Court awards 4.6 million because she was stuck w/ hypo needle she picked up in a Target parking lot

[Skull Pilot]

The ultimate responsibility lays with Target.

ah, yes. the most legitious society in the world where lawyers rule. It's everybody's fault but mine. And I disagree. The person who left the needle there is at fault. nobody else. Don't get me wrong. Corporations are responsible for things. If there was a massive pothole in the carpark that they refuse to fix and somebody breaks a leg? Sure they have some responsibility. However, so does the person who doesn't watch where they are going.

I have to disagree with you on this. If the needle was there for a significant enough time where the store employees knew or should have known it was there, they are negligent. That doesn't address whether the customer was negligent as well, in which case liability is allocated between the parties

An there is no way to know how long the needle was there.

It could have been 10 seconds or ten days

 

[Skull Pilot]

This is why your judicial system is broken. Hey, how about the stupid girl not pick up the needle? That's a good fucking start.

Kids pick things up.

You should raise 1 or 2 of them. It might prove very educational.

I have raised two. Successfully. What about personal responsibility.

I don't have to tell real parents that kids pick things off the ground and you can't always control that. There's just no stopping my autistic son once he fixes his eyes on something he wants to touch. Strange that you don't know this. Maybe you kept yours on leashes.

If you can't control your kid keep him in the house

 

[Dr Grump]

I have to disagree with you on this. If the needle was there for a significant enough time where the store employees knew or should have known it was there, they are negligent. That doesn't address whether the customer was negligent as well, in which case liability is allocated between the parties

Why is it up to the store employee to remove it? Why is it not up to the person who left it there? This is why your society is so litigious - you want to blame third parties for other's actions. Not right IMO.

 

[jillian]

I have to disagree with you on this. If the needle was there for a significant enough time where the store employees knew or should have known it was there, they are negligent. That doesn't address whether the customer was negligent as well, in which case liability is allocated between the parties

Why is it up to the store employee to remove it? Why is it not up to the person who left it there? This is why your society is so litigious - you want to blame third parties for other's actions. Not right IMO.

because the law requires people running public accommodations to intervene with respect to dangerous conditions about which they know or should have known. that does not absolve the other person from any proportionate share of liability.

 

[Dr Grump]

I don't have to tell real parents that kids pick things off the ground and you can't always control that. There's just no stopping my autistic son once he fixes his eyes on something he wants to touch. Strange that you don't know this. Maybe you kept yours on leashes.

Watch your autistic son more closely.

Take it to the nth degree. I plant a broken bottle under the shade of a tree on your lawn. You can't see it but know it's there. I go and collect a ball I 'accidentally' kick under the tree. I 'accidentally' stand on the broken bottle. "Oopps!" Oh, look, my foot is bleeding. The owner of this house must pay. Thank you.

Where do you live SMDT?

 

[Dr Grump]

because the law requires people running public accommodations to intervene with respect to dangerous conditions about which they know or should have known. that does not absolve the other person from any proportionate share of liability.

Why should I know if some idiot has left a needle on my property? Why is that my issue? There is that saying "Only in America". And it's not said in a nice way. I'd suggest that since Europe, Canada, NZ and Australia don't believe in such laws, and we survive okay, that maybe you are on the outer on this one.

These laws are invented by lawyers for their benefit. Common sense goes out the window.

 

[jillian]

because the law requires people running public accommodations to intervene with respect to dangerous conditions about which they know or should have known. that does not absolve the other person from any proportionate share of liability.

Why should I know if some idiot has left a needle on my property? Why is that my issue? There is that saying "Only in America". And it's not said in a nice way. I'd suggest that since Europe, Canada, NZ and Australia don't believe in such laws, and we survive okay, that maybe you are on the outer on this one.

These laws are invented by lawyers for their benefit. Common sense goes out the window.

well, i don't know what the evidence was. perhaps there was a history of the parking lot being used by drug dealers and leaving hypodermic needles behind. again, i'm not speaking to the correctness of the verdict because there is so little information. i'm just talking generally about the standard for liability.

 

[Dr Grump]

well, i don't know what the evidence was. perhaps there was a history of the parking lot being used by drug dealers and leaving hypodermic needles behind. again, i'm not speaking to the correctness of the verdict because there is so little information. i'm just talking generally about the standard for liability.

And that's the thing. If I owned a parking lot and druggies used it as a place for dealing, not my problem. Don't get me wrong, if I let the cops know (the people charged by society to look after such things) and they did nothing, then maybe go after them? Especially if I have notified them to get rid of these people. Even then, the person/people responsible are those who have left the paraphernalia there.

