Unofficial Christ's Hospital Forum

I just read this...

surely it can't be justified - how do you get depressed by falling on a grape... and anyway, how does anyone know that the grape came from M and S in the first place...

daft

kerrensimmonds wrote:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/em/fr/-/1/hi/e ... 289051.stm

It seems far fetched but he'll probably win .

Mid A 15 wrote:It seems far fetched but he'll probably win .

The trouble is that M&S can't afford the bad publicity. I don't think he should win but ... what I think is irrelevant.

IN the US (Home of the Brave - unless you slip on a grape-and Land of the Free - unless you are sued) M&S would be sued for loss of conjugal rights as well.

However if the wording of the affidavit (or whatever it is called)is could I think they may have scuppered the case, but then I am not a lawyer.

The 'Nanny-State' is alive and well and living in Britain !

A grape of wrath indeed.
For me this falls into the same category as those plastic cups that now have 'warning: contents hot' on them. It surely is ludicrous that people should sue over such things. Added to which, the end result is that goods and services become more expensive because the firms have to pay more for insuring against such nonsense. I've a good mind to sue the BBC for printing such a story. I am already suffering from depression just thinking about it (and the loss of earnings will almost certainly follow, as I can't work when depressed)...

If he wins I shall buy more M&S food to compensate. The case should be dismissed as vexatious.

this had me laughing this morning
1) how do you know its a M&S grape
2) how can he justify £300k as loss of earnings, etc
3) solider's seriusly injured in the Iraq war get less than half of this as compensation

Well said, Amy (esp. re comparison with soldiers).
It is said that this court case will last two days - of which I assume today is the first. Whatever is the cost to the taxpayer? Let's see what happens tomorrow...
Unfortunately I am a just a little bit depressed at the moment, having had a significant Milestone birthday two weeks ago and being very conscious of my new OAP status. Now, let's see who I could sue for that....oh dear, they are both departed to better things.

This is just plain greed and I don't think it's justified - there are far too many of these frivolous cases brought to court these days. Take this idiot:

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 69,00.html

Thankfully his case appears to have been heard by the one judge left who still has an ounce of common sense and it was thrown out. It's no different in my view to drink/driving and then attempting to sue Diageo and Peugeot for negligence. Time people stop looking to blame someone else everytime something goes wrong.

Has justice been done?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7292657.stm

At the cost of being called racist.....

Alexander Martin-Sklan, 55, from Golders Green.

Does this say it all ?

I'm glad that he has to pay costs!

Me too, Katharine.
I had my car bashed in a supermarket car park once - had to have it repaired under insurance so had to pay the excess and take a dent to my no-claims bonus.... all because the offender did not leave a message to identify themselves. I spat rage and argued with my insurance company, but the supermarket had a disclaimer about people using the car park at their own risk. I reckon this comes into the same sort of category....
Yes, I do think that in this case (as with the compulsive gambler who sued the bookies for his £2m losses), justice has been done today.
How refreshing.