"Friend" avoided a disaster at local mall ... "fun" legal question.

[Jingthing]

So here's the setup.

A "friend" was at a local mall known to close at 11 P.M.

At 5 minutes before 11 P.M. this "friend" walked at a brisk pace in order to enter a well known franchised business.

But there was a problem. The "friend" did not see that an automatic door was being rapidly lowered.

The staff yelled out and stopped the door lowering just in the nick of time.

It could have been a total disaster, I tell you.

Just for fun, if instead of a very close call, there had been a high speed collision between the head of the "friend" and lowering automatic door considering the door was going down BEFORE official closing time ... would there be a legal case to be made for damages in Thailand?

A customer in a mall has a reasonable expectation that entering a space of a store that is SUPPOSED to be open isn't going to be dropping a door onto their head. Or is that wrong?

I think there would in western countries.

Digest and discuss if you wish. 

[pgrahmm]

Some places want the days accounting/tally done along with any money working fund set for opening the following day with the money out in a safe....Yet still want the employee out of the mall at, or before, closing time.....A "chain" store might have to set up for a centralized accounting network.....

Some are allowed to start as much as 15 minutes ahead.....

They were there to warn your friend - might also be people trying to quickly enter then secrete themselves to pilfer after hours....

Not sure about the head bonk...

.....

[Katia]

I would think anyone would have a reasonable expectation that a person watches out for where they're going... if I walk into the street two feet in front of a speeding truck, not that many people are going to blame the truck driver...

[Jingthing]

1 hour ago, Katia said:

I would think anyone would have a reasonable expectation that a person watches out for where they're going... if I walk into the street two feet in front of a speeding truck, not that many people are going to blame the truck driver...

I get that but that's clear in the case of a road with traffic. 

In a mall it's more of a grey area.

If you're looking ahead at EYE LEVEL and not thinking there might be an object coming down from the TOP,  I don't think it's nearly AS clear.

Another example if you were walking down a soi with bars and a pool ball hit flew off the table at high speed and hit your head, that's really your fault for not expecting to look out for that? Balls usually stay on tables. Dangerous objects in malls don't usually drop on your head. 

[marko kok prong]

Yeah,like great post man,you should stick to those poll things you do.

[sipi]

He would be lying on the floor unconscious whilst a crowd gathered to video him on their phones then uploaded to Facebook. 

[Jingthing]

16 minutes ago, marko kok prong said:

Yeah,like great post man,you should stick to those poll things you do.

You mean thread? 

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, sipi said:

He would be lying on the floor unconscious whilst a crowd gathered to video him on their phones then uploaded to Facebook. 

That too.

 

[marko kok prong]

7 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

You mean thread? 

Whatever,have a good night man,i was just joking with ya,all good buddy.

[chickenslegs]

I would say that if there was no warning given, and the shutters were lowered as you (sorry, your "friend") passed underneath, the store would be liable - unless, of course, it could be shown that you (your "friend") were acting recklessly or with a dishonest intent.

 

I think there is a reasonable expectation, when entering a shop, that the door will not be slammed in your face nor the shutters will drop on your head.

 

[chickenslegs]

I'm picturing it was something like this ...

 

[marko kok prong]

17 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

I would say that if there was no warning given, and the shutters were lowered as you (sorry, your "friend") passed underneath, the store would be liable - unless, of course, it could be shown that you (your "friend") were acting recklessly or with a dishonest intent.

 

I think there is a reasonable expectation, when entering a shop, that the door will not be slammed in your face nor the shutters will drop on your head.

 

Would it not be 'you fliend die laeow'

[marko kok prong]

Then ; 'you mr have pay for clean of you fliend,oooowi,falang mee luet yer ,yer,ooooowi" followed by sniggers as you put your pals head in a plastic bag, "tam loop,' in struts the manager, "ooooooooooowi'.

[StreetCowboy]

1 hour ago, chickenslegs said:

I would say that if there was no warning given, and the shutters were lowered as you (sorry, your "friend") passed underneath, the store would be liable - unless, of course, it could be shown that you (your "friend") were acting recklessly or with a dishonest intent.

 

I think there is a reasonable expectation, when entering a shop, that the door will not be slammed in your face nor the shutters will drop on your head.

