Friday, 1 November 2013

You Have Got To Be Kidding Me..!?

A woman who was mauled by a dog while at work in Lincoln has been awarded £11,500.
Ruth Henderson suffered multiple injuries including a fractured neck, broken hand, and permanent scars on her left thigh.
It happened when the 68-year-old was carrying out a market research survey at a house in Tower Avenue on February 23, 2010.
Hurrah! It’s about time the irresponsible owners of dangerous dogs faced massive bills. This, along with the news that a dog owner who wouldn’t admit fault for his dog biting a postman is having to fork out an eye-watering sum of money, is very welcome news.

Oh. Wait a minute…
Employers IPSOS Mori were ordered by Northampton County Court to pay Ms Anderson £11,500.
Her…employers?!? Just how were they at fault?
Jayne Campbell, personal injury lawyer at Slater and Gordon, said: “Ruth was the victim of a terrifying dog attack which resulted in serious injuries to her hand as well as severe emotional trauma.
“This injury may have been avoided if her employers had given her the correct training to deal with the situation.”
*speechless*
at

6 comments:

  1. Anonymous1 November 2013 at 11:51

    Bunny

    Or they could have given her a revolver.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tatty1 November 2013 at 12:48

    So, to avoid paying out in future, they will now provide "correct training" ?

    Employees to be forced to confront vicious dogs as part of their contract 'cos, y'know, they've been trained to do so and so have no excuse not to ?

    No, I don't think so. More likely told to avoid houses with obvious dog presence.

    Still, if you don't own a dog and it saves ONE unwelcome cold-caller knocking at the door....http://www.freesfx.co.uk/soundeffects/dogs/

    ReplyDelete
  3. Peter MacFarlane1 November 2013 at 15:06

    Well it's pretty obvious really - the ambulance-chasing lawyer scum went after her employers because they (or rather, their insurers) would actually have some money and would actually hand it over on losing the case.

    Unlike the owners of the dog, who (a) would have no money (b) would not hand it over even if they did and (c) against whom, mysteriously, it would be impossible to find anyone prepared to testify.

    Simples.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Furor Teutonicus1 November 2013 at 16:15

    XX It happened when the 68-year-old was carrying out a market research survey at a house in Tower Avenue on February 23, 2010.

    Hurrah! It’s about time the irresponsibleXX Market survey researchers got their just deserves!

    Who the HEL do they think THEY are, intruding on my private space as if it was their right to do so?

    Just a pitty you can not throw a dog down the telephone line.

    ReplyDelete
  5. andy2 November 2013 at 12:23

    and just what is the correct training for a viscious dog?

    "Put the front sight onto the target and squeeze the trigger" ?

    ReplyDelete
  6. JuliaM4 November 2013 at 05:57

    "Or they could have given her a revolver."

    Maybe all MORI pollsters will demand pepper spray? Won't that be fun!

    "More likely told to avoid houses with obvious dog presence."

    That'll cut down of their sample selection!

    "... because they (or rather, their insurers) would actually have some money and would actually hand it over on losing the case."

    Sadly, most likely... :/

    "Just a pitty you can not throw a dog down the telephone line."

    Heh!

    "and just what is the correct training for a viscious dog?"

    Well, indeed! A few games on the new 'Call Of Duty', maybe?

    ReplyDelete