Morrisons Accident

Making a personal injury claim due to a Morrisons accident 0333 666 0082

If you have suffered a Morrisons accident that was no fault of your own, you may be able to make a Morrisons accident claim for compensation.

Making your claim is easy with the help of interRisk Solutions and our personal injury specialists.

We have worked in the personal injury compensation industry for many years and the team and very knowledgeable in making a claim for compensation as a result of an accident in a supermarket such as a morons accident.

There are many reasons that an accident claim occurs as a result of a Morrisons accident such as slip on a grape, slip on a spillage of being hurt as a result of damaged shop shelving or display units that have resulted in your Morrisons accident.

Your Morrisons accident could also be as a result of packaging of boxes being left in the isle where someone could easily fall.

Many cases do not win because the claimant did not fill in or request to fill in the Morrisons accident book. It is therefore imperative that you do so.

Duty of Care in a Morrisons Accident

Tesco will be deemed to be responsible for your safety as a customer visiting their premises. This is a legal duty of care bestowed on all businesses operating a retail outlet, under the provisions of the Occupiers’ Liability Act 1957.  Tesco must take all reasonable steps to keep their customers reasonably safe while on premises or property owned by the company.

How making a claim against Morrisons Accident can help other shoppers

You can play an important part in helping to create a safer shopping environment for other people at a Morrisons store by ensuring that a similar type of Morrisons Accident does not occur again. After a successful Morrisons Accident claim has been made against Morrisons supermarket for compensation, it is customary for their insurers to seek a positive change in any procedures within the store in question, which may have caused the Morrisons accident. The relevant staff at the store will usually be advised by Morrisons Accident insurers to rectify any unsafe procedures, and the management will be tasked with the job of ensuring that any new safety measures are implemented and maintained.

Ward -v- Tesco Stores Ltd; CA 1976

The claimant slipped on the contents of a yoghurt pot which had spilled onto the floor of the supermarket. The defendants gave evidence of frequent inspection and sweeping of the supermarket floor with instructions to the staff to clear up spillages wherever they were noticed, but they did not adduce any evidence as to when the store had last been brushed before the plaintiff’s accident. There was no evidence before the Court as to whether the floor had been brushed a few moments before the accident or as long as an hour or an hour and a half earlier so that the Court was left without information on what was an important matter. In those circumstances the trial judge considered that prima facie the accident would not have happened, had the defendants taken reasonable care.
Held: It was not for the plaintiff to have to show how long it had been there. This sort of accident did not happen in the ordinary course of events if the floor was kept clean and spillages dealt with as soon as they occurred. The probability was that the spillage had been on the floor long enough to be dealt with. Hence there was an evidential burden on the defendant to show that accident did not arise from want of proper care on their part. Ormrod LJ dissented.
Megaw LJ said: “It is for the plaintiff to show that there has occurred an event which was unusual and which in the absence of explanation is more consistent with fault on the part of the defendants than absence of fault.” and
“When the plaintiff has established that the defendants can still escape from liability they could escape from liability if they could show that the accident must have happened, or even on balance of probability would have been likely to have happened, even if there had been in existence a proper and adequate system in relation to the circumstances to provide for the safety of customers. But if the defendants wish to put forward such a case it is for them to show that on the balance of probability either by evidence or by inference from the evidence that is given or is not given this accident would have been at least equally likely to have happened despite a proper system designed to give reasonable protection to customers. That, in this case, they wholly failed to do. Really the essence of counsel for the defendant in any possible argument – and he did not shrink from it – was: “never mind whether we had no system at all; still, as the plaintiffs failed to show that the yoghurt was spilt within a few seconds before the accident, she must fail. As I have said, in the circumstances of this case, I do not think that the plaintiff, to succeed, had to prove how long it was since the defendants’ floor had become slippery.” Devlin J’s statement in Richards was not a statement of general principle.
Lawton LJ said: “Such burden of proof as there is on defendants . . is evidential, not probative. The trial Judge thought that prima facie this accident would not have happened had the defendants taken reasonable care. In my judgement he was justified in taking that view because the probabilities were that the spillage had been on the floor long enough for it to have been cleaned up by a member of the staff.”

And remember all of our Morrisons accident claimants receive our complimentary InterAssist Accident Assistance Cover providing you and your family with future peace of mind.

morrisons

Menu Title