by randy carvell » Fri Mar 29, 2013 05:49 pm
My car was hit by a cart while I was shopping. I had parked away from everone else but one other vehicle that was one space apart from my car.When I came out 10 minutes later, there was a cart laying on it's side next to my car. It had hit my car causing a lot of dammage. Is the store at fault, or do I have the door fixed using my insureance?
Posted: Fri Mar 29, 2013 06:47 pm Post Subject:
You can always try to press a claim with the store, but if the cart was in the hands of another person, how would the store bear liability? On the other hand, if the store is in the habit of allowing carts to accumulate all over the lot, it's possible that you could attach liability to that -- that the store's management is negligent for failing to monitor the status of their shopping carts frequently enough.
I have taken one local (open 24 hours) supermarket's managers out to the parking lot at 5 or 6 in the morning on several different occasions and shown them the dozens of carts that are scattered about the lot because they tend to make the last "sweep" of the lot around 11pm and not again until 7 or 8am.
I have told each of them that if I collide with one of their carts or one of their carts damages my vehicle, that I am holding the store responsible. I make a record of the date and time, and the manager's name when I do this. The situation seems to improve for about 10 days, then back to chaos.
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 12:54 pm Post Subject:
...but if the cart was in the hands of another person, how would the store bear liability
The store should still bear liability.
Press a claim with them asap. On the other hand, also discus your options with your insurance agent. Just don't delay.
Posted: Thu Apr 04, 2013 02:31 pm Post Subject:
The store should still bear liability.
Please explain why you believe this to be true. The general theory of liability absolves a person at the point a chain of events is broken -- called an "intervening cause". While the market may own the shopping cart, if the cart is "in the hands of another" at the moment of a loss, their control over the cart is virtually nil.As an example: Fresh Foods Market owns 100 shopping carts. 80 are inside the store waiting to be used, 10 are inside the store being used by customers, 5 are scattered about the parking lot, unused, and five are in the hands of customers being used. One of those customers pays for her groceries, and is now on her way to her car to load them and drive home. Her cell phone rings and she lets go of the cart momentarily to answer her phone. The cart, fully loaded with groceries rolls down an incline and smashes into another vehicle parked in the lot, causing several hundred dollars in damages to door and/or body panels. Who is liable for this loss, the market or the shopper?
Answer: The shopper is liable for this loss because she failed to exercise the "ordinary care" expected of a person in such a situation. Although the market owns the cart, it was not under the market's control at the time of the loss. The five carts scattered about the lot are under the market's control, as are the 80 inside the market awaiting use. The other 14 are "in the hands of customers" and are not under the control of the market.
In some courts today, however, a clever lawyer could attempt to pin liability on the market by saying, "They failed to post a notice that states: 'Shopping carts are provided for your convenience. Please use them at your own risk. Fresh Foods Market is not responsible for any property damage or personal injuries arising out of your use of our carts.'" And a jury might buy such an argument and award damages, which would likely be overruled as "a matter of law."
The reason to file a claim with the store is that they may simply pay for a person's loss to avoid an insurance claim or litigation. But if the claim is unreasonable, expect the store to disclaim liability. Then the fight is on.
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 04:02 am Post Subject:
Hello Max, I take back my words I stated earlier that the store should bear the liability. I really apologize and appreciate how you have elaborated things here so that even a layman can understand.
But did you notice something here? You might find out something funny out of the whole incident.
The person arrives after shopping and finds that a shopping cart has hit his car's door damaging it badly. What she hints that the owner of the car that was once space apart from hers was responsible for the incident.
But didn't she chase him/her and ask to pay for the damages, instantly? That ought to be the very first thing that any rational/sane human being would have done in such a circumstance (assuming that the owner of the next car was responsible for the whole thing).
Did the car owner flee instantly leaving the car? Don't tell me Max since he/she didn't murder anybody. Or, did the OP just start typing after the incident to get an answer here in the forums?
Posted: Fri Apr 05, 2013 05:51 am Post Subject:
You're asking me if the car parked 9 feet away was responsible for the damage to the OP's vehicle? How would I know? The question is about the store's liability, and it has little or none.
As for chasing another vehicle, there is no indication/information that any other vehicle was involved. You've injected all manner of speculation into an otherwise straightforward post.
Add your comment