Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

[Mineral1]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

10-25K? I take it from that level of claim they think the glass shattered and caused them to fall down the stairs?
I ended up in A and E last week, tried to press a rubbish sack into the bin and my hand slipped on the plastic ended up slicing my wrist open on something razor sharp in another bag.
It was down to A and E for a tetanus shot and a few stitches then out, 2 hours..... Wrist bandaged for a week... Is that worth 10-25K????? Wish it was.... Have a look at the levels of payouts for a personal accident insurance policy.... More £250
If they go into court and you defend I can't see a Judge ignoring that. I would also have to ask again, who with lies the liability? If the stairs were worn or damaged and subject to somebody elses liability does that not make them in turn liable? Also surely the injury suffered from fall down stairs far greater than a poxy scratch?

[Tools]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

He's clearly trying it on. Sodding "Where there's blame there's a claim" culture inherited from our American cousins

[des8]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

The form is actually for claims starting at £1000 not £10,000. but the solicitor is going for the max up to £25000 (he hopes)

The description of the accident is a bit sparse.
No description of what caused the breakage, or how the watch was being worn. (how do you break the watch glass if it is against the skin?)

SGS certificate applies to Russia.

I still don't understand how they can claim you are liable for the accident. Possibly liable for injury from broken watch glass, but not liable for the accident.
This claim has all the hallmarks of "make a claim" and it will be "passed to insurers" who will cough up a sum which will be smaller than the cost of defending to the insurers.

[Mineral1]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

He's clearly trying it on. Sodding "Where there's blame there's a claim" culture inherited from our American cousins

I agree... Write back tell them how sorry to hear of his accident and offer him a free replacement watch as a gesture of good will and remind the paralegal that unless they want to put up undisputed evidence of massive and life changing injuries you invite them to withdraw their claim to save unwarranted costs... I would also point them to any online personal accident insurance policy and remind them no judge is going to award an justified and outrageous compensation claim

[Mineral1]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

And just to make this point.... A few years ago I carried a man over my shoulders out of an old lead mine after a chunk of the roof fell on his leg, left him with his leg hanging like a rag doll... It had a hole in it the size of your fist and I had to hold him while a Mountain Rescue Medic set the thing.... Now that is a life changing injury.... How much?????? I think he got £7000 give or take from his personal accident insurance.....
So there you go... I give advice on line and drag friends out of collapsing mines... I am truly versatile!!!:tongue2:

[Tools]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

After reviewing the full document trail I'll explain for others.

The "accident" accured at 02:00am the early hours of Saturday 10th January 2015 whilst the claimant was at a friends house, no ther details are known other than below.

Later in the day on the 10th January the claimants sister messaged the OP's "Shop" via Facebook asking what material the clear watch backing was made of and to make the OP aware that the watch had broken resulting in a cut which was dealt with at A&E by way of stitches. After no reply she contacted the OP again via Facebook on the 13th January where the OP answered that the material was "general" watch material.

On the 27th January the sister then emailed, asking in the watch was subject to the BS ISO 23160:2011 Watch cases and accessories standards following speaking to a "professional", restating what the OP had been told via Facebook. In the claimants sister's email she states

xxx fell down a few steps whilst wearing a watch from your site, the watch broke whilst on his wrist and the glass stuck into his arm. This resulted in a visit to A&E and three stitches to his wrist. The watch is now absolutely useless and is full of blood and my brother is left with a scar on his arm.

The watch itself has both a glass face and a partial glass backing, to allow view of the inner workings.

The cut is probably 2-3cm and in effect created a half moon shaped flap of skin that leaves no lasting damage but may leave a small scar. It would not prevent the claimant from working.

Fast forward to 26th February 2015 when the OP received the linked claim form.

No mention of the fall is stated on the claim form.

The reason for the claim is

The claimant sustained injury to his hand when the glass underneath ghis watch which was manufactured by the Defendant smashed when the claimant was wearing the watch. The matter has been reported to the Defendant

[Tools]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

Just establishing a few more facts before posting further

[des8]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

The SGS certificate mentioned earlier is a certificate of conformity to Technical Regulations in Russia.
The BS ISO number indicates the standards suggested by the International Organization for Standardization.
Full members adopt ISO standards nationally. As both China and Russia are full members, the OP can probably claim that he could assume that the watches complied with those standards
The following quote from http://www.standardsuk.com/bsi/briti...blications.php Is interesting:"British Standards are not generally used as law or to impose regulations; but are rather designed to be used voluntarily to help manufacturers, users and consumers. However, some laws or legal regulations do make compliance with a British or ISO standard compulsory"

I think the "claimant" has a long way to go to prove the OP is liable for anything

[Tools]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

The OP has also sent the customer a replacement watch as a gesture of goodwill.

