TOTALLY GEEKED!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Target hit with $4.6 million dollar judgment after refusing $12,000 settlement offered by Plaintiff

Tangerine · Guru

Wth?
Companies and people are responsible when random jerks leave infectious litter on their property?
That can't be right.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Places of business that are open to the public have a responsibility to keep their guests safe from any foreseeable danger. That means keeping the property clean, etc. It happened on their property and wasn't something that a person visiting the store had reasonable knowledge of, or even foresight of - so that makes them liable.

Would you expect to find a needle in a Target parking lot? I wouldn't.

But my guess is that the jury didn't like how Target responded after the fact.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

When someone enters your property, they have a reasonable expectation of not getting injured. This means that you, as a property owner (or non-owner resident), are responsible for maintaining a relatively safe environment. This is known as "premises liability." For example, a courier delivering a package may sue you for injuries if he slips and falls on an oil slick in the driveway. But if that same courier happened to be intoxicated or otherwise acted in an unsafe way, then he may not have a valid claim.

The legal theory of premises liability holds property owners and residents liable for accidents and injuries that occur on that property. The kinds of incidents that may result in premises liability claims can range from a slip and fall on a public sidewalk to an injury suffered on an amusement park ride.

Liability is determined by the laws and procedures of the state in which the injury occurred. In some states, the court will focus on the status of the injured visitor in determining liability. In other states, the focus will be on the condition of the property and the activities of both the owner and visitor. It is important to remember that an occupier of land, such as an apartment tenant, is treated in the same manner as a landowner in many situations.

Legal Status of Visitor: Invitee, Licensee, or Trespasser?

In states that focus only on the status of the visitor to the property, there are generally four different labels that may apply: invitee, social guest, licensee, or trespasser.

An invitee is someone who is invited onto the property of another, such as a customer in a store. This invitation usually implies that the property owner/possessor has taken reasonable steps to assure the safety of the premises.
A licensee enters property for his own purpose, or as a social guest, and is present at the consent of the owner.
A social guest is just that, a welcome visitor to the property.
Finally, a trespasser enters without any right whatsoever to do so. In the case of licensees and trespassers, there is no implied promise that reasonable care has been made to assure the safety of the property.

Condition of the Property and Actions of the Visitor

In states where consideration is given to the condition of the property and the activities of the owner and visitor, a uniform standard of care is applied to both invitees and licensees. This uniform standard requires the exercise of reasonable care for the safety of the visitor, other than a trespasser.

Determining whether the standard of reasonableness required by an owner toward licensees (and in some states, both licensees and invitees) has been met requires an examination of numerous factors including:

Circumstances under which the visitor entered the property;
Use to which the property is put;
Foreseeability of the accident or injury that occurred;
Reasonableness of the owner/possessor's effort to repair a dangerous condition or warn visitors.

Tangerine · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
Places of business that are open to the public have a responsibility to keep their guests safe from any foreseeable danger. That means keeping the property clean, etc. It happened on their property and wasn't something that a person visiting the store had reasonable knowledge of, or even foresight of - so that makes them liable.

Would you expect to find a needle in a Target parking lot? I wouldn't.

But my guess is that the jury didn't like how Target responded after the fact.

Depends on what part of town the Target is in.

What if they clean the parking lot twice a day and the person who left this just happened to do so between cleanings? I don't see how Tlarger can be blamed for some irresponsible person dropping things in th parking lot.

Vette · Owl drink to that!

Tangerine wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Places of business that are open to the public have a responsibility to keep their guests safe from any foreseeable danger. That means keeping the property clean, etc. It happened on their property and wasn't something that a person visiting the store had reasonable knowledge of, or even foresight of - so that makes them liable.

Would you expect to find a needle in a Target parking lot? I wouldn't.

But my guess is that the jury didn't like how Target responded after the fact.
Depends on what part of town the Target is in.
What if they clean the parking lot twice a day and the person who left this just happened to do so between cleanings? I don't see how Tlarger can be blamed for some irresponsible person dropping things in th parking lot.

