“For many years, with more or less success, there were disputes between consumers and retail companies about the consequences of damaging products in the self-service hall. Let’s say a citizen took a jar of cucumbers from a shelf and they took it and dropped it And, of course, it broke. Immediately afterwards, the administrator usually appears and demands payment for the damaged goods. The consumer also usually raises his hands, complains about the slippery glass, the uncomfortable presentation and refuses to pay. “A conflict has arisen that should be resolved somehow,” says Alexander Jaminsky, director of the Center for Public Order in Moscow and the Moscow region.
If you look at the comments of lawyers, you can pay attention to interesting statistics. Most link responsibility for a broken can with property relations. If the receipt is not punched, it means that the merchandise belongs to the store, which must ensure its safety. After payment and issuance of the check, the property passes to the buyer, who assumes the burden as provided by law. At the same time, lawyers confidently list articles of the Civil Code and points of commercial rules, citing wet floors, insufficient lighting and lack of intent. It seems that the answer has been found, but unfortunately it is incorrect.
“Let’s go back to the jar of cucumbers that fell out of the buyer’s hands. The question is: who will pay for it? The answer: who is to blame. And here it is necessary to mention that there are two forms of fault – intentional and negligent. So , by accident, this is due to negligence. And in this case, article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation “General grounds of liability for causing damage” should be applied, in accordance with part 1 of which Damage is compensated entirely by the person who caused it. That is, the buyer. Well, what if the glass really was wet, the floor was slippery and the shelves were arranged in violation of GOST? Then part 2 of this article goes into force, according to which a person is exempt from liability if he proves that the damage was not caused by his fault. And in this case, the key word is “prove”. This means that the burden of proof falls on the buyer, ” explains the lawyer.
At the same time, he notes that in conditions when all stores are equipped with video surveillance systems and even the simplest smartphones have high-quality video cameras, technically this will not be difficult. It is true, if there are reasons for it. And if a person really wants to prove something.
“In any case, neither the buyer nor the representatives of the store should go beyond the established limits of behavior and not allow actions that could later be considered arbitrariness or vandalism. By the way, the administrator does not have the right to demand payment of the merchandise directly through the cash register, since this is not the execution of a retail sales contract, but rather compensation for damage. The most correct step would be to draw up an act on the event that occurred, in which the parties “Will describe their versions of what happened, identify witnesses and take notes on photographs or videos, and then resolve the situation in a civilized manner,” adds Alexander Khaminsky.
