Department Store Accident

[latigo]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California

My son had a shelf full of books fall down on him at a Department Store. Although physically, he only suffered a bruise I feel like the department store should still be responsible for this negligence. Emotionally, he was very scared after the incident. I feel like if this is not brought to their attention, next time some other child could be seriously hurt. Do you think we have a case against them?

I think the incident is ripe for pleading a case of either damnum abseque injuria or injuria sine damnum. *

Send details and a signed blank check and we’ll pursue to the highest court or until you're rendered homeless.

_____________________________


[*] I sometimes forget which is which, but I’ll remember by the time your check arrives.

 

[Bob.G]

Nope...

Sorry, I don't think you have a case. I would counter with this to your case as well (if there is even one to begin with). The idea of comparative negligence, or non-absolute contributory negligence, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury. Meaning you have to prove that you weren't negligent in letting your kid out of your sight, and he was not negligent i.e climbing on the shelf. If you prove the store was negligent they could then counter that both you, and they, were negligent. I would agree, there is no suit here. Better luck next time.

 

[Antigone*]

Sorry, I don't think you have a case. I would counter with this to your case as well (if there is even one to begin with). The idea of comparative negligence, or non-absolute contributory negligence, is a partial legal defense that reduces the amount of damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim based upon the degree to which the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury. Meaning you have to prove that you weren't negligent in letting your kid out of your sight, and he was not negligent i.e climbing on the shelf. If you prove the store was negligent they could then counter that both you, and they, were negligent. I would agree, there is no suit here. Better luck next time.

Sorry Bob, I like latigo's response better

 

[armstrong1988]

It appears you are not familiar with the four elements of common law negligence. At least one is missing from this story.

Elements that must be established in every negligence case are: duty, breach, causation, and damages. Yup I'm pointing that something is missing in the story... may be this thread is already dead but I think pointing out the missing part of the story will help the future guest with the same problem...

 

[sandrakay]

Hi,Required you child age, if he is small kid then we cant blame the store. as kids have the tendency to pull out things. So you need to analyse whether its your kids mistake or the stores.