I injury at Raglan Road

[LittleBuford]

You have incurred serious injuries from a fall numerous times in your life? Nobody is saying to go find a layer ever time you lose your footing for a second.

Again, how could you be 100% certain? You notice the height and shape of every flooring transition you encounter? You can feel cross slopes? You can feel insufficient slip coefficients? There are incredibly small things that are in place because they do contribute to safety. Speaking to a lawyer doesn’t mean you’re sending someone down there to go find the smallest tiniest variance from standards, but because someone else may recognize something you did not.


It’s not a question of intelligence. Not having specialize knowledge outside one’s field of specialization is not a lack of intelligence. Not noticing some small contributing factor is not a lack of intelligence. Pointing out that you do not in fact have absolute knowledge of a scenario is not an insult. There’s an old saying “A lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client” and it’s not because lawyers lack intelligence.

Again, I think it’s absolutely fine for someone to determine for themselves if they need to consult a lawyer, just as it’s fine for someone to determine that they don’t. I would no more call the former person opportunistic than I would the latter naive or not smart. It’s up to the injured party to decide what they wish to do given their own particular circumstances.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Again, I think it’s absolutely fine for someone to determine for themselves if they need to consult a lawyer, just as it’s fine for someone to determine that they don’t. I would no more call the former person opportunistic than I would the latter “not smart”. It’s up to the injured party to decide what they wish to do given their own particular circumstances.

Who said anything about someone not being smart? You’re the only one trying to make this an issue of intelligence.

So I ask once again, do you notice the trips hazards I have mentioned?

The issue isn’t someone deciding they don’t need to consult a lawyer. The issue is your declaration that you would know and recognize a situation so perfectly and totally that you are “100% sure” there were no external contributing factors, that no other person could present a different perspective or new information. You’re not claiming intelligence, you’re claiming omniscience.

 

[Minthorne]

I get knocked down but I get up again. You’re never gonna keep me down.

 

[Chi84]

This thread is once again turning into a one-on-one (or one-on-two) argument. I guess it’s not surprising, but the last time it happened posts were deleted.

 

[LittleBuford]

You’re not claiming intelligence, you’re claiming omniscience.

No. I’m claiming that people are entitled to decide for themselves what course of action to take and shouldn’t be judged for it one way or the other. Anyway, I’ve said all I can or wish to on the matter.

 

[Chi84]

No. I’m claiming that people are entitled to decide for themselves what course of action to take and shouldn’t be judged for it one way or the other.

No one has ever judged anyone for their actions other than a few posts suggesting, based on no evidence whatsoever, that the OP is greedy and trying to recover money to which she’s not entitled. At this point, you’re knocking down a straw man and arguing with yourself.

 

[BuddyThomas]

doesn't matter it happend in Raglan.

It does matter, if the restaurant was not at fault in any possible way.

 

[flynnibus]

It’s rather insulting to my intelligence to suggest that I’m incapable of deciding for myself if I fell purely by accident or because of outside factors. Were I in any doubt, I would indeed seek advice, but that’s not the scenario I outlined.

I guess that settles where you fall on the line @Chi84 highlighted...

 

[flynnibus]

Some people consult with a lawyer because they’re smart enough to know that they don’t know what they don’t know. Many times an attorney will advise a person that they don’t have a viable claim and that’s the end of it. There’s no harm in ascertaining your legal rights.

Yup, being able to 'know what you don't know' is a strength not a weakness. But hey, someone knows for sure...

 

[Chi84]

Yup, being able to 'know what you don't know' is a strength not a weakness. But hey, someone knows for sure...

I know someone who was adamantly opposed to lawyers and lawsuits until something happened to him. Of course he insisted his philosophy did not change at all but his situation was an understandable exception. Lawyers run across a lot of these exceptions.

 

[LittleBuford]

I guess that settles where you fall on the line @Chi84 highlighted...

Thanks for proving for me that it wasn’t a straw man!

 

[LittleBuford]

I know someone who was adamantly opposed to lawyers and lawsuits until something happened to him. Of course he insisted his philosophy did not change at all but his situation was an understandable exception. Lawyers run across a lot of these exceptions.

