Man claims £1.5 million after being injured by a petal

[Blackleaf]

Commuter claims £1.5m after slipping on 'killer' petal outside florist

By CHRISTIAN GYSIN
18th July 2007
Daily Mail


It was one yellow petal lying forlornly on the ground next to Bella Patel's flower shop.

But it caused a whole bunch of problems.

A commuter who says he slipped on the floral fragment and damaged his back is claiming £1.5million in damages.

'Life turned upside down': Mr Piccolo with wife Diana


A judge has ruled in favour of bank worker Brian Piccolo, who arrived at the High Court using a walking stick, saying flower shop staff should have kept the concourse clean at Marylebone Station in Central London.

Unless both sides can agree a settlement, the amount of compensation will be assessed at a further court hearing.

Mrs Patel, 45, said the incident four years ago had already cost her £40,000 in costs and could end up ruining her.

Bella Patel, owner of Chiltern Flowers says the claim could ruin her business


She insisted there was no evidence that a petal from her shop, Chiltern Flowers, was to blame.

But 50-year-old Mr Piccolo, who has been on long-term sick leave, said his life had been turned upside down.

'I have been told my condition will probably deteriorate and I may end up in a wheelchair.'

The court heard how the fall happened on March 10, 2003, as Mr Piccolo was on his way to work at the nearby offices of BNP Paribas.

A security guard told Judge John Altman that he had seen Mr Piccolo slip on a 'yellow petal' and went on to describe it as a 'killer'.

The guard, a former RAF serviceman identified only as Mr McCready, has since left Marylebone and now works as a residential care worker.

A riot of colour: The flower shop at Marylebone train station in London run by Bella Patel

The judge ruled that staff at Chiltern Flowers should have cleaned up outside the shop, and owed Mr Piccolo a 'duty of care'.

'In the course of the shop's activities petals fell on to the concourse near the shop and I find that the presence of petals on this concourse floor presented a foreseeable hazard of slipping.'

He added that a 'clean as you go' system used by Chiltern Flowers was not effective and contained an 'unreasonable element of chance' as to whether stray petals were cleaned up.

'I find that no one had overall responsibility on a day-to-day basis for supervision and checking that the concourse was clear,' continued Judge Altman. 'It was not a safe system of work.'

The judge found that the Chiltern Railway Company - responsible for running the station - had shown 'mounting frustration' at the flower shop's failure to keep the area free of hazards.

The court heard how e-mails were sent both before and after the accident pointing out that there was debris which could pose a potential hazard to commuters.

'I find that the type of accident that was sustained by Mr Piccolo is not one that in the ordinary course of events does occur, and that the defendant has failed to establish that they had in place an effective and reasonable system for dealing with spillages,' added the judge.

He cleared the Chiltern Railway Company - which had been a second defendant in the claim - of wrongdoing and said Mr Piccolo had not contributed to his fall in any way.

Mrs Patel, who has run Chiltern Flowers for five years, said her insurance would not be able to meet the full amount of Mr Piccolo's claim.

'I have been told that our insurance runs to something like £800,000 so if the judge awards Mr Piccolo the full amount then we will be bankrupt and I will be financially ruined. I cannot believe this has been going on for so long and that the judge has now ruled against me.

'At the time this happened there was a leak in the station roof and water on the concourse could have contributed if he indeed did fall over - but we have maintained it was not a petal from our shop that was to blame.

'There has never been an incident like this since the shop opened more than 25 years ago.'

At his £280,000 detached home in Witham, Essex, Mr Piccolo said he had worked for BNP Paribas since the age of 16.

The father of two boys - Alexander, 13, and Dominic, ten - said he was hospitalised for six months after the fall.

His 44-year- old wife Diana has helped to look after him since the accident.After suffering some initial paralysis he is still struggling to walk properly and often uses a stick to help him get around.

'I was walking along minding my own business and through no fault of my own I have ended up like this,' he said.

'My life has been turned upside down. I can't do the things that I want to do with my boys or around the house.'

dailymail.co.uk

 

[#juan]

Mr Piccolo looks like an overweight, out of shape, slob, who is a likely candidate for a heart attack. Awarding this guy three million dollars would be an huge miscarriage of justice. It has already been shown that the train station roof was leaking and that the floor was wet and he wants to blame a flower petal...........nonsense.

 

[Unforgiven]

Mr Piccolo looks like an overweight, out of shape, slob, who is a likely candidate for a heart attack. Awarding this guy three million dollars would be an huge miscarriage of justice. It has already been shown that the train station roof was leaking and that the floor was wet and he wants to blame a flower petal...........nonsense.

Looks can be deceiving. But what his looks have to do with a slip and fall accident is what's nonsense. People should take care to see that what they do doesn't constitute a hazard for someone going about their normal activity within the constraints of that activity.

The only way that business can be kept in line when adhering to safety is litigation. Only a total fool would want that removed.

