A elderly woman went to Best Buy. Another shopper struck her from behind with their cart and injured her. She did not know the identity of the person who ran their cart into her, or whether they had anything in the cart basket that would have obstructed their view.
She sued Best Buy and the shopping cart manufacturer alleging the carts were designed dangerously because the lower base is longer than the upper basket impairing the average shopper’s view of the base, thereby creating a potential trip/knock down hazard. She claimed the cart’s negligent design was a proximate cause of the incident because the upper basket impaired the following customer’s view of the lower base of the cart. She alleged Best Buy failed to maintain a reasonably safe store by allowing customers to use the dangerously designed carts.[1]
The woman retained an expert who testified that “the design of the cart is such that it contributes to this type of accident; it’s foreseeable that this type of accident is going to happen.” He did not state, however, that on a more probable than not basis the design of the cart was the proximate cause of the accident.
The expert conceded no shopping cart industry design standards exist. And he did not state on a more probable than not basis that the customer ran into the woman because of the alleged design defect, that the basket impaired the customer’s view of the front of the base. Because her alleged design defect claim entails the design of the basket in relation to the customer’s ability or inability to view the front of the base of the cart, the Court ruled she cannot prove on a more probable than not basis that the alleged design defect was a proximate cause of the incident.
The Court of Appeals upheld dismissal.