A North Kitsap grocery store “knew of the danger” a motorized cart driver posed when the driver hit a woman putting groceries into her car, a plaintiff alleges in a March lawsuit filed in Kitsap County Superior Court.
The woman struck by the motorized cart driver is suing the grocery store and the cart’s driver, who has since died. The woman claims that on Nov. 17, 2010, she had “just placed a few items into her cart” when the cart driver hit her, pinning her between the cart and her own shopping cart. She apparently suffered injuries to her hops hips, neck, right wrist and left leg.
The grocery store bears fault, the plaintiff says, because the cart’s driver “had previously injured one of the Defendant’s employees within the last year,” by hitting her with a cart.
The plaintiff is asked for damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, interest and other relief “the court deems just and equitable.”
Injuries to her hops?? dang I know I hate it when my beer is injured.
Gregg,
Good catch. My mistake.
-Josh
“A North Kitsap grocery store “knew of the danger” a motorized cart driver posed when the driver hit a woman putting groceries into her car, a plaintiff alleges in a March lawsuit filed in Kitsap County Superior Court.
The woman struck by the motorized cart driver is suing the grocery store and the cart’s driver, who has since died. The woman claims that on Nov. 17, 2010, she had “just placed a few items into her cart” when the cart driver hit her, pinning her between the cart and her own shopping cart. She apparently suffered injuries to her hops, neck, right wrist and left leg.
The grocery store bears fault, the plaintiff says, because the cart’s driver “had previously injured one of the Defendant’s employees within the last year,” by hitting her with a cart.”
I’m sorry the cart driver has passed on. Was the driver hurt when he/she hit the shopper?
No doubt both hits were accidental but did the cart driver have a medical condition and take meds causing lapses of judgment?
The store seems clearly at ‘fault’ given the current information – since the cart driver had hit another person and the store manager made the decision to let the cart driver continue to drive for them.
Odd that both people hit are women…does the store have a higher percentage of women employees and shoppers?
Condolences to the family and friends of the cart driver.
Ridiculus, do we really expect a North Kitsap Grocery to post a guard at the cart statiion with a “no drive” list? This is an attempt to “sound reasonable” in the pursuit of an insurance settlement. Please note: No recovery of Medical Bills are listed in the claim by this article.
I occasionally use a motorized cart and misunderstood the article. I assumed the person hitting was an employee.
That said how can a store be responsible for customers using the carts other than from one visit to the store to another day and shopping visit? If a customer is noted riding recklessly – ban them from the motorized cart then and there. Other customers must be protected. People have to be accountable and if we are unable to safely steer and control the store provided or their own motorized convenience, we can’t be allowed to endanger other people.
If there are no doctor bills proving injury – how can there be a law suit?
As a person who has – gratefully – used a motorized shopping cart on occasion, I hope store owners/corporations will continue to offer them to the physically challenged.
Surely they cannot be held liable for something out of their control UNLESS they observe reckless cart behavior and ignore it leaving the door open for a customer to get hurt from the reckless cart behavior seen and ignored by the store management/employees…or so it seems to me.
The physically challenged must be held to the same standards of safe behavior as anyone else in a public place. If we cannot control a motorized cart/scooter and if our (unintended) reckless action in a public place can be injurious to someone else we shouldn’t be using it – in my opinion.
This lawsuit will set great precedence. Now I can sue Costco for allowing their customer to drive shopping carts, which no one in that store can do very well.
On the face of it this lawsuit can’t be won – I hope.
It would likely cause store owners to pull the motorized carts they now offer in limited numbers to physically challenged and many will not be able to shop without one.
Well – would that also mean a person with their own motorized cart would be banned? On the whole, its better for a few customers to lose the ability to shop than take a chance on someone getting hurt through improper use of motorized carts inside a shopping store.
Maybe the stores could ban use of cell phones too – I don’t know how many times I’ve narrowly missed hitting someone who suddenly stops from a brisk walk to answer their cell phone.