For the record, none of this applies to me. I have nothing against lawyers; on the contrary, I needed one last year and very willingly engaged his services. Some of you seem to be reading way more into my posts than I meant.

 

[Minthorne]

For the record, none of this applies to me. I have nothing against lawyers; on the contrary, I needed one last year and very willingly engaged his services. Some of you seem to be reading way more into my posts than I meant.

Shhhh - give them less to read into.

 

[BASS]

I've found this thread by turns enlightening and confusing. Some apparently knowledgeable people are saying that you always need a lawyer and/or that the establishment is automatically liable, while others are saying that you don't and that it isn't. I think I'm less clear on the issue now than I was several pages ago! (ETA: And by issue, I don't mean the OP's particular case. I'm talking about what one should do more generally.)

No. Establishments are not automatically liable (the legal term is strict liability). For example, in Florida, in order to prove negligence with let's say water on the floor, the plaintiff has to prove that the establishment knew or should have known of the water and thus had time to fix it.

So, imagine water spills on the floor and a customer slips 1 second later. Legally, there isn't much of a case there. Now, if the water is on the floor for an extended time, the establishment is going to be held responsible.

That said, practically speaking, a lot of insurers are willing to resolve cases even where liability is very questionable because of the costs of defending a lawsuit. The uncomfortable truth is that nearly every fall usually has some value even if someone is just a complete klutz because with the benefit of hindsight, arguments can be made faulting an establishment.

 

[LittleBuford]

No. Establishments are not automatically liable (the legal term is strict liability). For example, in Florida, in order to prove negligence with let's say water on the floor, the plaintiff has to prove that the establishment knew or should have known of the water and thus had time to fix it.

So, imagine water spills on the floor and a customer slips 1 second later. Legally, there isn't much of a case there. Now, if the water is on the floor for an extended time, the establishment is going to be held responsible.

That said, practically speaking, a lot of insurers are willing to resolve cases even where liability is very questionable because of the costs of defending a lawsuit. The uncomfortable truth is that nearly every fall usually has some value even if someone is just a complete klutz because with the benefit of hindsight, arguments can be made faulting an establishment.

Interesting—thanks. The threshold for demonstrating liability is higher than I would have imagined.

 

[SyracuseDisneyFan]

Are you ok?

 

[Bpmorley]

I can't speak for Reedy Creek or Orange county. Don't know which paramedics showed up. When you cross county, city, township, etc.. boundaries you can get any of them. But there will be a record of a 911 call and anytime a paramedic transports there are documents to fill out. It's a huge report here in philly. You can start by contacting the 911/311 system for that info.

 

[Tom 55]

For a number of years I was a manager of a retail store. We always were told to document anything that happened in the store or outside. Mostly to protect us. If someone slipped and fell what did they slip on type things. This made me think of the time one of the employees came in and said they had slipped and fallen on the way from there car to store. I asked for the were and when and she was very vague. Just out in parking lot. So as long as it was not on the sidewalk in front of my store it was not my issue. Got a call a few weeks later from the insurance company for the shopping plaza asking about her slip and fall. Told the truth. No injuries on here at the time and it was a rainy day and there was not wet spots on her from a fall. Never foynd out how that went. Later she had her car stolen and burned to get out of payments. Car insurance would not pay off because the ignition was not damaged. Who ever stole the car had the keys.

 

[Chip Chipperson]

It does matter, if the restaurant was not at fault in any possible way.

It could matter for insurance coverage. If the OP's medical insurance is claiming that the restaurant's insurance should cover the injury before they pay any claims themselves then the OP may need to file an incident report with Raglan Road so that their insurance provider doesn't reject the claim.

 

[Smiley/OCD]

The bottom line is, if there’s an incident out of the normal day to day experiences, fill out an incident report. As the establishment, it protects you, if you’re the person/guest, it’s to protect you…just because an incident report is filled out, doesn’t mean that there’s an impending law suit on the way…it’s a no brainer…maybe because I live in NJ, I’m jaded and it’s second nature.