Just checking: Stall breakages

[Stoofa]

Just wanted to check on something before I'm in the same situation again and start offering advice (which I'm not qualified to do, but wanted to help).
Recently at an antiques fair, numerous stalls and quite a lot of them owned by small firms (addresses of stores and "we buy gold" signs a give away). Also of course every stall had the "breakages must be paid for" signs.
Now I'm fully open to correction on this one, but I was very much under the impression that legally breakages did not have to be paid for, that is exactly what "shop insurance" is there for. You'd have your stock insured if it was safe in a shop so I'd assume even more so if you were "taking it out to sell". No insurance and you've only got yourself to blame.
I know there is this issue with "only paying the buy-in price for an item". So an item for sale at £100 was only purchased in for £25, you would only pay the £25. However I was 99.9% sure that I'd read somewhere that you were simply not obliged to make any payment for breakages?

I'm asking because at said antiques fair some poor sole managed to knock something over. The stall owner was quite vocal and fully expected this guy to cough-up the ticket price for the item. I don't think the item was really, really expensive, however I could also see this was a lot more money than the guy expected to pay. I wanted to interject, but as above - didn't want to make a **** of myself :-)

Can someone confirm the law on this?

Ta

[mattviatura]

Something fishy here.

Strange things are afoot.

[Stoofa]

mattviatura said:

Something fishy here.

Strange things are afoot.

That'll answer it then. Thank you....for your....input.

[pitmansboots]

You can't expect to be breaking people's property and think you have no liability just because they are insured.

Let's say the smallholder does make a claim, the insurer can then make a claim against the person causing the breakage.

Why should the stall holder and insurer be out of pocket?

If someone wants to break crockery/pottery they can go to a Greek restaurant.

[mrmr96]

pitmansboots said:

You can't expect to be breaking people's property and think you have no liability just because they are insured.

Let's say the smallholder does make a claim, the insurer can then make a claim against the person causing the breakage.

Why should the stall holder and insurer be out of pocket?

If someone wants to break crockery/pottery they can go to a Greek restaurant.

Balls.

If a shopper picks up a tea pot by the handle, and that handle fails and the pot smashes on the ground (shopper still holding what's left of the handle) then why should the shopper pay for that? Sometimes things are not foreseeable and not the result of negligence. They are just accidents, which is what insurance is for.

As for "why should the insurer be out of pocket" what a ridiculous question!! They have an obligation to pay out under the terms of their contract with the insured person. It's the very reason WHY they bought insurance and why the insurer takes the premium - to accept the risk that they may have to pay out.

Do you really think that insurers will be able to pursue the person who dropped the item? Will they balls. The premium covers the risk, simple as that. If every insurer recovered the costs of payout from some mug they deemed to be liable then insurance would be a damn sight cheaper, because they'd effectively have no risk.

In short - have a think about why people insure and how insurers make money, and you'll see that making a payout under a policy is NOT leaving them "out of pocket".

[elanfan]

It would be quite rare for a shop to have accidental damage on their insurance and even if they did it would have a sizeable excess to deter what would be almost inevitable claims. Accidental breakage cover on a market type stall - no underwriter worth their title would give such cover.

At the end of the day if the breaker was liable then they should be paying the stallholder the trade price of the item i.e. so they don't profit out of the breakage. There are probably lots of elements of contributory negligence to consider - if the items were placed next to a busy gangway where it was almost impossible for them not to be nudged, if the shopper was nudged by someone else etc. Could be a bit of a minefield, but as mentioned if it is just a straight breakage where no-one else but the shopper was at fault then yes they should pay up.

Let's put this another way - you are working on your car in the street, let's say something fragile say a car stereo is put on the bonnet and someone comes along and knocks it on the floor breaking it, wouldn't you expect them to pay for it.

[hman]

You would expect it, but in time you would also be dissappointed if you really believed you would be compensated.

[guns80]

As a shop manager it's interesting how many of you seem to be promoting what could be considered theft I.e. permanently depriving a person of their property. Everyone knows accidents happen and most stores will take this into account but I would say in the case of expensive items or where the damage has been caused by messing about the breakage should be paid for.

