In a California personal injury case where a shopper is injured by a shopping cart rolling downhill due to the lack of cart stoppers or proper cart control, the case likely falls under premises liability based on negligence. These facts can present a strong claim, especially if the store failed to implement reasonable safety measures to prevent foreseeable harm.
⚖️ Legal Framework – Premises Liability (California Civil Code § 1714)
To succeed, the injured shopper (plaintiff) must prove the following:
1. Duty of Care
- Businesses owe customers a duty to maintain a reasonably safe environment, including parking lots, walkways, and loading areas.
- This duty extends to preventing uncontrolled carts from injuring people.
- This includes:
- Maintaining cart corrals and wheel stoppers,
- Positioning barriers on sloped surfaces,
- Training staff to retrieve or secure carts.
2. Breach of Duty
- If the store failed to install cart wheel locks or stoppers in a sloped area where carts regularly roll away, that may be a breach of their duty to prevent foreseeable harm.
- Many large retailers use automatic braking systems, cart containment technology, or manual controls in hilly lots.
3. Notice – Actual or Constructive Knowledge
- If the store knew carts had previously rolled into people or cars, that is actual notice.
- If the slope is obvious, and carts were left unsecured frequently, the store had constructive notice and should have taken preventive steps.
Evidence of prior complaints, incident reports, or similar accidents makes the case stronger.
4. Causation
- The shopper must show that the rolling cart caused their injuries — not a separate or intervening act (like a shopper pushing the cart recklessly).
- This can be proven with surveillance video, witness statements, or the physical layout of the area.
5. Damages
- Plaintiff must show actual injury, including:
- Medical bills
- Lost wages
- Pain and suffering
- Future medical care (if applicable)
🧾 Potentially Liable Parties
- The store, if it owns or operates the lot and failed to install or maintain cart safety systems.
- A third-party maintenance or cart management service, if they were contracted to manage carts.
- Another customer, in rare cases, if they negligently pushed or abandoned a cart in a dangerous way (secondary to store’s liability).
📎 Key Evidence to Strengthen the Claim
- Surveillance footage showing the cart rolling freely.
- Photos of the slope and lack of stoppers or corrals.
- Incident reports filed with the store.
- Witness testimony.
- Expert testimony (on slope grade and safety standards).
- Maintenance or inspection logs.
⚠️ Comparative Negligence – California Rule
California applies pure comparative fault. If the plaintiff was partly at fault (e.g., standing in a prohibited area or not paying attention), their award will be reduced.
Example: Shopper 20% at fault. Total damages = $100,000 → Recovery = $80,000.
🕒 Statute of Limitations
- A lawsuit must be filed within 2 years from the date of the injury (Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 335.1).
- If the property is owned by a government entity (e.g., public shopping center), a government tort claim must be filed within 6 months.
✅ Summary
Being injured by a runaway shopping cart due to the store’s failure to install stoppers or control cart movement may give rise to a strong premises liability claim, especially if:
- The area is sloped and cart rollaways were foreseeable,
- The store failed to act to mitigate this known risk, and
- The incident caused real injury and damages.
Law Offices of James R. Dickinson – 909-848-8448
How To Schedule A Consultation:
Please call us at 909-848-8448 to schedule a free consultation/case evaluation or complete the form immediately below. [Please note certain formalities must be completed to retain the Law Offices of James R. Dickinson, such as the signing of a legal fee agreement [see “Disclaimers”]].