Plaintiff, then 71-years-old, was hit by the cart and tossed about four feet. She landed against a display shelf, striking her head and causing her to suffer head and neck injuries.

In a personal injury lawsuit she filed two years later, plaintiff accused the store of not giving customers an adequate amount of instruction on how to use these motorized carts, which are offered to mobility-impaired customers free-of-charge. The lawsuit alleges the company displayed a long history of corporate negligence specifically with regard to these motorized carts. In other words, this was not a one-time, freak accident that the company couldn’t have anticipated. In fact, plaintiffs alleged, this hazard was reasonably foreseeable based in large part on the fact there were nearly 120 similar accidents involving motorized carts at the chain’s stores throughout the Northeast.

The complaint asserted the company knew, either because of actual knowledge or through knowledge that was implied from the circumstances and facts, that by allowing customers to be entrusted with the operation of these motorized vehicles without any experience, training or instruction, it was foreseeable that innocent, third-party bystanders were going to be placed at unreasonable risk of injury.

The company denied all allegations and refused to settle the case, which is why the case went on to trial. Jurors not only determined the grocery store chain was negligent, they awarded $120,000 in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages. Compensatory damages are intended to make the company whole again, while punitive damage are intended to penalize defendant/ deter such action in the future.

The Plain Dealer did not indicate whether the company had any plans to appeal the verdict, though our injury lawyers would speculate that it’s likely.

Shopping cart injuries in general are surprisingly common, though the vast majority of these incidents involve young children. The New York Times reported in 2014 on a study published in the journal Clinical Pediatrics that detailed how 66 children every single day were treated in hospital emergency rooms for shopping cart injuries. That was between 1990 and 2011. The vast majority of those children were under the age of 4 who fell out of the cart. Nine out of 10 of these injuries were wounds to the head. Other incidents included:

• Carts tipping over;
• Being run over by a cart;
• Falling over a cart;
• Becoming entrapped in a cart.

Over the course of two decades, nearly 17,000 children suffered shopping cart injuries that were serious enough to warrant their admission to a hospital.

In 2004, the shopping cart manufacturing industry introduced voluntary safety standards. However, The New York Times reported the number of injuries hasn’t gone down since then.

Again, these figures only refer to children injured by non-motorized carts. Although it doesn’t seem there are any long-term studies on motorized shopping cart injuries, this certainly isn’t the first time it’s happened. Wal-Mart was sued last year by a woman who alleges a motorized shopping cart machine near the entrance of the store pushed a line of carts into her, causing her to be injured. She’s seeking more than $50,000 in damage.

In these cases, showing that the company was aware of a potential safety issue or should have anticipated it will be key to success.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Cleveland woman wins $1.3 million lawsuit against Giant Eagle for motorized shopping cart injury, Oct. 7, 2016, By John Harper, Cleveland.com

More Blog Entries:

Concert Injury Lawsuit Filed Against Snoop Dogg, Wiz Khalifa, Venue, Aug. 28, 2016, Miami Premises Liability Lawyer Blog

Florida statute and common law recognizes valid loss of consortium claims that may be brought by:

• A spouse for loss of spousal companionship (per F.S. 768.21(2))
• A parent for the loss of a child’s companionship (per the 2001 Florida Supreme Court case of Cruz v. Broward County School Board; F.S. 768.21(4))
• A child for loss of parental companionship (per F.S. 768.0415; F.S. 768.21(3))

This ability to sue for loss of society and companionship of a loved one has been around in many forms for almost as long as common law has existed. But the extent of loss of consortium claims vary wildly by state. Some only allow spousal relationship loss of consortium claims. Others, like Florida, allow a broad range of claims by various loved ones.

What our Miami injury lawyers can say for certain is that the legal landscape is always evolving, and it’s important for your lawyer to be up-to-date on the kinds of claims on which you can prevail in your state, and the best way to do so.

Recently in Utah, the Utah Supreme Court opened the doors for loss of consortium claims brought by a parent for the filial loss of consortium of a son following a tragic and debilitating school injury. The case is Benda v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City.

According to court records, a high school freshman, age 14, was injured in October 2012 while working as part of a student crew with the school’s drama production. The drama teacher instructed the student to climb up to a lift to replace several light bulbs in the auditorium. This lift was 30 feet in the air, and the student was not tethered to the lift in any way. Now anyone who has ever worked in construction or at any height knows this is extremely dangerous to conduct without any type of fall arrest system – especially when we’re talking about a 14-year-old kid with zero experience working from heights.

The student changed the light bulb and then the teacher instructed other students to push the left from one light to the next while the young teen remained on top. This was a horrible idea. The lift toppled over and the student suffered serious and life-threatening injuries.

Two years later, the student’s parents – individually and as his guardians – filed a lawsuit against the diocese and the high school alleging negligence that caused the student to suffer severe and life-threatening injuries, which included a traumatic brain injury. Among the damages they sought were for loss of filial consortium, seeking damages for the loss of consortium, companionship, services, comfort, society and attention of their son.

The high school conceded fault and accepted responsibility – but still sought to have the loss of consortium claim dismissed on the grounds the state doesn’t recognize such a claim. The trial court agreed, but the Utah Supreme Court vacated. The state high court ruled that in cases where a minor child’s injury meets the definition set forth in the state’s spousal loss of consortium statute (Utah Code section 30-1-11), there was nothing in the statute that precluded the parents from prevailing in their claim.

If you have been a victim of a traffic accident, call Chalik & Chalik at (954) 476-1000 or 1 (800) 873-9040.

Additional Resources:

Benda v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Salt Lake City., Aug. 25, 2016, Utah Supreme Court

More Blog Entries:

Concert Injury Lawsuit Filed Against Snoop Dogg, Wiz Khalifa, Venue, Aug. 28, 2016, Miami Injury Lawyer Blog