No win, no fee compensation and plummeting pineapples


The news media appear to have been enjoying the story of a woman making a no win, no fee compensation claim as the result of a plummeting pineapple this week; the Press Association even referred to the case as one involving "pineapple clunks".

Perhaps it's because it carries echoes of peasants in the stocks or bad comedians having fruit thrown at them that it does carry a certain level of humour. However, it should be remembered that the details of the case are that a pensioner in her 70s was knocked to the ground by the falling fruit, which landed on the back of her head with sufficient force to give her lasting whiplash injury.

The woman told the press, "My vision was blurred. I could not think straight. I sat there for a while and got my bearings. I didn't dare drive home, so I got them to phone my sister and come and pick me up...

"My neck is still sore," she added. "When I'm driving I can't turn and see what is coming. It's a horrible feeling."

Put in these terms, it seems fair enough that she should be eligible to make a personal injury claim, doesn't it? Admittedly, I work for a no win, no fee compensation firm, so I may be predisposed to believe that, but surely the long-term effects that impede her life should be respected.

It has been suggested that the target of her claim is wrong, and that the customer that knocked the pineapple off the upper shelf is to blame; on the other hand, it has also been suggested that risk assessments should prevent heavy round things from being stored on upper shelves to avoid this precise form of accident injury. Deciding which is the more convincing argument is what the compensation claim would seek to establish.

The supermarket has commented "Customer safety is very important to us and we are looking into what happened. Our best wishes are with [the personal injury sufferer] for a speedy recovery. As this matter is in the hands of our insurance team, we're unable to comment further."

Oddly enough, no-one has pointed out the innate tendencies of the fruit involved. It's well known that some people have an adverse reaction to the acids in its flesh, which can burn their mouths and cause digestive problems. And fans of jelly will tell you how chunks of pineapple will eat their way through the dessert thanks to a vicious enzyme that cuts through the effects of the gelatine.

Perhaps the fruit itself, then, is the spiky culprit in this no win, no fee compensation claim?


Can I claim?