 

You're clearly a handsomer man than me

[chickenslegs]

1 minute ago, StreetCowboy said:

You're clearly a handsomer man than me

That is highly unlikely.

[StreetCowboy]

3 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

That is highly unlikely.

As I said a moment ago, on another thread, I'd scarcely be surprised

 

EDIT: Is he wearing a deaf-aid, or is he listening to the cricket?

[chrisinth]

Back in the day, the clock in the bar was always set to 5 minutes fast and that was the time that people followed. This avoided people referring to their own watches which could easily be +/- five minutes or more. It also gave us those extra 5 minutes to get rid of the hangers on (if it ever became an issue).

 

Perhaps a similar policy was followed by the store chain, that they followed their own timepieces for opening/closing purposes?

 

If legal action was taken against me in the description in the OP, that would be my fall-back excuse.............

[Been there done that]

10 hours ago, chickenslegs said:

I would say that if there was no warning given, and the shutters were lowered as you (sorry, your "friend") passed underneath, the store would be liable - unless, of course, it could be shown that you (your "friend") were acting recklessly or with a dishonest intent.

 

I think there is a reasonable expectation, when entering a shop, that the door will not be slammed in your face nor the shutters will drop on your head.

 

Dishonest intent. Jeeezzz halve the country would be in jail.

[Jingthing]

I

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[tonray]

Friend gets 10% coupon and sent off to hospital 

[mike324]

Most likely a guard or employee would have stopped your friend, so its highly unlikely that your friend would walk into the door being lowered. Plus majority of the time, those doors come down pretty slow and make some noise.

[pattayadon]

I got this sudden urge to watch Raiders of the lost Ark

[Jingthing]

52 minutes ago, mike324 said:

Most likely a guard or employee would have stopped your friend, so its highly unlikely that your friend would walk into the door being lowered. Plus majority of the time, those doors come down pretty slow and make some noise.

Nope.

Read the O.P.

The disaster was only avoided by a quick reaction by a staff to turn off the remote control. The head was heading for a DIRECT high speed hit. There was no stopping by anyone.

 

To add, the detail about the time may not really be so relevant. In this case it was before the mall actually closed. But you bring up a good point that there ideally should be measures in place to physically prevent people from entering during door lowering even if done at exact closing times. 

 

[Berkshire]

Perhaps the OP is using an American perspective.  The US is extremely litigious and some unscrupulous lawyer would happily take the case...and possibly win.  In Thailand, they would laugh you out of the courtroom. 

 

Of course, if you're talking defamation, well that's a whole another matter.

[1FinickyOne]

19 hours ago, Katia said:

I would think anyone would have a reasonable expectation that a person watches out for where they're going... if I walk into the street two feet in front of a speeding truck, not that many people are going to blame the truck driver...

Unless it is a hypothetical question on thai visa and then people will be blaming all Thai people because they smile or engage in polite behavior.

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, kenk24 said:

Unless it is a hypothetical question on thai visa and then people will be blaming all Thai people because they smile or engage in polite behavior.

It's not hypothetical. Read the O.P. 

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Perhaps the OP is using an American perspective.  The US is extremely litigious and some unscrupulous lawyer would happily take the case...and possibly win.  In Thailand, they would laugh you out of the courtroom. 

 

Of course, if you're talking defamation, well that's a whole another matter.

You misread my POV. Of course it would be a good case in the USA. Of course it would be a difficult case to make here. That is, perhaps, unless the brand involved was a western one. Hmm. 

To add, yes I do think a business has a responsibility to try to avoid killing customers. But whether you can hold them to that, that's another matter. 

[sipi]

Don't encourage them JT. All we need is a brigade of digital farang pikeys running headfirst into roller doors and sueing all and sundry.

[Jingthing]

27 minutes ago, sipi said:

Don't encourage them JT. All we need is a brigade of digital farang pikeys running headfirst into roller doors and sueing all and sundry.

No, we don't need that.

If nothing else, a takeaway from this thread, in malls, LOOK UP! 

[puffy]

Yes, there would be a case for legal damages.

 

The injured party would need to bring the claim to court, within one year, and if the judge 

determined the defendant acted in a negligent manner that caused injury, the injured party

would be entitled to compensation that covered his expenses loss of current and future

earnings. There can be no punitive damages.