You break it you buy it - Is the person breaking obligated to pay?

I was in a gas station earlier today and someone bumped into a stack of about 3 boxes that had about 12 or so bottles of liquor each.

The top one fell to the ground and almost all of the bottles broke (I think there were maybe one or two that hit the ground but were still intact).

The owner came out and asked the customer to pay for the breakage because there are laws that prevent liquor companies from giving credit to stores for broken merchandise (basically the store has to eat all the cost). The customer argued and long story short ended up paying for half the bottles while the owner of the business ate the rest of the damage.

Anyways, my question is this, was it wrong for the owner to be asking for the customer to pay for the broken damage? Was it wrong for the customer who broke the merchandise to refuse to pay? Should the customer pay for anything they break? (Whether it be msrp, invoice, or a partial payment) Are there actually any laws on this particular matter? The incident got me thinking and what better place than to ask than in the podium.

Just curious what the lounge thinks on this issue.

That is a very interesting and curious question - yet one we face all the time. My initial thoughts are that no, unless the customer has agreed - explicitly or perhaps implicitly - then they are not necessarily liable for the damages. There are more factors at play than simply who bumped what, like: (1)were the bottles properly stored and secured (2)was this situation foreseeable and preventable by the owner, i.e. was he negligent (3)is there an expectation of property insurance. My thought is that if the store is open to the public, the shopkeeper should take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable accidents by the general public. If the damage was malicious or the customer was doing something far from ordinary (like climbing shelves), then I see a case where they could be liable. If the damage was great enough, most commercial businesses (especially ones selling liquor) should be carrying some sort of property insurance. Membership stores likely have such liabilities listed in their membership agreements, so they are a different case. However, from the situation you described, I don't think the shopkeeper can compel the customer to pay - however they could be banned from the store or potentially sued if the individual circumstances warrant it.

From my days of taking Business Law, no, that customer was not liable for paying for the damage to those bottles, and should have walked out and said sorry, you, not I are responsible. End of this situation. Even stores that say you break it you bought it, that is not legal. They cannot make you pay for something that is accidentally broken. It's a ploy on their part to get you to pay for it. Legally they cannot make you pay by putting up such a sign. Ask a Lawyer and they will tell you the same thing. A sign doesn't mean anything, it's not "legal". They have insurance for such instances, as the previous poster stated. Unless a person went in like that person did in another Country, and systematically destroyed a T-Mobile store ( I think it was) then they would be held accountable for the damage.

"The owner came out and asked the customer to pay for the breakage because there are laws that prevent liquor companies from giving credit to stores for broken merchandise (basically the store has to eat all the cost)."

I have a hard time believing this. (Not that you heard him say it, but that there is such a law on the books).

Quote from ShengD : That is a very interesting and curious question - yet one we face all the time. My initial thoughts are that no, unless the customer has agreed - explicitly or perhaps implicitly - then they are not necessarily liable for the damages. There are more factors at play than simply who bumped what, like: (1)were the bottles properly stored and secured (2)was this situation foreseeable and preventable by the owner, i.e. was he negligent (3)is there an expectation of property insurance. My thought is that if the store is open to the public, the shopkeeper should take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable accidents by the general public. If the damage was malicious or the customer was doing something far from ordinary (like climbing shelves), then I see a case where they could be liable. If the damage was great enough, most commercial businesses (especially ones selling liquor) should be carrying some sort of property insurance. Membership stores likely have such liabilities listed in their membership agreements, so they are a different case. However, from the situation you described, I don't think the shopkeeper can compel the customer to pay - however they could be banned from the store or potentially sued if the individual circumstances warrant it.

There were two columns of three boxes with the top ones open to display the bottles inside. What happened was instead of going around the cases in order to get to another side of the store the customer tried to go between the cases of beer and the door that swung out of the beer cave (which he had opened). His stomach or back ended up bumping the box of liquor and made it fall down. I'd say the value of the case dropped was roughly between $100 and $150 (just a guesstimate, it was 750ml bottles of smirnoff).

Quote from Piccaboo : From my days of taking Business Law, no, that customer was not liable for paying for the damage to those bottles, and should have walked out and said sorry, you, not I are responsible. End of this situation. Even stores that say you break it you bought it, that is not legal. They cannot make you pay for something that is accidentally broken. It's a ploy on their part to get you to pay for it. Legally they cannot make you pay by putting up such a sign. Ask a Lawyer and they will tell you the same thing. A sign doesn't mean anything, it's not "legal". They have insurance for such instances, as the previous poster stated. Unless a person went in like that person did in another Country, and systematically destroyed a T-Mobile store ( I think it was) then they would be held accountable for the damage.

