There is no way a non-lawyer made that decision. Would not be a store manager making this call.
2 Likes
The defense lawyer is going to have a field day with the big “cash and jewelry this way” sign you posted on your roof, though.
But yeah, in general, what happens on your property is your problem. That’s part of the whole property-owning thing.
2 Likes
The money did go to a deserving cause. The money went to a woman who racked up 12K in medical bills because Target doesn’t keep its parking lot clean.
3 Likes
You may well be right, but then they’re likely an idiot. Refer this case up to any reasonable corporate risk manager (whether or not that’s their title) and they would support the goodwill payment without any sort of effect on individual performance metrics. We should expect the performance that we incentivise. If they make it personally punitive to properly manage corporate risks like this, they’ll just be exposed to more of them.
4 Likes
This is what I don’t understand about people simply not understanding why punitive damages get so large.
Who here saw Fight Club? Funny, this exact sequence came up in conversation with a friend this weekend. Remember when he describes how companies decide, say, whether to fix a car problem that might cause injuries or death? It’s a very cold mathematical calculation, at least for many companies (not all), and they usually end up doing what they think will end up costing them less – which means NOT issuing a recall and making repairs if they think the total cost of litigation will be less than the cost of fixing the issue.
So this is why punitive damages are so high, people. It’s not about rewarding the person who happens to win, it’s about punishing the company that loses. They need to see big, big numbers, and start multiplying those across the number of potentially affected people, so that they have no choice but to fix things. In the case of Target, yes, this does actually mean making sure people aren’t shooting up in your parking lot and leaving their needles behind. When it’s your property and especially property you know the public will be on ALL THE TIME, yes, it is your responsibility to keep it safe. Sheesh.
17 Likes
As a Canadian, can I just say how frakking weird this… you’re all arguing about whether Target should or should not be liable… when if you had universal healthcare this would be moot! Seriously, what is going on!! You know what happen in Ontario if I get a needlestick injury? I go to the hospital and they set up a 6 month regime of vaccines and tests. That are paid for by Health Canada. Seriously I’d post a gif but I find this is all so horrifying…
34 Likes
Well yes, but $4.6M worth of deserving?
As an aside, now you know why businesses hire security guards to chase away skateboarders.
6 Likes
Interestingly, in Mass, there are weird exceptions for keeping kids safe- even if they’re trespassing.
Still: Target runs a store that is frequented by families- and provides parking for that purpose. Clearly there’s an expectation that the parking they’ve provided is “reasonably” safe for those they’ve invited.
2 Likes
This is key 
4 Likes
Yes, but you’re forgetting that average Americans are EASILY as brainwashed as Russians, North Koreans, Chinese… I know that SOME of us make it looks like all Americans are super-intelligent (heh), but in terms of averages? Yeah, we’re about as stupid as you can get. It’s all about massive, societal-level brainwashing. It’s been going on for many years over here.
3 Likes
Yep, it sounds about right. From the article:
“The final damages award has not yet been determined by the Court,” Target spokeswoman Erika Winkels said in an email. “Target is currently considering post-trial motions and appeal options.”
One reason punitive damages generally go to the plaintiff is that otherwise there’s no direct motive for the plaintiff to seek justice against the entity that deserves to be punished.
If you believe the legal theory that punitive damages are a necessary part of keeping people and corporations in line, then you need to create an incentive for people to argue those cases in court.
4 Likes
Good point! In a society that actually values intelligence (NOT the USA), I’d think that a store would, I dunno, actually maybe TELL this to skateboarders!
“Hey dudes… We have no problem with skateboarding. We even sell skateboarding gear! But the second, second, one of you injures yourselves, which as skateboarders you know happens pretty regularly, WE will be potentially liable for your injuries, injuries you cause anyone else, any other property. So please, skateboard all you want to, but you can’t do it on this private property, and the ONLY reason we care is because it could cost us a lot of money.”
I don’t ever remember being given that explanation as a kid while skating, but I think my friends and I would have actually respected it a lot more than the simple “You can’t do that here, git!” But then again, we were New England private college preparatory school skaters…
5 Likes
He probably has absolutely zero legal knowledge, and this is a part of the American legal system that defies logic entirely.
[quote=“NickyG, post:26, topic:85201”]
In the case of Target, yes, this does actually mean making sure people aren’t shooting up in your parking lot and leaving their needles behind. When it’s your property and especially property you know the public will be on ALL THE TIME, yes, it is your responsibility to keep it safe. Sheesh.
[/quote]That’s not such a fine line since Target isn’t require to hire it’s own cops, only security guards that have little to no power against people dropping needles in a parking lot. This would have happened no matter how great of care Target took to prevent it, and that’s the part that the literal legal system can’t absorb.
Plus, as @Missy_Pants points out it’s a pretty great general absurdity about the US healthcare system.
1 Like
They do, on the “No Skateboarding” signs posted around the property.
2 Likes
Won’t somebody think about the poor corporations?!
1 Like
Corporations are people, my friend!
To be fair, there is little chance the security guard or manager knows why they are banning skateboarders.
3 Likes
Unclear on the face of it. She performed an action by ‘swatting’. Her daughter performed an action by ‘picking up’. Some unknown person performed an action by ‘dropping’. Where does the store come into it? Can the store file a claim against the woman and her daughter and the J. Doe since they are the ones who took the steps that lead to the original damage?
