Lovely to look at and lovely to hold but if you break it then it's certainly sold

mikemac1

Shop breakages

We've all broken something in a shop and if not your children will at some stage :P

What's the legal situation here?

The thread title, I've seen that in a family run shop and I just took it as a given, if I break it I pay for it. Saw it in a few shops actually growing up in the midlands.

In our local Tesco stuff gets broken all the time, usually someone drops a wine bottle.
Staff don't mind, they just clean it up

My question is if I break something in a shop can I be detained by management until I pay on the spot or work out a plan to pay?
If my future toddler tips over a 800 euro TV it'll be a lean Christmas in this household!

Seems to me small shops are bothered by this but big multi nationals just write it off. I suppose they can cover the loss, it's not big to them but a family business cannot just write it off. But don't they have insurance for this?

Is the person or the guardian of a minor always liable?

Pat Mustard

mikemac1 wrote: »

My question is if I break something in a shop can I be detained by management until I pay on the spot or work out a plan to pay?
If my future toddler tips over a 800 euro TV it'll be a lean Christmas in this household!

As I understand it, if a crime is committed, the person who commits the crime can be detained until the police arrive, under an aspect of a power of citizen's arrest. For example, I think that security can detain a shoplifter in a supermarket, until the guards get there.

That is in relation to crime.

However, in the situation that you outlined, no crime is committed that I can see. Therefore, I don't think that there would be any power of detention by management or anybody else.

It would be a different story if there was a crime such as theft or criminal damage.

If a person accidentally damaged goods in a supermarket through their own fault, in the absence of other factors, it seems that it would be simple negligence on the part of the shopper.

mikemac1 wrote: »

Is the person or the guardian of a minor always liable?

If the children are under the care and control of their parents, then I presume that the parents would be vicariously liable for the negligence of the children.

If you bring your toddler to Curry's and he knocks over an €800 tv, it seems likely that you would be liable, but that Curry's wouldn't have the right to detain you.

Condatis

Mustard are you saying that the child could be sued for loss resulting from negligence or that the parent could be sued for negligence resulting from failure to control their child?

monkeysnapper

I remember working in dunnes stores around 2003 and there was a huge mobile stand on shop floor by deli counter with wine on it. At lunch time the usual kids came in at hot food counter and 4 or 5 boys were running in pushing and shoving as teenage boys do and one boy knocked another into the wine stand and broke around 15 bottles.

I know for a fact they took names of the boys and they were going to ring their parents to pay for the wine. I doubt they got it. I mean would you pay. I probably wouldn't .

From my point of view they make a huge amount of money out of the school kids because store is right next to school. They knew kids come running in. Why the hell they put that stand their. Sorry for slightly going off subject. But my point is this big store tried to recoup money from a breakage .

source

The age of criminal responsibility is 12. Any child under that age I'd deemed to not know any better.

Going by the strictest definition of criminal damage

2.—(1) A person who without lawful excuse damages any property belonging to another intending to damage any such property or being reckless as to whether any such property would be damaged shall be guilty of an offence.

It could be an offence if the shop management can prove you were acting in a reckless manner when you broke the item.

Lyn256

AFAIK, a shop is entitled to compensation BUT only their buying cost (replacement cost) not the sales price. Can't remember where I read it though!

foxcoverteddy

The shop would be insured for breakages, if they wanted compensation for someone accidentally breaking items, double bubble so to speak.
Supermarkets often double stack glass jars, jams etc if one slips as one tries to get the one yuou want, hard luck to the supermarket, no one does things like that deliberately, that might well come under a different category, damage by intent?
We went to a garden centre where a large vase had been broken, but the centre put it back together again and left it where it was without doubt certainly going to be touched as you went up to the till, it did and they came running round you have broken that vase, we want payment, oh yes, a timid person might well have coughed up the 100 odd euro, fcuk off. The moral of the story don't be intimidated

Shelflife

Ive never heard of breakage insurance in a grocery shop, maybe in a high value shop but never in the grocery trade.

morton

Why oh why would you allow a toddler to be in a position that they could tip over an €800 euro telly?