I was curious if there was a law for it but expected there to be none. Should the store owners be responsible for the negligence of someone?

I understand that most (if not all) business have insurance for these kinds of things but it would be pretty stupid to file a claim for it (although it is necessary for lets say a car driving through the window breaking all the bottles).

Example: Someone is walking down the street right after playing baseball, as he's walking he's bat accidentally ends up hitting your car and putting a dent in it. Is he responsible for the damage? What if he refuses to pay or take responsibility for the damage?

Both situations have to do with people damaging products that someone else owns.

Quote from The2AMBearArms : "The owner came out and asked the customer to pay for the breakage because there are laws that prevent liquor companies from giving credit to stores for broken merchandise (basically the store has to eat all the cost)." I have a hard time believing this. (Not that you heard him say it, but that there is such a law on the books).

No idea whether it's true or not (could be the companies just not wanting to give credit for broken merchandise either).

Here is something interesting, this applies to Iowa not sure if it applies to Arizona as well:

http://www.iowaabd.com/alcohol/fe...s/beer_faq

Quote : Can you pick up and credit beer – it’s been damaged by a customer or it’s been damaged by store personnel? No. State and federal law prohibits the return product due to damage by customers or store personnel. Iowa Code § 123.186; 27 C.F.R. § 11.45.

Legally immediately likely not, however if the owner could prove negligence (by the customer) then they could recoup damages.

Negligence has 4 elements:
Duty (not necessarily explicit)
Breach of the standard of care (you were careless when the situation demanded otherwise)
Proximate causation (your actions foreseeably caused the damages)
Damages (something was broken)

The breach of care is the sticky part.

Again, there is no default legal "you break it you bought it" and the presence of a sign doesn't form a unilateral contract between the store owner and the customer.

IME, most stores do not try to charge a customer for accidental damage.

In most cases, the store owner is responsible cause he stored the product in a manner which was susceptable to accidental damage.

And he had the opportunity to have insurance against such damage. Or can write off the loss on his taxes.

I'm inclined to say that the customer has an obligation to repay the store owner if they are at fault.

I think fault can be slightly debateable in these instances because if the display isn't very sturdy, or depending on the actions of the person.

If the customer was horsing around, or walking around the expensive section with no intent to purchase, I can see the store owner being upset.

Odds are though, I think most business owners would chalk it up as a cost of doing business to maintain a good relationship with its customers.

Quote from The2AMBearArms : I have a hard time believing this. (Not that you heard him say it, but that there is such a law on the books).

I have no trouble believing crazy or bad laws would be on the books, especially with something like alcohol. Then again, I live in a state that outlawed happy hours.

Quote from Danman114 : I'm inclined to say that the customer has an obligation to repay the store owner if they are at fault. I think fault can be slightly debateable in these instances because if the display isn't very sturdy, or depending on the actions of the person.

I generally agree. However, the threshold for that "fault" is higher in store vs. say car accidents. A store by being open is inviting you to come in and do business. I guess level of expectations will play into this.

Quote from Danman114 : If the customer was horsing around, or walking around the expensive section with no intent to purchase, I can see the store owner being upset.

My o my. I agree with horsing around but why such disdain for the poor? Ok, ok, I am kinda kidding.


Kinda.

Quote from Ryu-bom : curious... some of the vocal advocates of "personal responsibilty" seem to skirt away from being responsible enough to pay for their mistake ( because it is the right thing, accidental or on purpose ) and instead hide behind "well its not the law so I don't have to"

OP's question was of legal obligation not moral.

Most people with a conscience wouldn't say "fark you I don't care if my fat ass caused you hundreds in losses, go fark yourself". Remember this is not a $2 jar of pasta sauce we're talking about.

Quote from Danman114 : I'm inclined to say that the customer has an obligation to repay the store owner if they are at fault.

I agree with you. A decent and moral person wouldn't consult a law book, he would just do the right thing and pay for what he damaged.

Quote from Dr. J : OP's question was of legal obligation not moral. Most people with a conscience wouldn't say "fark you I don't care if my fat ass caused you hundreds in losses, go fark yourself". Remember this is not a $2 jar of pasta sauce we're talking about.

Because fat people are generally less responsible, less moral, and less caring than slim people.

My o my.

Quote from TRNT : Because fat people are generally less responsible, less moral, and less caring than slim people. My o my.

A skinny person would probably have been able to fit between the stacks.

Quote from Rebound : I agree with you. A decent and moral person wouldn't consult a law book, he would just do the right thing and pay for what he damaged.

Yep. Personal responsibility. God I'm agreeing with Rebound again. Happens every so often