full control of her capacities Tamara would not have run if there were a â€Å"wet floor† or danger sign in the area. So this can be easily used to prove the fact that store authority was negligent in the matter of safety from trips or falls. The Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992 is more clear on the matter as the proper condition of the floor that needs to be maintained by the owner of any premises and there needs to be a warning sign on the allocation to ensure that the customers are directed to move around the area to avoid injury. However, there was not any sign on the area of the spillage allowing Tamara to be warned of the dangers (Lewis, 2006). Therefore, the explained laws are clear on the matter of the accident that points out the responsibilities of the owners of the store and their management to prove that in this case they neglected their responsibility to ensure safety of customer sand are liable to be pay for the damages caused by their ignorance. The procedures of the claim prior to the selection of a lawyer specialised in injury claims are given below to guide the efforts of the plaintiff Tamara. The accident occurred at a place of business so the relevant regulation have already been considered on the basis of the legal support of the incident from the relevant laws and according to the details the incident can be categorised as a injury art a business premises and the type of injury is slips, trips and falls. Tamara needs to mention clearly about the people who were present at the time of the incident and the relevant pictures of other evidences regarding the incident and the cause of the incident needs to be accounted in detail for the help in the collection of supporting evidence to prove the negligence of the business owner. The Witness accounts are the most important part of p [roving the liability of the store owner (Young, 2010). An entry in the supermarket accident book needs to be recorded and facts of the incident need to be reviewed to ensure the veracity of the account. Records of any medical examinations is also paramount to the claim and the documentation that presents the expense of the treatment is extremely important in determining the amount to e paid by the responsible organization Aldi in recompense. In this case, the injury was extensive and the medical reports detailing the extent of the injury need to be provided as proof of the extent of the injury. The loss of income for the period Tamara was hospitalized and rehabilitating are important in determining the amount to be claimed in compensation (Alexander, Badial & Klein, 2006). Tamara needs to ask for the CCTV footage of the store monitoring the location so Tamara can present the details of the incident at the court as plaintiff. The supermarket Aldi is liable to provide the record of the incident under the freedom of information act 2000. The report outline both the procedures of making the claim and the specifics of the incident in terms of the different laws applicable in the scenario to give credence to the case and aligns the specific case with the legalities applicable in the laws. Therefore, the report can easily guide Tamara through the initial processes of the claim before hiring an expert lawyer. Alexander, D. A., Badial, R., & Klein, S. (2006). Personal injury compensation: no claim without pain?. The Psychiatrist, 30(10), 373-375. Bennett, L., & Gibbeson, C. (2010). Perceptions of occupiers' liability risk by estate managers: a case study of memorial safety in English cemeteries. International Journal of Law in the Built Environment, 2(1), 76-93. Buckley, R. A. (2006). Occupiers' Liability in England and Canada. Common Law World Review, 35(3), 197-215. Kachalia, A. B., Mello, M. M., Brennan, T. A., & Studdert, D. M. (2008). Beyond negligence: avoidability and medical injury compensation. Social science & medicine, 66(2), 387-402. Lewis, R. (2006). How important are insurers in compensating claims for personal injury in the UK?. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance Issues and Practice, 31(2), 323-339. Lewis, R., Morris, A., & Oliphant, K. (2006). Tort Personal Injury Claim Statistics: Is there a Compensation Culture in the UK?’. Torts Law Journal, 14, 158. Young, D. (2010). Common sense, common safety. Cabinet Office, HM Government, London.