Injured Walmart shopper seeks $500K
A Walmart shopper in Ontario who tripped and fell while chasing after a shopping cart that rolled away from her in a parking garage is seeking half a million dollars in damages.
Sandra Cartini was returning to her car on Feb. 12, 2013, at the Square One Shopping Centre in Mississauga, after shopping at Walmart, according to court records. The parking garage consists of multiple “tiered slopes.”
Cartini had her young son hold on to the cart while she opened the trunk. Her son let go of the cart and it began to roll away. Cartini alleged that as she ran after the cart, she tripped on “uneven pavement” and fell, hitting her head on the cart, causing permanent and serious injuries.
Her statement of claim, which seeks $250,000 in general damages and $ 250,000 in special damages, lists Walmart Canada Corp., property manager OPGI Management GP Inc., and landlord Square One Property Corp., as defendants.
According to court records, Cartini’s original lawyer initially put forward an argument that the defendants were negligent in the design, construction and maintenance of the parking garage ( the “unsafe parking l ot theory”).
But engineers hired by the defence said the parking garage complied with industry standards and showed no signs of disrepair. The defendants filed a motion asking for summary judgment — a quick resolution that saves everyone from going to trial.
During a hearing on the motion, Cartini’s new lawyer put forward an alternate argument — the “unsafe shopping cart theory” — that contends Cartini would never have been hurt if the Walmart cart had stayed in place. Faranaz Siganporia argued that common sense dictates a shopping cart on any sloped surface poses an inherent risk and that it was foreseeable that a shopper could lose control of her cart.
On Dec. 29, Ontario Superior Court Judge David Corbett agreed to dismiss the claim on the basis of the “unsafe parking lot theory” but allowed Cartini the opportunity to amend her claim to argue the “unsafe shopping cart theory,” agreeing that shopping carts without brakes “are an obvious hazard to ‘get loose.’ ”
“On the face of it,” the judge said, “there is some argument for the plaintiff that there may be some liability” on the part of the defendants for her injuries.
“I will grant the plaintiff one more opportunity to present a case that there is a triable issue. This will require (the plaintiff ) to bring Walmart into the fray, and to obtain expert evidence in respect to this theory.”
The plaintiff was given until the end of January to submit an amended claim.
“We’re not saying every Walmart should have shopping carts with a locking mechanism,” Siganporia said in an interview Thursday. “But obviously Walmarts located where carts can be taken on inclined surfaces, they definitely should have a locking mechanism.”
Walmart declined to comment, as did the lawyer representing the other defendants.