A FASHION chain faces a £36,102 bill after a six-year-old boy ran through a shop window, mistaking it for a door.
He needed 12 stitches in a cut just above an eye, and needs to wear a cap to protect his would from the sun, a court heard.
Other parts of his face were also cut and his hands were grazed.
His mother described it as "like a bomb" when the glass shattered and large shards hung above the boy at the Long Eaton branch of New Look on July 9, 2010.
Company representatives have now appeared in court and pleaded guilty to exposing the public to risk.
Derby magistrates imposed a maximum fine of £20,000, plus £16,087 costs and a £15 government surcharge.
The court heard the boy had gone into the store to look for his sister while their mother waited outside on a sunny day.
"As he ran back out, he mistook the pane of glass for the immediately adjacent door and ran into it," said Bernard Thorogood, representing Erewash Borough Council at the hearing.
"The relatively fragile nature of the window and the six-year-old hitting it caused it to shatter.
"There were razor sharp shards of glass and the boy was badly cut. That was a very distressing scene for his mother to observe."
He said there were no markings on the glass to indicate it was a window. A store dummy had fallen and broken a pane earlier, an incident which should have been "a wake-up call."
The boy recently suffered a panic attack when his mother wanted to go into the High Street store. After the incident, the company's health and safety manager showed "exemplary conduct and was frank, helpful and open," Mr Thorogood added.
Lee Bennett, in mitigation, told the court: "It is one of the shortest words in the English language and begins with an "S" but many clients can't say 'sorry.'
"But this is not a company which is playing games. We have accepted it and we are standing up and saying that single word. There is no argument – we accept the failings up front and in full."
He said the Long Eaton store was one of several which had been left out of a risk assessment by the firm and added: "To use the colloquial, it was a cock-up. It should have been better and it was not."
Presiding magistrate Paul Harvey said they considered compensation for the mother and her son, but added: "We believe it is more appropriate for the assessment and quantum of damages is dealt with in the civil court."
They imposed an order to protect the family's identity.
