In times of ever-increasing technology and computerization in all areas of life, everyday life sometimes requires strong nerves. But not everyone has that. This is also shown by the case involving a damaged self-service checkout in a supermarket, which led to a civil dispute before the Munich district court.
The defendant in the case was a customer who clearly ran out of patience when he wanted to pay for his purchases at the self-service checkout. According to the manager of the supermarket, the defendant scanned goods. Due to a message on the device, approval from an employee was required.
For the customer, who was probably not very tech-savvy, the error message was apparently the straw that broke the camel’s back. As the manager of the supermarket explained in court, the defendant then “hit the display forcefully with his fist” out of impatience, whereupon it broke. In any case, “acting on the display to record an item” would not have been necessary, the store manager made it clear.
The defendant customer, however, described the scanning of his goods in court somewhat differently. When he tried to scan the last item from his purchase, he “pressed a little harder against the display several times with two fingers.” Consequence: The display then cracked. As a result, it must have had “previous damage”; it “didn’t work properly” even before he scanned his goods.
The court didn’t believe a word the customer said. Rather, the store manager explained “conclusively” how the damage occurred. In addition, two witnesses confirmed to the court what actually happened. Both reported that the defendant hit the display and thereby damaged it. Meanwhile, one of the two witnesses stood as a supervisor at the display cash register and kept an eye on everything.
During her statement, she described how she repeatedly supported the customer as he scanned his goods and had to activate the self-service checkout several times. When the defendant hit the display with the back of his hand, which was clenched into a fist, she was standing right next to him. The other witness, who was a customer and also wanted to scan her goods, also confirmed that the defendant did not know how to use the device and acted “hectically”. She also saw his hitting movement on the display.
The court considered the supermarket’s lawsuit against the customer to be “fully justified” and ordered the customer to pay compensation of 1,043.18 euros for the demolished display.
The judgment of the district court (ref. 112 C 9123/22) is legally binding.