 

[jillian]

well, i don't know what the evidence was. perhaps there was a history of the parking lot being used by drug dealers and leaving hypodermic needles behind. again, i'm not speaking to the correctness of the verdict because there is so little information. i'm just talking generally about the standard for liability.

And that's the thing. If I owned a parking lot and druggies used it as a place for dealing, not my problem. Don't get me wrong, if I let the cops know (the people charged by society to look after such things) and they did nothing, then maybe go after them? Especially if I have notified them to get rid of these people. Even then, the person/people responsible are those who have left the paraphernalia there.

or maybe you put up a fence and keep them out to avoid the dangerous situation??? maybe????

did they ask the police to get rid of the folk? or could they have done something simple like go in mornings and clean the area?

is it possible the woman got the money she did because the needle was infected with HIV or hepatitis? or that they thought it might be and the woman spent months taking the drug cocktail to prevent getting AIDS? those would all have a value to a jury

 

[Dr Grump]

or maybe you put up a fence and keep them out to avoid the dangerous situation??? maybe????

did they ask the police to get rid of the folk? or could they have done something simple like go in mornings and clean the area?

is it possible the woman got the money she did because the needle was infected with HIV or hepatitis? or that they thought it might be and the woman spent months taking the drug cocktail to prevent getting AIDS? those would all have a value to a jury

Why should i put up a fence. Keep off my property. If I want to clean my property that is up to me. nobody else's business.

So what if it was infected by HIV or hepatitis. Why is that Target's fault? Was an employee of Target infected by HIV or hepatitis and did they deliberately leave the needle there hoping for somebody to pick up and be infected? Even then, that is the employee's fault. Not Target's.

 

[jillian]

or maybe you put up a fence and keep them out to avoid the dangerous situation??? maybe????

did they ask the police to get rid of the folk? or could they have done something simple like go in mornings and clean the area?

is it possible the woman got the money she did because the needle was infected with HIV or hepatitis? or that they thought it might be and the woman spent months taking the drug cocktail to prevent getting AIDS? those would all have a value to a jury

Why should i put up a fence. Keep off my property. If I want to clean my property that is up to me. nobody else's business.

So what if it was infected by HIV or hepatitis. Why is that Target's fault? Was an employee of Target infected by HIV or hepatitis and did they deliberately leave the needle there hoping for somebody to pick up and be infected? Even then, that is the employee's fault. Not Target's.

just not the law. we're talking about a business that had to keep their property safe.

did they hire security to keep people off the property?

did they have cameras?

did they call the cops?

did they take basic precautions?

if it was your private property you'd keep the drug uses off of your land.

 

[Dr Grump]

just not the law. we're talking about a business that had to keep their property safe.
did they hire security to keep people off the property?
did they have cameras?
did they call the cops?
did they take basic precautions?
if it was your private property you'd keep the drug uses off of your land.

Why should they have to hire (a cost to them) people to keeps others off their property? it is common courtesy that you should not go on others property unless you are invited. if you do so uninvited, then it is your responsibility what happens there. And if it happens to be a business, any non-invited people or things are not the responsibility of the owner, but those doing the intruding.

Keep the drug users off your land? So Target knowingly let them on there?

 

[jillian]

just not the law. we're talking about a business that had to keep their property safe.
did they hire security to keep people off the property?
did they have cameras?
did they call the cops?
did they take basic precautions?
if it was your private property you'd keep the drug uses off of your land.

Why should they have to hire (a cost to them) people to keeps others off their property? it is common courtesy that you should not go on others property unless you are invited. if you do so uninvited, then it is your responsibility what happens there. And if it happens to be a business, any non-invited people or things are not the responsibility of the owner, but those doing the intruding.

Keep the drug users off your land? So Target knowingly let them on there?

that's why they could have put up a fence. we're not talking about a private home. we're talking abut target.

again, i'm not going to comment on the liability of target. the jury found them liable. that's all i know.

but the jury apparently thought that target knew or should have known about the condition and should have done something about it....even if it was as inexpensive as cleaning the parking lot every morning.

i'm also not sure the award won't be reduced on appeal.

 

[Dr Grump]

So what. Why should Target have to put up a fence? Because some third party might do something wrong?

Okay, all my posts up to this point have been slightly devil's advocate in nature. But let's get real. The real reason lawyers go after these kinds of things -and it is disgraceful, disgusting and why I hate the US's litigious society - is money.

Do lawyers really think Target is responsible? No. Do most right-thinking moral people think Target is responsible? No.