I agree!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

I think that is a ridiculous judgment. Yes, it was their parking lot but they can't sweep it every 30 seconds. People leave crap all over the place. Why was mom "swatting" it out of her daughter's hands? She was 8. Wasn't like she was going to put it in her mouth.
And, i can see a minor judgment for lost work time but millions? Absurd. But, then again this is America, where court rooms are now viewed as lottery money.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Maybe i will find out who her lawyer is and go drop a jar of pickles in Walmart and slip and fall.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Tangerine wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
Places of business that are open to the public have a responsibility to keep their guests safe from any foreseeable danger. That means keeping the property clean, etc. It happened on their property and wasn't something that a person visiting the store had reasonable knowledge of, or even foresight of - so that makes them liable.

Would you expect to find a needle in a Target parking lot? I wouldn't.

But my guess is that the jury didn't like how Target responded after the fact.
Depends on what part of town the Target is in.
What if they clean the parking lot twice a day and the person who left this just happened to do so between cleanings? I don't see how Tlarger can be blamed for some irresponsible person dropping things in th parking lot.

Because Target brings in thousands of people everyday, and bringing in people means bringing in their trash - which means you have to be vigilant.

Premises liability is a very historical, strong legal theory. If you are hurt on someone's property due to a threat YOU knew nothing of - the owner is liable.

So, dropping your own jar of pickles won't work.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Well , obviously they won't know that I dropped them!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Lady Gaga Snerd wrote:
Well , obviously they won't know that I dropped them!

Ha! That's what security cameras are for.

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Yes, i know. I will send in Pickle jar destroying plant prior to going in!

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

The basic principle is that the owner of the property has control of the property - not a guest that comes onto it. Who else is going to be liable? Why should a visitor to Target get hurt there and have to be out of work, sick, and lose money for something they were not responsible for?

FNW · Guru

I used to work for a firm that defended cases like this. I am surprised they didn't take the settlement offer. It seemed reasonable, and much less than the cost to litigate.

If I had to guess, I think that the parking lot might possibly be an area where intravenous drug use is known, or at least that was proven by the Plaintiff. This would mean Target would have to step up their parking lot monitoring for needles, drugs, etc. Or like LL said, they didn't like the way Target handled it and wanted to "stick it to them" (pun intended), possibly for this or maybe even for their stance on the bathroom issue. The verdict sounds more punitive in nature. I suspect they will appeal.

NAOW · Vette's SS

Lawyerlady wrote:
The basic principle is that the owner of the property has control of the property - not a guest that comes onto it. Who else is going to be liable? Why should a visitor to Target get hurt there and have to be out of work, sick, and lose money for something they were not responsible for?

I agree. I think the last thing a business wants to do is send the message that if customers want to come and shop it's "at their own risk."

chef · Guru

I don't agree with this judgment. It's not Target's fault that some jerk littered.

When I visit a store, I assume the structure itself is safe. I assume shelves, fixtures, etc. won't come loose and hurt me. I do not assume that the parking lot or store will be spotless nor free of stuff that may harm me. I've seen far too many people treat the parking lot and store like their personal trash can to assume that everything is safe.

Also, this settlement begs a question for me - Are people now going to sue for damage to their cars from carts? There are a lot of people who refuse to use the cart corrals even when they're provided.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

chef wrote:
I don't agree with this judgment. It's not Target's fault that some jerk littered.

When I visit a store, I assume the structure itself is safe. I assume shelves, fixtures, etc. won't come loose and hurt me. I do not assume that the parking lot or store will be spotless nor free of stuff that may harm me. I've seen far too many people treat the parking lot and store like their personal trash can to assume that everything is safe.

Also, this settlement begs a question for me - Are people now going to sue for damage to their cars from carts? There are a lot of people who refuse to use the cart corrals even when they're provided.

Totally different. A reasonable person would expect to find carts and the subsequent issues arising from that in a store parking lot. Just like you'd expect to find other cars.

You don't expect to find hypodermic needles lying around, though.

chef · Guru

Lawyerlady wrote:
chef wrote:
I don't agree with this judgment. It's not Target's fault that some jerk littered.

When I visit a store, I assume the structure itself is safe. I assume shelves, fixtures, etc. won't come loose and hurt me. I do not assume that the parking lot or store will be spotless nor free of stuff that may harm me. I've seen far too many people treat the parking lot and store like their personal trash can to assume that everything is safe.

