Another "slip and fall"

[RED98WS6]

What is the name of your state? TEXAS

My wife and 4 year old son were at a shopping mall and were in a store when my son starting running (like most 4 year olds like to do). My wife called to him to stop, when she did, he tripped and fell onto a fixture holding up clothes. He cut his forehead that was bad enough that he needed stitches. The store insisted that he take the ambulance to the hospital where he was treated. The store manager verbally told my wife that the store would pay for the expenses incurred (including the ambulance ride). There were really no other witnesses other than my wife. My insurance paid for some of it, but most of the expenses (some $850) will come out of my pocket since my deductible is high. Now the store is changing their tune and saying that they were not liable and probably will not pay for anything. What are my chances that I can take this to court and get the $850 that covers what my insurance did not cover?

The breakdown of the expenses (approximate) where: ambulance ride - $500, medical treatment - $350.

My wife insists that the stand holding the clothes up had very sharp edges (where he fell) and we both feel the store is liable.

Please let me know your thoughts. It will be greatly appreciated!

[COlandlord]

Are you kidding? Your son was running in a store because YOUR WIFE failed to control him, YOUR son tripped because he was running...and you want the store to be liable? Verbal statements mean nothing. After reviewing the security tapes, management made the right decision that the fault is that of your wife.

[tranquility]

I think you can reasonably rely on a store manager's verbal assurance things would be taken care of.

The store insisted that he take the ambulance to the hospital where he was treated.

This is called promissory estoppel and is like a contract with no consideration. What you can get is damages from the promise. What are your damages?

Your damages are not the cost of the medical care as you would probably need that anyway. You may be able to claim you would not have taken an ambulance as you could have taken your child to the doctor on your own. So, you may be able to claim the cost of the ambulance and the difference in cost between the emergency room and an urgent care center for the treatment.

I agree with COlandlord there does not seem to be a lot of tort-based liability here. For the damages listed, you would never get the type of experts into court to say the "sharp edges" were a danger needed to be made safe, perhaps through warning. Even then it would be a reach.

I'd write a demand to the store and list out your full damages. (Including your time and the child's pain and suffering.) The store will turn it over to their insurance company who will deny or make a counteroffer. Negotiate the amount, or if denied, calculate the amount you MAY win in small claims court (ambulance and difference in treatment cost) and decide accordingly. Because of the damages, they may just do a nusiance settlement--which is fine by you.

[COlandlord]

You can reasonably rely on a store managers statements if it can be proven.

However, OP needs to look at who is "liable" in this instance and not try to get a free ride from their own negligence (please...no name calling) Using the legal system for frivilous lawsuits just increases prices on merchandise which are passed on the the rest of us who take accountability for our own actions.

[tranquility]

Using the legal system for frivilous lawsuits just increases prices on merchandise which are passed on the the rest of us who take accountability for our own actions.

Two things. First, this is not a frivilous lawsuit as there are legitimate theories of liability here. Second, we have the trajedy of the commons problem. Say we have the common field and want to graze our cow. If we don't, our cow dies and we lose the value of the cow. If we do, there is a possibility that the field will be overgrazed and, someday, maybe everyone's cow dies. Maybe, someday. What does a rational person choose? To gain benefit now or refrain from current benefit on the theory of maybe everyone is hurt to some small degree?