Del2005

mikemac1 wrote: »

My question is if I break something in a shop can I be detained by management until I pay on the spot or work out a plan to pay?
If my future toddler tips over a 800 euro TV it'll be a lean Christmas in this household!

Would it not be up to the shop to ensure that the TV can't be tipped over? Plenty of people are unsteady on their feet and if they stumbled and fell over it they'd have a valid claim? Can't see much difference between a toddler knocking it or a 70 year old.

Thoie

Del2005 wrote: »

Would it not be up to the shop to ensure that the TV can't be tipped over? Plenty of people are unsteady on their feet and if they stumbled and fell over it they'd have a valid claim? Can't see much difference between a toddler knocking it or a 70 year old.

70 year olds rarely (not never) start climbing the shelves and swinging off things if you blink.

Procrastastudy

I know the pub-lawyer position in England is if there is a reasonably prominent sign stating that breakages must be paid for you are liable, otherwise you are not. (This could be utter sh... rubbish as most musing on this sort of thing are.)

This would be distinct from any criminal liability noted above - which would require the higher standard of proof of course.

Victor

monkeysnapper wrote: »

I remember working in dunnes stores around 2003 and there was a huge mobile stand on shop floor by deli counter with wine on it. At lunch time the usual kids came in at hot food counter and 4 or 5 boys were running in pushing and shoving as teenage boys do and one boy knocked another into the wine stand and broke around 15 bottles.

I know for a fact they took names of the boys and they were going to ring their parents to pay for the wine. I doubt they got it. I mean would you pay. I probably wouldn't .

From my point of view they make a huge amount of money out of the school kids because store is right next to school. They knew kids come running in. Why the hell they put that stand their. Sorry for slightly going off subject. But my point is this big store tried to recoup money from a breakage .

A case could be made that the proprietor had a responsibility to prevent horseplay by their customers, especially if they knew of previous such behaviour, by minors in particular. There was a case on this involving, I think Busáras.

mitosis

If the tv fell on your toddler you would sue on their behalf. Seems about right that if the toddler breaks a tv you would be liable on their behalf.

Big breakages like this would be beyond rare. Most shops build a degree of breakage into their business plan.

In the OP's scenario, I would expect the parent to offer compensation, and the shop to decline, or at worst agree a compromise.

OP, what if you bought an €800 Tv and a neighbour's child smashed it. Would you expect recompense from the parents?

BidillyBo

mitosis wrote: »

OP, what if you bought an €800 Tv and a neighbour's child smashed it. Would you expect recompense from the parents?

Happened to one of my friends had a nice tv broke on them and ended up getting back some pile of sh1te

Pat Mustard

Condatis wrote: »

Mustard are you saying that the child could be sued for loss resulting from negligence or that the parent could be sued for negligence resulting from failure to control their child?

There is no point in suing the child, obviously. A parent who brings a toddler into a shop will be vicariously liable for the negligence of that toddler. It is possible to sue the parent.

However, as one poster pointed out, these big shops are insured. They may not insist on payment. It would be kind of bad press as well, I imagine.

foxcoverteddy

somewhere in this thread there should be "the duty of care", the shop owner has to ensure that young or old cannot be injured in the normal couse of business, the parent of a child has equally the same duty to the shop owner.
Me thinks the original idea was eluding to ornaments etc but I guess it makes little difference.
Also in supermarkets the goods are not yours until you have paid for them at the checkout.
Which might tie in with the man on the park bench, placed his hat beside whilst enjoying a mouth watering cheese and ham and pickle sandwich, along came a very large dog and grabbed the hat and started chewing it, the man immediately said to the dog owner hey hey thats my hat, the dog owner replied well hard luck, to which the sandwich eater said I don't like your attitude, the dog owner responded by saying it is not my attitude it's yours the dog has chewed.
Yes okay goodnight.

Pat Mustard

foxcoverteddy wrote: »

hey hey thats my hat, the dog owner replied well hard luck, to which the sandwich eater said I don't like your attitude, the dog owner responded by saying it is not my attitude it's yours the dog has chewed.
Yes okay goodnight.

I hadn't thought it was the season for mushrooms.