[Mineral1]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

After reviewing the full document trail I'll explain for others.

The "accident" accured at 02:00am the early hours of Saturday 10th January 2015 whilst the claimant was at a friends house, no ther details are known other than below.

Later in the day on the 10th January the claimants sister messaged the OP's "Shop" via Facebook asking what material the clear watch backing was made of and to make the OP aware that the watch had broken resulting in a cut which was dealt with at A&E by way of stitches. After no reply she contacted the OP again via Facebook on the 13th January where the OP answered that the material was "general" watch material.

On the 27th January the sister then emailed, asking in the watch was subject to the BS ISO 23160:2011 Watch cases and accessories standards following speaking to a "professional", restating what the OP had been told via Facebook. In the claimants sister's email she states


The watch itself has both a glass face and a partial glass backing, to allow view of the inner workings.

The cut is probably 2-3cm and in effect created a half moon shaped flap of skin that leaves no lasting damage but may leave a small scar. It would not prevent the claimant from working.

Fast forward to 26th February 2015 when the OP received the linked claim form.

No mention of the fall is stated on the claim form.

The reason for the claim is

So claimant is hoping for 10-25 thou for the above????????? I doubt a personal accident policy would pay out a penny for such.. Or is this first day of April already?
If the watch was metal it could in extremes gash the skin under such, when you fall depending on how you land you can cause extreme force to be exerted on any edge that contacts the ground first. If you hit a chisel into rock the tip exerts a force of between 2000 and 5000 tons per sq Inch.

[Mineral1]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

The OP has also sent the customer a replacement watch as a gesture of goodwill.

Maybe best if OP advises claimant not to try swallowing the watch.... Just in case...
:tongue2:

[Tools]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

From the photos it does definitely look as if the backing has broken, however the face is still intact.

I think they are just trying it on and suspect there may have been an element of liquid leg disabler involved. Only the medical records from the hospital would show that but I doubt it will even get that far. They need to be sent an Arkell v Pressdram response, but I'm just waiting on some more info by email from the OP 1st.

[Mineral1]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

I don't think even in America they payout such sums for minor injury, even the whiplash claims tend to be in the low thousands....

[des8]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

[QUOTE=Mineral1;528895]So claimant is hoping for 10-25 thou for the above????????? I doubt a personal accident policy would pay out a penny for such.. Or is this first day of April already?

Apologies for going off topic slightly but comparing the OP's situation with Personal Accident policies is like comparing apples to pears.
PA policies for a premium pay out an agreed amount for a specific injury eg PTD of a hand £20.000.
( The premiums depend on a number of factors including the level of indemnity chosen by he policy holder)
Now if that injury had been caused by a faulty tool sold to the user who was an international pianist the seller would be liable for pain, distress (general damages) and loss of future earnings (special damages.
The courts would set the amount if agreement is not made between the parties.
The compensation would bear no relationship to the amount agreed under a PA policy.

Having said that, I do agree the amount of damages likely to be awarded for a small cut is extremely small. A broken arm is likely to attract about £5000.
The amount of general damages is calculated taking into account several factors, including the "Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injuries Cases"

[Mineral1]

Re: Defending Wristwatch Personal Injury Claim - Product Liability

[QUOTE=des8;529161]

So claimant is hoping for 10-25 thou for the above????????? I doubt a personal accident policy would pay out a penny for such.. Or is this first day of April already?

Apologies for going off topic slightly but comparing the OP's situation with Personal Accident policies is like comparing apples to pears.
PA policies for a premium pay out an agreed amount for a specific injury eg PTD of a hand £20.000.
( The premiums depend on a number of factors including the level of indemnity chosen by he policy holder)
Now if that injury had been caused by a faulty tool sold to the user who was an international pianist the seller would be liable for pain, distress (general damages) and loss of future earnings (special damages.
The courts would set the amount if agreement is not made between the parties.
The compensation would bear no relationship to the amount agreed under a PA policy.

Having said that, I do agree the amount of damages likely to be awarded for a small cut is extremely small. A broken arm is likely to attract about £5000.
The amount of general damages is calculated taking into account several factors, including the "Guidelines for the Assessment of General Damages in Personal Injuries Cases"

I do believe the Personal Accident Policy sums pay out along those general sorts of guidelines? Yes they work to set payouts but specialists eg pianists would need to insure according to specific risks to their livelihoods or risk being seriously undercovered. Could be wrong though.... I stand corrected if so