I’m not really clear on what Target might have done differently here. Security checks / pat-downs on anyone entering their parking lot? A dozen security guards roaming the parking lot, checking the floor for anything dangerous?
I feel for this woman, but I’d find it hard to find someone liable for something they couldn’t prevent.
Yeah I get that. But why should it be the sole responsibility of the plaintiff to pursue such matters? By contributing the fund from punitive damages to a common pool, a system could be created whereby future plaintiffs could fairly costlessly refer their cases to a fully funded body, charged with pursuing punitive damages where warranted (and where punishment was not possible under criminal law). Plaintiffs could be fairly, but generously compensated for their trouble and time, all without creating this “bonanza” scenario that arguably distorts the system.
I’d still argue that even if she didn’t have to pay anything for the medical costs incurred there was still a significant quality of life and possibly loss of wages or other productivity involved; and if those losses are incurred due to the negligence of another entity, well she should get reimbursed for that. I don’t think that punitive damages work, though, and I also don’t think that she should be given a windfall from getting injured.
In my 20s I liked that movie, I thought it showed it how it is and showed how the man was keeping us all down, but now that I’m older I’ve learned that it’s just vilifying or conspiratizing things for shock value. Risk-benefit analysis is something that’s going on in everyone’s brain all the time as well as in company boardrooms about when they should recall a product or not. Nothing’s ever perfectly safe, you’re always going to have some risk, and this is the way to mitigate it. (Another thing I really hate from that movie is them saying O2 masks on a plane are there to get you high, absolutely not. They are there to make sure you don’t go hypoxic if pressurization is lost at altitudes greater than 15,000 feet.)
Which reiterates my point, “Americans are stupid on average.” Or at least extremely ignorant (usually coupled with stupidity).
You mean ensure. 
Warm regards,
The Ensure Assure Insure Police
Probably not, and even if Target could find out who that was that’s blood from a turnip.
Thing here is a lot of people are forgetting is that this Target store was found negligent in keeping its grounds clean and free of hazards. Convincing a jury of this isn’t as easy as most people think; and the lawyers for Target will be defending themselves to try and show that they were doing what was required. While I don’t have all the details (and I don’t think many people here do either), the people on the jury were convinced that Target did not do their duty to keep the parking lot clean and free of hazards.
It’s a security guard and a store manager. I got offered both jobs at different points before leaving high school… well assistant manager.
Because otherwise we’d have to hire a helluva lot of district attorneys looking for reasons to sue people. For better or for worse, a lot of laws are really only enforced through the threat of punitive damages paid to individual plaintiffs. For example, one of the only things that keeps businesses ADA compliant is that disabled people can sue those who are not.
The entire point of Fight Club is that it’s a (intentionally) juvenile take on these issues, from the perspective of a SERIOUSLY biased and mentally compromised protagonist. But the point it makes is true, and is why I couched my own statement with “not all” – SOME companies DO make decisions based on this type of cold calculous, in fact it’s exceptionally common these days, but no, not all companies do things this way. I’m a manager at a small company, and we’re a hell of a lot more humanitarian than this! But VW faking vehicle emissions results? That’s a product of the type of corporate sociopathy Fight Club speaks to. So these things do certainly happen every day.
If you don’t have home owners insurance, you’re rolling the dice. People can claim negligence in hundreds of ways – most of them involve falls. It’s best to have it - and it’ll protect you from the unlikely event someone steps on a needle in your yard, and the more likely but still unlikely event someone falls and hurts themselves bad enough to want money for it.
Which I’d argue would be rectified by fixing (increasing) the minimum wage…
What has the amount a person is paid got to do with their area of expertise and assigned responsibility? Would you expect a security guard paid $15 an hour to know tort and personal injury law? How about one paid $100 an hour?
I can’t speak to a store manager’s responsibilities, but security guards, like street-level police, are very effectively selected (self- and otherwise) against being overly intelligent. Being a security guard is boring. You have to be able to maintain a reasonably high level of vigilance against low-frequency events. Try doing that for any length of time without your imagination distracting you. People with too much imagination don’t last at those jobs – they either suffer through the requisite period to get seniority and get moved up, they quit, or they fuck up and get fired. So unless you got exceedingly lucky and stumbled on the one security guard paying their way through law school with a boring-ass job, you’re out of luck on any sort of informed legal decision-making.
i did actually receive this explanation, on several occasions, from thoughtful business owners who went out of their way to demonstrate that they weren’t just being reactionary. even in my late teens, i really appreciated this rationale and respected those business owners/managers who took the time.
of course, there were just as many grumpy olds who simply didn’t like young punks skateboarding in their parking lot and would immediately escalate the situation to “i just called the police”, because that’s appropriate.
To be fair, I really doubt many skateboarders would actually bother reading a sign that long, or pay much attention to it.
Unless the parking lot is littered with needles showing negligence, I don’t think it is likely one can keep any place free of hazardous trash 100% of the time.
I’m aware of laws concerning pools. They were mainly to keep kids safe from drowning.
The Burglar thing I thought actually happened in the UK, didn’t it? I’d imagine that varies state to state. It would be ironic if in places like Texas you could shoot an intruder and be within legal rights, but if they hurt themselves while trying to steal your stuff you are liable.
But it’s ok you mentioned it.
In general I find stuff like this infuriating. Yes, if you could show your neglect resulted in an injury, then you should be liable. But one can’t expect anywhere to be 100% safe, especially when it comes to discarded crap anyone could leave.
What if instead of a needle it was Justin Beiber CD and the kid put in the car, driving the mother insane, causing her to drive off a cliff! Who do we sue now? Target? Beiber? The car maker? The Dept. of Transportation who put up the railing? All 4?
I don’t think DAs typically get involved in civil cases, do they? But anyway, I’m not suggesting that rights to sue should be diminished, nor that there should be additional costs to do so. Quite the opposite. Just that the “rewards” for doing so could better match the entitlement/loss. The punishment can go unaltered. In fact, under the current system, where punitive damages are being decided, the perception of fairness of the windfall for the plaintiff (in the thinking of the jury or judge) may have the effect of reducing the damages below that which is required for effective sanction.
Actually I remember when I had home owners insurance, there was a sort of clause there. Incidentals? Like if a friend fell and broke their arm. Though it was sold to us more as a nice thing to do to cover accidents, not because we were legally obligated.
Well, that’s exactly what Ms. Garrison’s lawyer did, and the jury agreed, so your outrage is hard to understand.