Also, this settlement begs a question for me - Are people now going to sue for damage to their cars from carts? There are a lot of people who refuse to use the cart corrals even when they're provided.
Totally different. A reasonable person would expect to find carts and the subsequent issues arising from that in a store parking lot. Just like you'd expect to find other cars.
You don't expect to find hypodermic needles lying around, though.

I don't expect to find a hypodermic needle in a parking lot but I also don't expect to grab a box from a shelf and discover the back of the box is coated with goo from rotting food that some jerk put where it didn't belong.

I put this lawsuit in the same category as people who antagonize a dog and get bit or trespass and get bit then sue the dog's owner. Especially the latter. My dog belongs on my property. You don't.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Lawyerlady wrote:
chef wrote:
I don't agree with this judgment. It's not Target's fault that some jerk littered.

When I visit a store, I assume the structure itself is safe. I assume shelves, fixtures, etc. won't come loose and hurt me. I do not assume that the parking lot or store will be spotless nor free of stuff that may harm me. I've seen far too many people treat the parking lot and store like their personal trash can to assume that everything is safe.

Also, this settlement begs a question for me - Are people now going to sue for damage to their cars from carts? There are a lot of people who refuse to use the cart corrals even when they're provided.
Totally different. A reasonable person would expect to find carts and the subsequent issues arising from that in a store parking lot. Just like you'd expect to find other cars.
You don't expect to find hypodermic needles lying around, though.

I disagree. I expect, at least wouldn't be surprised,that people have littered sharp items. and I know drug users do sit in their cars to shoot up and will often toss their trash out the window. A needle is not some easily seen and is probably too small to be swept up by the parking lot sweepers/vacs used.

lilyofcourse · My spirit animal is a pink flamingo.

Druggies don't generally toss a needle.

I wonder if it was some careless person who picked up a prescription and needed a dose of whatever it was.

Also curious if the needle was tested for anything.

Why did the 8 year old pick it up in the first place? That seemed strange to me.

Every once in a while, we hear about needles being hidden in places, gas pumps, clothing, swings.

What proof was there that this happened in their parking lot?

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
chef wrote:
I don't agree with this judgment. It's not Target's fault that some jerk littered.

When I visit a store, I assume the structure itself is safe. I assume shelves, fixtures, etc. won't come loose and hurt me. I do not assume that the parking lot or store will be spotless nor free of stuff that may harm me. I've seen far too many people treat the parking lot and store like their personal trash can to assume that everything is safe.

Also, this settlement begs a question for me - Are people now going to sue for damage to their cars from carts? There are a lot of people who refuse to use the cart corrals even when they're provided.
Totally different. A reasonable person would expect to find carts and the subsequent issues arising from that in a store parking lot. Just like you'd expect to find other cars.
You don't expect to find hypodermic needles lying around, though.
I disagree. I expect, at least wouldn't be surprised,that people have littered sharp items. and I know drug users do sit in their cars to shoot up and will often toss their trash out the window. A needle is not some easily seen and is probably too small to be swept up by the parking lot sweepers/vacs used.

Then they are doing a crappy job. If they can sweep up gum wrappers, they can sweep up a needle.

The POINT is that a guest isn't the one responsible for unexpected safety issues - the owner is. That is the law and has been forever.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

Lawyerlady wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
chef wrote:
I don't agree with this judgment. It's not Target's fault that some jerk littered.

When I visit a store, I assume the structure itself is safe. I assume shelves, fixtures, etc. won't come loose and hurt me. I do not assume that the parking lot or store will be spotless nor free of stuff that may harm me. I've seen far too many people treat the parking lot and store like their personal trash can to assume that everything is safe.

Also, this settlement begs a question for me - Are people now going to sue for damage to their cars from carts? There are a lot of people who refuse to use the cart corrals even when they're provided.
Totally different. A reasonable person would expect to find carts and the subsequent issues arising from that in a store parking lot. Just like you'd expect to find other cars.
You don't expect to find hypodermic needles lying around, though.
I disagree. I expect, at least wouldn't be surprised,that people have littered sharp items. and I know drug users do sit in their cars to shoot up and will often toss their trash out the window. A needle is not some easily seen and is probably too small to be swept up by the parking lot sweepers/vacs used.
Then they are doing a crappy job. If they can sweep up gum wrappers, they can sweep up a needle.
The POINT is that a guest isn't the one responsible for unexpected safety issues - the owner is. That is the law and has been forever.

