“Dangerous” cart corrals

September 1, 2009
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Menard’s has funny-looking and somewhat impractical cart corrals that are also apparently unsafe and dangerous. Just ask Gerald Roberts of McCreary County, Ky.

He was visiting a Menard’s in Lafayette, Ind., and decided to “travel through” the cart corral, hitting a horizontal metal bar at the opposite end of the corral. He hurt himself in 2007 and now he’s suing the store and the maker of the corral.

The suit is pretty scant on details, but apparently, he’s walked through these cart corrals before and never injured himself. Here’s a picture of what these corrals usually look like.

According to the suit filed in federal court yesterday, Roberts suffered great bodily injury and pain, hurt his head and neck, and has severe and permanent emotional harm. His wife is also suing for loss of love, support, and companionship.

Why would you walk through one of these cart corrals in the first place? I’ve been to Menard’s enough to see they are usually full of ill-configured shopping carts and large carts for wood and supplies to make it like an obstacle course to try to get from one side to the other.

Instead of a)not walking through the cart corral, b) paying attention to your surroundings, or c) taking responsibility for your own negligence, Roberts feels like it’s Menard’s and the manufacturer’s fault he hurt himself. What severe and permanent emotional harm has he suffered? Embarrassment that he whacked himself on a cart corral at a hardware store when he wasn’t paying attention?

I’m not trying to make light of this guy’s injuries (whatever they may be as they aren’t detailed in the suit), but it’s not like the wind picked up this improperly grounded cart corral and struck him or it suddenly collapsed on him. He walked through it and somehow injured himself. But apparently, that’s not his fault because the corral has an “unreasonably dangerous design” and has “inadequate warnings.”

I wonder if the next time I’m at Menard’s I’ll see a “STOP: DO NOT ENTER” or “DO NOT WALK THROUGH” attached to these corrals.
ADVERTISEMENT
  • Good thing he survived or we would have had to include in the Darwin award entries, and he might have won. The Darwin award for doing society the biggest favor by taking himself out of the gene pool.

    In fairness I guess anything is possible, but most likely this is just another perfect example of why our society has so little respect for the legal profession.
  • In all actuality, someone that rides their motorcycle through the property of any business, regardless of the purpose or placement of such property, has no reason to complain that a horizontal strcutural support clothes-lined him on his way through.

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
  1. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT