Tweet
In June my wife, who at the time was 78, slipped and fractured her left wrist whilst walking around the swimming pool at a local hotel when she attended her aqua arerobics class.
At the time there were no mats on the floor on that section and at least one witness she has will state there was more water on the floor than normal. There are general warning signs in the pool but there were no specific signs (the yellow traingles often used) on the floor to indicate an excess of water hazard. According to the general manager of the hotel who saw my wife having coffee in the lounge with friends a few days later there was no legal requirement for the hotel to have mats as the floor was anti slip treated.
My wife has lodged a claim which is being dealt with as part of our house insurance so there is no fee as far as we are concerned.
The solicitor acting for my wife has just written to her to say that the other party, not surprisingly, have written to say that they will not accept responsibility because:
The surround of the pool was foreseeably wet and therefore due care should have been taken
The solicitor has requested all documents from the other side and will update in due course and I expect these will include records as to when the pool surround anti slip treatment has been applied, amongst others.
Although we have not been asked to respond to the letter we feel we should make our views known as the reason given by the other side is a statement of the blindingly obvious . My wife has been going to the aqua arerobics class for over 20 years and most of the members range from their mid sixties upward so none of them would be running around and failing to take due diligence. Had there been mats on that section of the pool surround my wife would most likely not have fallen and despite what the general manger told her mats were laid a few days later.
My question is whether the reason given by the other side is a satisfactory denial of liability i.e there was water on the floor so you shouldn't fall under any circumstances, and what wording could we use in our reply to my wife's solicitor that would highlight how pathetic we think the denial is.
Thanks
At the time there were no mats on the floor on that section and at least one witness she has will state there was more water on the floor than normal. There are general warning signs in the pool but there were no specific signs (the yellow traingles often used) on the floor to indicate an excess of water hazard. According to the general manager of the hotel who saw my wife having coffee in the lounge with friends a few days later there was no legal requirement for the hotel to have mats as the floor was anti slip treated.
My wife has lodged a claim which is being dealt with as part of our house insurance so there is no fee as far as we are concerned.
The solicitor acting for my wife has just written to her to say that the other party, not surprisingly, have written to say that they will not accept responsibility because:
The surround of the pool was foreseeably wet and therefore due care should have been taken
The solicitor has requested all documents from the other side and will update in due course and I expect these will include records as to when the pool surround anti slip treatment has been applied, amongst others.
Although we have not been asked to respond to the letter we feel we should make our views known as the reason given by the other side is a statement of the blindingly obvious . My wife has been going to the aqua arerobics class for over 20 years and most of the members range from their mid sixties upward so none of them would be running around and failing to take due diligence. Had there been mats on that section of the pool surround my wife would most likely not have fallen and despite what the general manger told her mats were laid a few days later.
My question is whether the reason given by the other side is a satisfactory denial of liability i.e there was water on the floor so you shouldn't fall under any circumstances, and what wording could we use in our reply to my wife's solicitor that would highlight how pathetic we think the denial is.
Thanks
Comment