5 replies to this topic

[mamabear_1018]

My 10 year old fell and hit his face on a towel disenser, which knocked his tooth loose. The investigation company for the store found the store to be liable. How is it determined how much compensation he is entitled to.

[pg1067]

If, in fact, the store assumes liability or is found by a jury to be liable (just because some investigator "found the store to be liable" doesn't mean it actually is or that it will assume liability), you, on behalf of your son, will be entitled to the cost of his medical/dental treatment. You may also be entitled to compensation if you or the child's other parent lost wages as a result of the accident. You might also be entitled to something for "pain and suffering" (given the nature of the injury described, I wouldn't expect much more than a nominal amount for this).

[FindLaw_AHK]

To learn more about this subject, you may wish to read Slip and Fall Injures as a good resource. I also suggest you consult with a local Lawyer for further clarification on your claim.

[Whitster]

It is extremely rare for any entity to accept liability for a slip and fall accident. So, I would suggest exploiting the situation before they change their mind.
Compensation can be had for medical expenses and mental anguish. They will probably not offer more than a nominal sum for this relatively minor incident.

[adjusterjack]

If, in fact, the store assumes liability or is found by a jury to be liable (just because some investigator "found the store to be liable" doesn't mean it actually is or that it will assume liability), you, on behalf of your son, will be entitled to the cost of his medical/dental treatment. You may also be entitled to compensation if you or the child's other parent lost wages as a result of the accident. You might also be entitled to something for "pain and suffering" (given the nature of the injury described, I wouldn't expect much more than a nominal amount for this).

This may be splitting hairs but it's the child that would be entitled to compensation for the injury (if the store was liable) not the parent. The parent would be acting on behalf of the child in making the claim.

[pg1067]

This may be splitting hairs but it's the child that would be entitled to compensation for the injury (if the store was liable) not the parent. The parent would be acting on behalf of the child in making the claim.

It is splitting hairs, and whether your statement is correct depends on the laws of the state where this occurred, which the poster didn't identify.