2 yr. old son broke an item in a store, who pays?

[Gapster]

We were in a furniture store and my 2 yr. old son accidentally knocked over a $200 vase.

The store might hold us liable. The item was on contract from an artist. They said that if it were their own item, we would not be held liable, but since it was that of an outside party, they would have to get back to us.

The item was only a few feet off of the floor and not very stable (small base of support)

Can they hold us liable?

Thank you

 

[cbg]

Yes, they can. "You break it, you buy it".

 

[Gapster]

Thanks cbg

I have 3 follow up questions

1) they said that if it were their own piece, they would not care, it is just that the piece is on consignment. Why should the owner of the piece matter in the liability? It was in their store.

2) GFB if my son were hurt by the broken glass, I am sure they would be worried of a lawsuit and not caring about the cost of the vase. Does this have any merrit in liability?

3) Don't they have to have a sign as such (break it, buy it) to be able to enforce the policy?

thanks again

g

 

[cbg]

1.) The fact that they CAN hold you liable does not mean that they will. Nor can they necessarily also make the decision for the owner.They can choose not to; that does not mean that the owner of the piece is likewise constrained. Finally, it may make a difference with regards to any liabilty insurance they may have.

2.) Frankly, I wouldn't go there. I'm by no means certain they could be held liable for your son cutting himself on broken glass that he himself broke. In fact, I seem to remember a couple of years ago a similar claim making headlines as an example of a frivilous case, though I don't recall the details. In any case, he didn't cut himself, so what would have happened if he did is a moot point.

3.) No, they don't. It would certainly be nice if they did, but it's not mandatory.

 

[Gapster]

thanks again for your info, cbg.

Hopefully the fact that we spent almost $4K that day in the store will motivate them not to pursue the damages.

aloha!

g

 

[Duranie]

You are responsible for your kids. I don't see why you would not be liable for this. CBG gave you a good response. If you decide to sue for damages, your son is at least 50% at fault here, so you are really looking to open up a big can of worms here. So consider that you as the parents are mostly at fault, then deduct legal fees from that, you might not wind up with much.

 

[Gapster]

Of course, I wouldn't sue unless I felt the store was negligent. TG he wasn't hurt, but if the vase broke towards him, it might be a different story all together.

I realize that I am responsible for controlling my child, but the vase was precariously placed at floor level. It was a very bulbous vase with a very small base of support.

If they wanted to hold us 50% responsible, I guess I wouldn't complain that much, but in spending $4K with the threat of cancelling my order, I would hope they would just write it off.

g

 

[cbg]

They may. They are not compelled to do so. And frankly, I don't mean this to be offensive but I find your intent to cancel your order if they do not write off the damage your son caused to be indicative that you do not understand your responsibilities or the liability YOU have.

 

[Gapster]

As noted, I would accept *Partial* liability for 2 reasons:

1) the vase was not in a safe place and not secure (had I bumped into the display, it would have toppled pretty easily)

2) they said had it been their own vase (as opposed to a contract piece) they would've written it off. IMO, the owner of the piece should not change the liability, it was in their store.

I own a restaurant and if someone breaks a fixture or mug or something, the last thing I would think of doing is charging them.

Anyway, the point is moot. They called and will not be holding us responsible for the damage. The sales person is very kind. I admit I told them we would cancel if held 100% liable, but most likely would not have if it came down to it. We got great deals on very nice furniture from a top-notch sales person.

thanks again for all of the help

g

 

[cbg]

Nonetheless, I still maintain that if my child broke something, it would never even cross my mind that I did not have 100% responsibility for payment, regardless; nor would it even occur to me to cancel my order if the store did not not excuse me from paying. That you would even suggest otherwise says a great deal about you and it's not good. Talk about an entitlement mentality.

 

[Gapster]

wow, CBG, came for some advice got the 3rd degree. did you even read my last post???

What does it say about YOUR character judging me about a single incident??? If you knew me and what I do in my everyday life you would certainly take back your accusations

Pathetic of you, really

i was totally honest here.

well, got what I wanted (advice and relieved of payment)

did you really have to live up to what everyone says about lawyers?

I'm outta here...don't bother replying here or my spam email - I won't read it

 

[cbg]

When you come looking for free advice, you have to take what's offered. I'm entitled to my opinion.

 

[Duranie]

If my child broke a 200.00 vase, I would probably pay for it. By the way I have a 2 year old, she gets into everything so you have to control your child around fragile items.

In order for you to even remotely have any chance of winning any lawsuit, you have to prove the store was negligent. Given that it is a store that has fragile items, they are not required to child proof their displays. Now, if it was a toy store where children frequent, they are not expected to have a vase there. If you were in a furniture store, there are lots of expensive items and children are not supposed to run freely.

I don't think CBG was being hard on you, I agree that you do hold most of the responsibility here because the store was not negligent and you are required to control your child.

I am not an attorney, this is my opinion, you can choose to believe and insist what you want.