Last summer, I went on a coach tour of parts of western USA which was FANTASTIC! (Archers holidays). The tour guide was brilliant, the hotels were good to fabulous and we made some new friends along the way. Memories to savour and a holiday that will struggle to be topped.
We covered: Los Angeles, Palm Springs, Phoenix, Scottsdale, Williams, Grand Canyon, Seligman, Las Vegas, Mammoth Lakes, Yosemite National Park, Sonora, Sacamento, San Francisco.
Sad to hear about the passing of a legendary actor (good innings at 93 though). Dracula was before my time but my dad recalls it well. I know him mostly from watching The Man With The Golden Gun on numerous occasions, Star Wars, LOTR and The Hobbit.
That will also have a big psychological impact on her and may restrict her career aspirations. I feel sorry for her and she deserves compensation but I know only too well from a serious incident that almost killed my dad that money can't even begin to compensate for such serious life changing injuries.
Purely from a legal point of view, I find this very interesting as negligence was always one of my favourite subjects.
Does the defendant owe the claimant a duty of care? - A clear yes in this case
Has the defendant breached that duty? - Again we can say yes here and Nick Varney stated that safety was inadequate
Did the breach cause the loss/injury? - Once again a clear yes
There is also sufficient proximity between the defendant and their actions or lack thereof and the claimants
The solicitors for the claimants will have this covered comfortably and Merlin will have their own in-house solicitors who will now seek to mitigate as best they can and settle up.
Merlin of course should have an expensive and comprehensive insurance policy which will cover them for legal expenses and compensation incurred through negligence etc. and it will probably cover them for the loss suffered by being closed. This is speculation of course as I haven't seen their policy but it seems probable that the cover would be fairly extensive.
A couple of updates this evening. One of the teenage victims is sadly in critical condition apparently and her lawyer has already said that substantial damages are on the cards and the possibility of criminal prosecution.
I just thought I would post this quickly as a tip. Consumers as you are doubtless aware, are afforded statutory protection of goods they buy, courtesy of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. When dealing in the course of a business however, you get no such protection if the seller excludes any such liability by way of small print. Presuming of course that the small print satisfies the requirements of reasonableness.
It is easy to assume for example that if you run a shop and need to keep the place tidy and purchase a vacuum cleaner from Argos in the name of your company, that the seller (Argos) can rely on small print and exclude your SOGA rights. However, to be deemed as dealing in the course of a business and therefore allowing the seller to rely on such small print, there must be a sufficient degree of regularity to the purchases and the purchase must be integral to the running of the business.
A one off purchase that is merely incidental to the running of a business means that you deal as a consumer and are afforded the protection.
This has been a most interesting discussion and I'm glad I started it off. I must say that only recently I got into the inside lane on the A38 in plenty of time (400 yards until overtaking lane closed) and sat there crawling along in the traffic.
Nobody went past at all so the outside lane was empty. I sat there practically itching to go into the overtaking lane but I was held back by the knowledge that I would either be blocked by someone moving into the overtaking lane on purpose or that the cars would bunch up real close and stop me from going back to the inside lane again once the cones started.
I think I need to join this apparent revolution. My approach would not be to go very slow down the outside but nor would I go zooming past. Just a nice steady, safe cruising pace and then see what response I get when I indicate to go back to the inside...
Copied from video description: Alfa Romeo was indicating left but went straight on! This is not picked up on either the front or rear cameras despite the wide angle lens. He acknowledged his error and apologised as you can see in the footage from the rear camera after I activated my left and right indicators very briefly to point out why I pulled out. He obviously got the message so I put my hand up to acknowledge his apology. - Footage from Roadhawk DC-2.
This isn't the usual topic looking for opinions on whether or not to bother and I've already sent a PM to a couple of members who approve of V-Power, this is just feedback.
Firstly I didn't do this for extra MPG and I reckon it cost me about an extra £7 to fill up. In all the time I've had the ST, I've always used Shell Fuelsave unleaded. Recently, I've let a couple of tanks run to 0 miles until empty.
I tried V-Power which I thought would clear any crap in the tank and the first drive showed no difference at all. Now it has had chance to get through the system though, there is a noticeable difference.
When I put my foot on the accelerator, there is an instant response, very eager indeed even with a lighter foot. The car just feels like it wants to pounce at every opportunity and feels more lively. The car was never slow to respond before but it is more eager now.
I would recommend everyone to try a tank full every so often just to help clear any crap and to see if you can feel a difference.