[dtmpower]

Similar scenario but slightly different;

A few weeks ago my daughter (2) picked up a Disney drinks cup that she was allowed to chose. She dropped it and it smashed before paying. The manager in the Disney store just picked it up and swapped it there and then whilst we were waiting to pay for some other items. No quibble over the breakage. We still went on to spend about £20.

[eldar]

I seem to recall that shops need to take some precautions to prevent accidental damage. IE expensive and or fragile items out of reach like in display cabinets and stacking things properly.

If the shop doesn't want to risk accidental breakages, don't let customers touch things. If you do, it is your risk. Most do the latter, it helps sales.

[Frix]

guns80 said:

As a shop manager it's interesting how many of you seem to be promoting what could be considered theft I.e. permanently depriving a person of their property. Everyone knows accidents happen and most stores will take this into account but I would say in the case of expensive items or where the damage has been caused by messing about the breakage should be paid for.

I would expect a shop manager to know what theft was!! Time to revisit that definition.

[Timsta]

guns80 said:

As a shop manager it's interesting how many of you seem to be promoting what could be considered theft I.e. permanently depriving a person of their property. Everyone knows accidents happen and most stores will take this into account but I would say in the case of expensive items or where the damage has been caused by messing about the breakage should be paid for.

Theft is the dishonest deprivation of property.

[Flawless Victory]

elanfan said:

Let's put this another way - you are working on your car in the street, let's say something fragile say a car stereo is put on the bonnet and someone comes along and knocks it on the floor breaking it, wouldn't you expect them to pay for it.

No, that would be unreasonable. It would be my fault for putting something breakable and valuable on a surface that is precarious to say the least.

[guns80]

I agree it is hence I only said could and I would argue that if someone breaks an item through their own fault and then refuses to pay for it that is dishonest! In my shop we very rarely would charge someone for a breakage accept in very rare cases the last time I can remember was a child who was swinging a pool noodle around managed to knock an entire shelf of coffee off the top shelf about £30 worth of coffee on the floor. Then the inconvenience of cleaning it up including much broken glass and potential list sales. Fortunately the mother insisted upon paying for the damage straight away.

[Timsta]

It isn't dishonest, just wrong. Saying they didn't do it when they did would be dishonest.

[Stoofa]

I was more interested in the legal aspect rather than the general feelings. I mean for example if I were to trip in a store and knock over a stand containing extremely valuable items then what is expected of me and what is legally required of me I believe are two different things.

Can anyone point in the direction of the actual legal issue here?
Despite the overall "feeling" I believe that someone accidentally breaking something is not required by law to actually pay for the damages. Yes accidental damage insurance will be expensive, but then I guess as a shop owner that is the risk/gamble you are required to take.

Cheers.

[ruff'n'smov]

guns80 said:

I agree it is hence I only said could and I would argue that if someone breaks an item through their own fault and then refuses to pay for it that is dishonest! In my shop we very rarely would charge someone for a breakage accept in very rare cases the last time I can remember was a child who was swinging a pool noodle around managed to knock an entire shelf of coffee off the top shelf about £30 worth of coffee on the floor. Then the inconvenience of cleaning it up including much broken glass and potential list sales. Fortunately the mother insisted upon paying for the damage straight away.

So if the mother had refused to pay for the damage her child caused, what would you have done ? ...called the BiB....it's hard enough to get them to attend for a shoplifter, The BiB would quite correctly say accident, deal with it.

[guns80]

If the lady had refused to pay it would be an awkward situation hence the fortunately. I'm only trying to give a different side to the argument. Despite what some posters think it would be difficult if not impossible to claim off our insurance and these days profit margins are not huge after costs a £20 loss could easily wipe out a days profits. Thankfully most people are good enough that when they break something either accidentally or on purpose they offer to pay.

In the case of someone tripping it would depend what they tripped on and if it was witnessed by a staff member. As for legal positions in reality not much a store could do whatever the circumstances.

[streaky]

Stoofa said:

mattviatura said:

Something fishy here.

Strange things are afoot.

That'll answer it then. Thank you....for your....input.

Here Polly, here Polly, have some cuttlebone.

Streaky

[mattviatura]

streaky said:

Here Polly, here Polly, have some cuttlebone.

Streaky

Finally.