Especially if said truck is hauling dynamite ( photo )
(Okay, that photo is described as the aftermath of a dynamite truck that overturned – but I recall seeing a news story with similar photo of a dynamite truck that got rear-ended.)
Always be sure to have a chartreuse microbus (carrying long-haired friends of Jesus) in between you and any dynamite truck.
Google’s best guess was Spanish Fork Canyon.
:eek:
Maybe dump truck drivers there are generally irresponsible … they sure are here.
I always assumed the signs in mom & pop stores stating “you break it you bought it” were pretty much b.s. also.
why? you’ve deprived them of the ability to sell whatever it is you broke, so why shouldn’t they expect you to pay for it?
If I willfully break something then yes, I should be paying for it.
If I’m looking at some knick-knack and accidentally drop it or happen to bump into a display and knock a snow-globe on the floor then that’s just their cost of doing business. Same as if someone knocks a jar of pickles off the shelf at the grocery store.
Or, thousand-dollar fine for littering. Who ever was threatened with $1,000 fine for throwing some trash out?
This actually happened to me. I was on a highway in Ohio and one of those trucks had gravel, pretty much purposely letting it fly. The sign said something to that effect and gave a distance to maintain, which didn’t make much sense, since the gravel was flying out and bouncing around. I had my windshield damaged from a “safe” distance.
Is it not the case in The USA, as it is here, that a company is ultimately liable for any action of it’s employees when they are doing their job. A dump truck driver drops shit on your car, his employer (and their insurance Co) is liable. They may well also be prosecuted if they fail to prove that they trained the driver properly.
in most cases, yes, a company can be held liable for its employees’ actions. Though there are cases where the driver can be the one held wholly liable, for example if he/she is the owner/operator of the truck.
When I was a seasonal Park Ranger in Yellowstone way back when, I watched a visitor toss a half-burned cigarette butt onto the dirt while walking along a boardwalk. I stopped the visitor and asked that they please pick up the butt and deposit it in the proper bin. When he questioned me, I gave him a choice:
[ul]
[li]If he picked it up and disposed of it properly, we’re done here. Enjoy your visit. Please help keep your national park clean and safe.[/li][li]If I pick it up, I would issue him two tickets, one for littering and one for improper disposal of a burning object. Both carry maximum fines of $5,000 and six months in jail. That’s not the actual fine he would pay (it’s considerably less), but if he wanted to argue it before the federal judge, the judge doesn’t like his time wasted on these kinds of violations. So the judge has a tendency to make an expensive example out of this. Your choice.[/li][/ul]
He picked up butt and disposed of it properly.
He questioned you? I would have gone straight to the fine.
It’s unlikely to ever see a court room. Customer is claiming the store was negligent in placing items that could be easily broken and thus they are not responsible, while the store is claiming the customer negligence or willfull destruction of property.
It’s not entirely unreasonable for stores to want to be paid for things you break. But accidents happen and there is a cost of business that owners need to accept.
When I was managing a gaming store the policy was simple if you broke my shit and refused to pay for it you weren’t welcome back. We’d make exceptions for actual accidents and eat the cost. The baseball through a glass case was not an accident, you don’t accidentally throw baseball’s indoors.
I wonder if a competent lawyer would recommend in favor of or against posting such a sign. It might help, as noted above, because it might dissuade people from suing in cases where they’d win; but it’s also evidence that the truck’s operator knew that they were causing an unusual risk of damage to other vehicles.
That’s the same picture I posted – not a rear-ended dynamite truck, but a dynamite truck that overturned and went kablooie.
There was some other incident I read about, where somebody really did rear-end a dynamite truck, with similar results (but a higher body count, assuming there were any bodies left).
I suppose some lawyer could try to make a contractual argument:
Q. Mr. Smith, before you teed off on Hole No. 1, did you see the sign that said “All golfers are responsible for damage from wayward shots”?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you did not return to your vehicle?
A. No.
Q. You did not go to the clubhouse and express disagreement with the terms of play?
A. No.
Q. You did not tell other members of your party that you did not accept that condition?
A. No.
Q. You freely played on with the knowledge that the golf course believed this was a term of playing there?
A. Yes.
I am not saying that it is a winning argument, but I don’t take the absolute position of most in this thread. Suppose before one enters a mom and pop antique store, he is presented with a contract that he or she is strictly liable for an merchandise that is broken, and that if he disagrees with this term, then he is not permitted to shop there.
I think that this would be an enforceable contract.
So, if you could get someone to admit that they saw the sign, that they agreed to shop or play golf there anyways, fully understanding the implied contract, then maybe some judge somewhere would uphold it.
The truck on the highway? Hell no.
The shopping cart in the store parking lot, I think is likewise a hopeless cause to fight. Contracts may not relieve one of negligence as a matter of public policy. The supermarket has a duty to keep their premises reasonably safe for their customers.
So, no matter the sign posted, the question of whether a supermarket is responsible for damages from runaway shopping carts is always linked to the circumstances of how the shopping cart caused the damage.
Many are also “Self Insured”.
Well, it seems Quite successful in the UK
