"Your client is injured following a slip on a floor.
Your client was possibly inebriated, or running or wearing high heels, the defendants have denied all liability because your claimant didn’t take reasonable care for his own safety.
They also claim that their client has a thorough and monitored cleaning regime.
Usually in these situations you would not proceed as the case is weak.
However if FloorSlip Ltd could prove that the flooring was inherently unsafe and unfit for purpose (by failing to meet HSE guidelines), then we can demonstrate that the defendants have been negligent in their “Duty of Care”.
We impartially test floors to determine if a surface is unsafe using equipment approved by the Health & Safety Executive."
Was it a joke? Apparently not. There are still people out there prepared to advise clients to indulge in absurd speculative litigation. Solicitors whose clients have drunkenly toppled to their doom, or gone skating in high heels. No doubt clients who have been referred by claims management outfits. Maybe the same people who sent me texts telling me I could claim £3,750 in damages following an unnamed member of my family unprovokedly driving our car into a wall.
I do wonder if litigation solicitors would be a load better off if they dumped the crooked intermediaries and undertook less,but higher quality work. This strategy certainly works for those of us in the property field. You get more time to deal with matters properly and are able to use your fees to fund your office rather than someone else's.