Maybe, but doesn't mean I have to agree.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
I know what to do_sometimes wrote:
Lawyerlady wrote:
chef wrote:
I don't agree with this judgment. It's not Target's fault that some jerk littered.

When I visit a store, I assume the structure itself is safe. I assume shelves, fixtures, etc. won't come loose and hurt me. I do not assume that the parking lot or store will be spotless nor free of stuff that may harm me. I've seen far too many people treat the parking lot and store like their personal trash can to assume that everything is safe.

Also, this settlement begs a question for me - Are people now going to sue for damage to their cars from carts? There are a lot of people who refuse to use the cart corrals even when they're provided.
Totally different. A reasonable person would expect to find carts and the subsequent issues arising from that in a store parking lot. Just like you'd expect to find other cars.
You don't expect to find hypodermic needles lying around, though.
I disagree. I expect, at least wouldn't be surprised,that people have littered sharp items. and I know drug users do sit in their cars to shoot up and will often toss their trash out the window. A needle is not some easily seen and is probably too small to be swept up by the parking lot sweepers/vacs used.
Then they are doing a crappy job. If they can sweep up gum wrappers, they can sweep up a needle.
The POINT is that a guest isn't the one responsible for unexpected safety issues - the owner is. That is the law and has been forever.
Maybe, but doesn't mean I have to agree.

I do not think you are giving any thought to the alternative. Where stores wouldn't have to bother because they wouldn't be held liable at all. You can't pick and choose to apply different standards depending on each situation - there needs to be a rule of law. You really think it would be better if Target, or any other store, didn't have to bother to provide safety to their shoppers at all?

WYSIWYG · Guru

I think the line should be drawn at reasonableness. Do they vacuum the lot every night? Are the cart-wranglers checking the lot when they collect carts?

If reasonable precautions are being taken, I don't see how this could be their fault. This "award" is ludicrous.

Plus, who swats a needle out of someone's hand? Sorry. The swatting of the needle was 100% the mother's fault.

Or, better yet, why sue Target? If you are going to go to ridiculous ends for a lawsuit, why not go as ridiculous as possible. Who invented the hypodermic needle in the first place? Sue them for creating such a danger!

Lady Gaga Snerd · Guru

Sue Big Pharma for creating and selling syringes! This is just ridiculous and simply a bunch of people who just want to punish a business. After all, practically every kids movie is about EVIL corporations. We have been indocrinating generations that corporations and businesses are bad.

I know what to do_sometimes · Frozen Sucks!

WYSIWYG wrote:
I think the line should be drawn at reasonableness. Do they vacuum the lot every night? Are the cart-wranglers checking the lot when they collect carts?

If reasonable precautions are being taken, I don't see how this could be their fault. This "award" is ludicrous.

Plus, who swats a needle out of someone's hand? Sorry. The swatting of the needle was 100% the mother's fault.

Or, better yet, why sue Target? If you are going to go to ridiculous ends for a lawsuit, why not go as ridiculous as possible. Who invented the hypodermic needle in the first place? Sue them for creating such a danger!

This is my thought as well. They do clean the parking lot. The mother has to bear some responsibility as well.

Lawyerlady · On the bright side...... Christmas is coming! (Mod)

Oh, I think the award was too high. But that says something about how Target handled it. The jury was not pleased.

FNW · Guru

i used to see lawsuits from people who tripped on those concrete parking bumps. My MIL was sued for having a crack in her sidewalk. The injuries claimed were that of someone who was hit by a car. But he was a tenant which created a higher duty of care. Fortunately her insurance company settled it so probate could close.

Then there were the car accidents in rental cars. Ugh.

TrudyML · Guru

I groan everyday at made up claims.

TOTALLY GEEKED!

Woman stuck by needle in Target

in parking lot awarded $4.6 million