 

[#juan]

Looks can be deceiving. But what his looks have to do with a slip and fall accident is what's nonsense. People should take care to see that what they do doesn't constitute a hazard for someone going about their normal activity within the constraints of that activity.

The only way that business can be kept in line when adhering to safety is litigation. Only a total fool would want that removed.

My point was that Mr. Piccolo could have fallen anywhere, with or without a flower petal. What kind of shoes was he wearing? Were his shoes, and the wet floors, and his overweight, out of shape chassis the major contributors to his fall? People should be at least somewhat responsible for their own welfare. I don't know how they can say that the leaky roof was not a factor. That is nonsense

 

[Unforgiven]

My point was that Mr. Piccolo could have fallen anywhere, with or without a flower petal. What kind of shoes was he wearing? Were his shoes, and the wet floors, and his overweight, out of shape chassis the major contributors to his fall? People should be at least somewhat responsible for their own welfare. I don't know how they can say that the leaky roof was not a factor. That is nonsense

His shoes, weight, wet floors and chassis got him around all day, the day before and the day before that without a fall. Someone saw him step on the refuse that came from the shop keeper's store front that should by rights have been cleaned up.

If I drive my truck full of garbage to the dump and along the highway, hit a bump that tosses nails out on to the highway, which you inturn happen upon, blow out a couple of tires and smack into the car next to you, is it your fault that it happened because you haven't taken a skid control course, bought expensive puncture proof tires for your car and been better looking before the crash?

If the guy asked for his clothes to be dry cleaned and won that in court would it have been less his fault in your mind?

 

[#juan]

His shoes, weight, wet floors and chassis got him around all day, the day before and the day before that without a fall. Someone saw him step on the refuse that came from the shop keeper's store front that should by rights have been cleaned up.

If I drive my truck full of garbage to the dump and along the highway, hit a bump that tosses nails out on to the highway, which you inturn happen upon, blow out a couple of tires and smack into the car next to you, is it your fault that it happened because you haven't taken a skid control course, bought expensive puncture proof tires for your car and been better looking before the crash?

If the guy asked for his clothes to be dry cleaned and won that in court would it have been less his fault in your mind?

I guess it's a good thing he found that flower petal......otherwise he'd have nobody to blame. Also a good thing he found Mr. Greaves who saw the offending, "killer" flower petal.

Using your argument, how many others fell after stepping on flower petals in front of the same shop? None I think.

I want a better look at all the evidence.

 

[DurkaDurka]

I have a hard time believing the guy slipped on a peddle... the more likely scenario is he is bent over to pick up a fragment of food off the road and proceeded to tip over like a bowling pint.

 

[Unforgiven]

I guess it's a good thing he found that flower petal......otherwise he'd have nobody to blame. Also a good thing he found Mr. Greaves who saw the offending, "killer" flower petal.

Using your argument, how many others fell after stepping on flower petals in front of the same shop? None I think.

I want a better look at all the evidence.

Everybody wants to be a fly on the wall. Sadly it just won't be. But an independent witness saw it happen, accredited doctor says he suffered an injury, Judge in good standing found the business guilty and awarded the money.

Being sceptical needs more than just a denial of what is said to have happened as being the truth. If you could prove here that it is impossible to slip on a flower petal or that this guy has a history as a con artist, then maybe I could understand your scepticism.

 

[#juan]

then maybe I could understand your scepticism.

Understand my skepticism or not, it is there. I always wonder how much the lawyer had to do with this type of lawsuit. Of the 1.5 million pounds, the lawyer will take home 450,000 pounds. At the same time, I applaud your reasoning and I don't question your right to your opinion.

 

[karrie]

Mr Piccolo looks like an overweight, out of shape, slob, who is a likely candidate for a heart attack.

So if he was a skinny, healthy looking guy who fell?

What does his appearance have to do with it?

 

[karrie]

My point was that Mr. Piccolo could have fallen anywhere, with or without a flower petal. What kind of shoes was he wearing? Were his shoes, and the wet floors, and his overweight, out of shape chassis the major contributors to his fall? People should be at least somewhat responsible for their own welfare. I don't know how they can say that the leaky roof was not a factor. That is nonsense

Oh pish... his shape doesn't make him any more likely to fall than a skinny person. Heck, it gives him a wider center of gravity.

 

[#juan]

Oh pish... his shape doesn't make him any more likely to fall than a skinny person. Heck, it gives him a wider center of gravity.

Karrie for whatever reason, when lawyers are involved, I am more than a little skeptical. A few years ago I was injured in a friend's car. Almost out of the blue a lawyer contacted me in the hospital and told me he could get me a really good settlement. I hadn't called anyone so I can only assume he was one of the ambulance chasing shysters we read about. All I had to do was sue my friend. My injuries were not that severe and I was out of the hospital in a week and in a cast for four weeks. To this day I don't trust lawyers and I am skeptical of all large settlements of this sort.