Yes, but the fact that there was a needle in their haystack doesn’t mean they were negligent.
Have you ever been in a Target parking lot? They’re huge. They could employ ten people full time with the sole duty of policing needles and still miss one. And that’s what the legal arguments come down to, aren’t they? If they were negligent or not.
If you are honestly curious, you can get the complaint, briefing, and other information from the publicly available trial record. That way you can get an idea what the jury heard, and what led them to find the store culpable. Wouldn’t that be interesting?
Not to mention, that was a South Carolina jury of twelve people that unanimously decided that result. Not the most liberal, corporate-hating jury pool in the country, I would think.
I stand corrected!
Well, the jury decided they were.
But it’s too large for the situation.
The needle, the needle stick, the subsequent bad reaction to standard meds, none of those are Target’s fault.
Let’s try a different scenario - someone’s kid finds a hypo on a sidewalk in front of your house. The same “swats it aside”, the same stick, the same bad reaction to the meds (note it’s not a bad reaction to the Needle).
They sue… you.
Discuss.
Inapplicable analogy. The sidewalk outside of my house is not my private property.
alright then, 3 feet off the sidewalk in your yard.
Did I actively invite countless people onto my property in this scenario? Had the needle been there long enough that I could reasonably be expected to have cleaned it up? Was I running my home as a for-profit business that could be expected to hire security and maintenance staff? Could I easily pay the woman’s medical bills with no significant impact on my bank account?
Yet, twelve people, all as skeptical as you, were convinced enough to unanimously agree that this was a just result. You’re trying to reason from the most superficial bare facts. You can’t get there from here.
yeah. good point. health care: when golden handcuffs become iron manacles.
Awesome! I can now say I’ve met not one, but two omniscient people in one day! Cool that you know what the needle contained and what it was used for without any testing or examination of the materials and (I’m assuming) without even being present when (if) the needle was used.
Man, I wish I had some of these super powers others appear to have been endowed with!
Are you omniscient? The jurors – who know much more about the situation than you do unless I’m missing something – found for the plaintiff. On what basis are you concluding they’re wrong? You have just as much grounds for your conclusion as the people you’re attempting to ridicule have for theirs (just about none).
target didn’t actively invite needle users to its property, nor invite them to throw their needles on the ground. just as in your case, there’s no way to determine how long the needle was there. and your conjecture that target could pay the medical bills without significant impact to its bank account is irrelevant, it would just open the door for anyone and everyone to file claims that were small enough to not impact the bank account.
but you didn’t answer the question. if someone sticks themselves with a needle on your property, are you liable?
the problem is that the jury is made up of people just like in this thread - big corporations have lots of money so they should pay, and personal responsibility be damned.
They invited SHOPPERS onto their property, which makes Target (to an extent) responsible for their safety.
I might be. It would depend on the specific circumstances, which is why I asked about details you didn’t address in your hypothetical scenario.
I get your point that professionals examined and tried the case. That the jury heard both sides and reached their conclusion based on that. That the proper outcome should have been reached. I guess I wish I had more details. Later maybe I will do search for why they felt Target was liable.
But at the same time, you’re whole argument is an appeal to authority. I am sure you can think of may cases where you feel the jury may have gotten it wrong? The the Judge gave a sentence to harsh or light? Should we just shut down the conversation on Brock Turner because we weren’t in the courtroom?
That’s really key here. USA Today isn’t exactly known for in-depth investigative coverage or providing critical context.
The McDonalds’ coffee verdict sounded nuts to me when I first heard it reported back in the 90s, but when I finally heard more details about the case years later I became convinced that McDonalds got away with a slap on the wrist given what they had done.
