How is this enforceable? Seems to me this would be an example of citizen’s arrest, except that you really didn’t break any laws. At most, you were responsible for an accident, but does that obligate you to fork over cash?
Let’s look at some scenarios:
You wander into a figurine store where there are lots of little glass items & wood carvings. As you turn a corner, the air currents created by your body cause some little wooden figure of a giraffe (tall & skinny, light weight & high center of gravity- it’s hard to get these things to stand up in the first place) to fall over, and the domino effect results in the breakage of a few items. Can the store owner (if he is present) force you to hand over $100 or whatever to “buy” the items you indirectly damaged?
The problem with this scenario is that you almost never see the act that caused the damage, so blame would likely be the result of hearsay accusations (“He did it!” “No, SHE did it!” etc.). How many times have you heard something go crash! in some store, turn around to see what happened and you see several people standing next to some broken dishes, or something.
(This is the one I witnessed) An item that is suspended from a sting falls onto a shelf of delicate wooden carvings when the string breaks. Less than a minute before, some shoppers were handling it, talking about possibly buying it (it was a large sombrero). Apparently (I was too far away to hear what they were saying) they decided not to buy it, and let it go on its string. It continued to swing back and forth for a minute or so, and then snap! the string broke. If I had not been a witness to the set of events leading up to the drop of a hat (haha!) I think the store operator would have been nastier about it. As it was, I had to repeat myself several times before he seemed convinced that those people were not responsible.
At one point, I picked up a large wooden mask, such as the kind you might wear when you want dance in circles & sing to the gods for rain. I saw no price, so I was about to walk over to the counter and ask the price. Then I noticed that part of the mask that is supposed to be hinged was actually broken off (as I picked it up, the hinged/broken piece dropped off). I put the thing back down and quietly edged away. Could they have made me pay for this thing even though they didn’t see me break it?
The only situation where I could imagine being rightfully forcibly held is if I were to pick up an object and smash it against the wall. Anything else seems like hearsay or circumstantial evidence to me.
By the way, this whole place was an accident waiting to happen. Hundreds, maybe thousands of little tiny objects, wood carvings, glass figures, things hanging from the ceiling, wall, backs of doors, etc. One little earthquake tremor and this place would be out of business. I saw the “you break it, you buy it!” sign posted all over that place, maybe 20 or 30 times. I guess they’ve had a problem…
Except in cases of felony (most juristictions) vandalism, the alleged breaker may not be held, although still charged. Otherwise all the owner can do is sue.
I will walk out of a store immediately upon finding a sign like that. I might have bought something, but with that atitude displayed I leave right away. The store next door isn’t displaying the same prickish sign.
If the object breaks due to your negligence, you’d be liable. There’s no criminal act here. The damages would be the profit the owner could have realized, which is the selling price of the object. This is not contract law, but tort law.
The test rests upon whether you were negligent. If not, there is no liability.
So back to the question of enforceability. Once you break a $22.50 wooden voodoo doll, do you have to show ID so the store operator can dispatch his lawyer at a later date to serve you with a small claims court summons? The statement “you are laible but there is no criminal act” sounds like a lawsuit would be necessary… for $22.50??
Again, considering that probably 99.% of merchandise is broken without a store employee first-hand witness, how strong a case could they hope to have? Seems to me like it would be a big poker face situation. You bluff and say you’re just going to leave the store, and wait to see if they call your bluff by threatening to call the police on you.
Of course the police wouldn’t arrive in time, so they’d have to tackle you to prevent you from leaving and… well now we’re really getting into lawsuit territory!
Subrogation. The store would likely have a claim against its insurance company (yes a deductible will complicate the decision of whether to file the claim). The insurance company would then step in to the shoes of the store and could seek reimbursement of the claim from the negligent party or their insurer. This would require that the identity of the negligent party was ascertainable.
The assertion that, other than in the above scenario, the store would have to sue you is probablyu the right answer. In order to force you to pay, assuming you are obstinate enough to insist you will not pay even if you know you are responsible (the moral and ethical implications of that position are a whole other ballgame), the owner would have to sue you. The “You break it you bought it” policy is, in that instance, essentially an offer to settle out of court.
Another option would be to lie about your responsibilty, call the police and assert to them that you broke the piece on purpose (back to vandalism). Boy wouldn’t that be a whopper of an ethical connundrum?
Finally, bear in mind that a state or federal statute might impose liability for the loss on you and require that you pay for the damage (but as IANAL for this answer I will not opine on such matters).
Thank you, Eve.
What exactly would count as negligence? If I was holding a knick-knack and it sliped and bounced a couple times, hitting seven or eight other knick-knoacks, is that negligent? What if I handed it to my two-year old? What if I sliped and fell into a display, knocking it over?
It seems like this must have gone to court a few times, since in some of those horribly crowded gift shopes one could do several thousand dollars worth of damage fairly easily.
Generally you could be said to have a duty to observe ordinary care with regard to the posessions of others. If you do not take that level of care when dealing with the objects that would be a breach of that duty. The next examination would be whether the breach caused any damage (was there an intervening cause or contributory cause?). And then determine the damages resulting from your breach. If any one of those do not exist then you are not generally considered to be negligent. Whether those factors exist is a mixed question of law and fact.
You’d be liable for the consequences of your negligent act whether or not a sign was posted. The sign just warns (reminds?) you of the consequences.
As far as collection, it is just the same as contract law. If you don’t pay, you’ll going to have to be brought to court to enforce payment.
