[ad_1]
The court ordered that the woman be awarded 1,000 euros in non-pecuniary damage and 223 euros in court costs. The applicant, Lidl, is also ordered to pay the costs in the amount of EUR 3,100.
The woman demanded a much larger amount. Initially she demanded compensation of about 15 thousand euros, then she withdrew part of her claims.
M. Berletienė demanded compensation from Lidl for material damage: 735 euros. Damaged clothing and a handbag were highly appreciated, because the items smelled strong after the event and had to be thrown away. It is also requested to cover the loss of income of 10,844 EUR. The woman owns a business, has a cafe, and worked in the kitchen herself. Due to the disaster, she was unable to work for two months and had to be interrupted, as she had also recently left her job as an assistant. Lidl was also ordered to pay 1,500 non-pecuniary damages and all costs.
Although the woman suffered and the court decided to reimburse the woman for them, the amount awarded was small. The court woman was not convinced that she had lost that income. It is just a hypothetical assumption that you received precisely that income. No evidence was provided of the value of the damaged items.
Slipped on liquid
On November 13, 2018, while visiting the Lidl store in Klaipėda, the woman slipped into the common areas. As she appeared in court, she fell with all her weight on the pavement, hitting her head, back and arms with force. For these reasons, she was unable to work until mid-January. About this case 15 minutes already published previously.
The documents presented by M. Berletienė indicate to the court that his clothing had been damaged and, due to the injuries, he was unable to work in his own company, a cafe, and his activities had to be restricted. The supermarket does not agree with the requirements, does not admit fault and motivates that another customer poured the bleach in the Lidl store, and the store employees reacted very quickly, from the spill to the disaster response and the cleanup took only five minutes.
Lidl disagreed with the allegations, arguing that the video showed that the reaction to the incident was quick and the attitude towards the customer was respectful and honest: the napkins were offered for cleaning, served without queuing, and there was no need to pay for the products. Lidl suspected that the clothes had actually been thrown away or that it could be justified that no income had been received for health reasons, especially since the woman went to the doctor the next day. The woman said she was not only the director of the company, but also the head chef of the cafe, but Lidl questioned how it could be proven. In addition, the woman received a benefit from Sodra for her illness and her company is not involved in the case.
[ad_2]