What is negligence is a matter of fact for the trier (jury or judge). The law was stated, simply, in a prior post, but it’s much more complicated than that as different states have enacted legislation affecting the common law theory of negligence. Some states have contributory negligence wherein the party most at fault is liable. Other states have comparative negligence wherein the trier pro rates damages based upon the parties’ percentage of negligence. This is what a jury usually does in automobile accidents even in states that don’t technically have it. If there is no statute, any contributory negligence, no matter how slight, prevents compensation.
I’ve heard that putting up a “beware of dog” sign can increase your liability in case the dog harms anyone, because it shows the owner knows the dog is a threat. (I don’t know whether it’s true. Anyone know?) Could the fact that the owner put up the you break it, you buy it! signs be used as evidence that the owner knew there was a danger of breakage happening, and thus is evidence that the owner wasn’t taking due diligence to prevent the breakage. If you can get the owner to say he put up the signs because he was having a problem, so much the better.
I once tripped in a jewelry store and put my hand through a display case.
The store owner was very concerned over my welfare, but upon discovering I was unhurt, let me know that I would be liable for the cost of the case.
I said it didn’t work that way, but left my business card. He sought to detain me, and I said that if he didn’t remove his hands I’d consider it assault.
I told him I’d wait if he wanted to call a policeman, but other than that, I was leaving.
I went home, and got undressed, to discover a piece of glass embedded in my arm. I removed it, and it started bleeding so I went to the emergency room.
The next day, the store owner called me, to tell me that this was last chance. If I didn’t wish to pay for the case he would sue me.
So I saw a lawyer.
He contacted the store owner, and their insurance company. He inspected the store and found a spot where the carpetting was such that someone could trip (I tripped on my feet.)
Not only did I not pay for the case, I got almost $7,000 as a settlement, since I had been injured in his establishement, due to his negligence (carpet.)
So if you break it, be sure and hurt yourself doing it.
He would most definitely have to sue you. But since he has no idea who you are and cannot detain you and he cannot force you to identify yourself… there is pretty much nothing he can do about it. If it is expensive enough he/she should make an insurance claim.
If he/she does try to hold you, it is false imprisonment. When the cops (that he called) show up, they would (read: should) arrest HIM- not you. If you agreed to stay until the police arrive, they would explain to the shop owner that this is a civil matter with which they will not get involved.
Re the dog sign: there are two conflicting principles of law involved. If you see the sign and go on the land anyway, you assume the risk (assumption of risk). However, if one has an inherently dangerous product, he is absolutely liable for all the consequences naturally flowing from that danger. This principle, however, usually applies to products put in commerce.
The store signs are usually put in stores that sell fragile items. The store owner knows it. You know it. Unless he keeps them all under lock and key, how is he negligent?
As far as detaining one who broke an item, holding the person until police arrived may be an arrest, but not a false arrest. The owner has the right to obtain, by reasonable measures, all the facts he needs to collect and, moreover, there probably is some law being broken. It would be similar to a car accident. You just can’t leave without giving info about yourself.
Probably untrue. Unlike automobile accidents, which are usually covered by state laws that facilitate the exchange of insurance data and the assisstance of police officers, accidents in other places rarely require exchange of information. Thus, if you damage someone’s property accidentally, breaking no law, the owner of the property probably has no valid reason to detain you against your will.
And shop owners aren’t remedyless; they can always file a report with their insurance company and receive reimbursement under the terms of the policy. Of course, there are deductables, and an owner of a shop full of fragile items might not want to submit multiple claims for fear of increased rates…
The fact the owner puts up a sign attempting to intimidate someone into paying for a broken item is not an admission that greater care should be taken by the shop owner, unlike the concept of warning of a dangerous condition. The dog sign warns a potential tresspasser or other temporary occupant of the land that the dog is dangerous; it serves to limit the liability of the land owner to someone injured by the dog. Now, if I was a shop owner, and had saws on display, and warned you that the saws were dangerous, and you start one up and cut off a finger anyway, maybe my liability to you would be limited. But the “you break - you pay” sign is telling you, “Please be careful what you do because you might break something if you don’t.”
No, but breach of a duty (negligence) that causes (in fact and/or proximally) provable and recoverable damages equates to a successful cause of action for negligence.
I am not quite sure what you are saying, but if you are implying that the owner of the business has the ability to detain someone to collect information, then you are incorrect.
Citizens have no power to detain anyone. Citizens only have the power to arrest. Any detention by a citizen automatically becomes an arrest and must meet certain criteria. A felony must have been committed in the presence of the arresting citizen and the citizen must have seen the suspect commit the felony. If the criteria are not met, then the arresting citizen can face criminal and civil action against him for false imprisonment.
A citizen cannot hold someone while he figures out what happened or finds out the facts or collects information or anything like that.
I think the person who said call their bluff was right, proceed to walk out but then again co-operate and state your position, because I’m sure they do have insurance for such things.
Also if it does come down to you paying for the damages I would not think you have to pay the sale price of the article, always ask to see the invoice they paid for the article and just pay what it cost them.
I had a case a hotel once where my friend burned a bedspread and he was responsible but we asked for the invoice and they produced it and we paid a lot less than what they wanted to charge us.
Stand up for your rights and don’t let people snowball you.
The hotel was not in the business of selling bedspreads, and their damages was the price of the spread. A retail store is in the business of selling retail items, and their damages would ordinarily be the retail price (their cost plus their profit).