What this is, is all about money. I know, you know, the plaintiff, lawyer, judge, jury, sam the cat and harry the dog all know that the person who left the needle there is responsible. However, we all know that the lawyer and plaintiff want a payday.

Plaintiff: "Hey, let's go after the person responsible! The drug addict"
Peanut Gallery: "Fuck yeah!"
Lawyer: "Um, the druggie has no money"
Plaintiff: "Huh?"
Laywer: "The druggie has no money!"
Plaintiff: "WTF?? Now what? Somebody has to pay!"
Lawyer: "How about the person on whose land the needle was found?"
Plaintiff: "Did they leave the needle there?"
Lawyer: "No."
Plaintiff: "Did they use the needle?"
Lawyer: "No."
Plaintiff: "Did they encourage the drug addict's behaviour?"
Lawyer: "No"
Plaintiff: "Did they supply the drugs or inject the druggie?"
Lawyer: "No"
Plaintiff: "Then why should we sue them?"
Lawyer: "They have money"
Plaintiff: "But no moral or any other responsibilty for the needle being there?"
Lawyer: "That's right"
Plaintiff (thinks for a moment): "Hey let's got after Target!"

It's morally repugnant. The lawyer and plaintiff don't really care who has 'hurt' the plaintiff. They just want money. Fuck the moral responsibility of the needle-using drug addict. Fuck the fact it is 100 percent the drug addict's fault there is a needle lying around. Fuck the fact that their poor lifestyle choices have lead to this situation in the first place. Let's go after the person/corporation with the money. Let's try and somehow make them responsible. You Yanks have gotten so used to this train of thought it is now the norm. Trust me. From the outside it looks disgusting.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I have to disagree with you on this. If the needle was there for a significant enough time where the store employees knew or should have known it was there, they are negligent. That doesn't address whether the customer was negligent as well, in which case liability is allocated between the parties

Why is it up to the store employee to remove it? Why is it not up to the person who left it there? This is why your society is so litigious - you want to blame third parties for other's actions. Not right IMO.

because the law requires people running public accommodations to intervene with respect to dangerous conditions about which they know or should have known. that does not absolve the other person from any proportionate share of liability.

So tell me what is an adequate parking lot cleaning schedule?

Once a week? Once a day?
since it only takes about 2 seconds to drop a syringe to the ground perhaps the business should be required to completely clean a parking lot with the capacity for hundreds of cars every 2 seconds.

 

[Skull Pilot]

well, i don't know what the evidence was. perhaps there was a history of the parking lot being used by drug dealers and leaving hypodermic needles behind. again, i'm not speaking to the correctness of the verdict because there is so little information. i'm just talking generally about the standard for liability.

And that's the thing. If I owned a parking lot and druggies used it as a place for dealing, not my problem. Don't get me wrong, if I let the cops know (the people charged by society to look after such things) and they did nothing, then maybe go after them? Especially if I have notified them to get rid of these people. Even then, the person/people responsible are those who have left the paraphernalia there.

or maybe you put up a fence and keep them out to avoid the dangerous situation??? maybe????

did they ask the police to get rid of the folk? or could they have done something simple like go in mornings and clean the area?

is it possible the woman got the money she did because the needle was infected with HIV or hepatitis? or that they thought it might be and the woman spent months taking the drug cocktail to prevent getting AIDS? those would all have a value to a jury

Not if I was on the jury it wouldn't

 

[jillian]

well, i don't know what the evidence was. perhaps there was a history of the parking lot being used by drug dealers and leaving hypodermic needles behind. again, i'm not speaking to the correctness of the verdict because there is so little information. i'm just talking generally about the standard for liability.

And that's the thing. If I owned a parking lot and druggies used it as a place for dealing, not my problem. Don't get me wrong, if I let the cops know (the people charged by society to look after such things) and they did nothing, then maybe go after them? Especially if I have notified them to get rid of these people. Even then, the person/people responsible are those who have left the paraphernalia there.

or maybe you put up a fence and keep them out to avoid the dangerous situation??? maybe????

did they ask the police to get rid of the folk? or could they have done something simple like go in mornings and clean the area?

is it possible the woman got the money she did because the needle was infected with HIV or hepatitis? or that they thought it might be and the woman spent months taking the drug cocktail to prevent getting AIDS? those would all have a value to a jury

Not if I was on the jury it wouldn't

well, not having been on the jury, you wouldn't know what the evidence was that they saw. i keep pointing out that i have no opinion about this particular case because we don't have the information that the jury saw.

and if you went in that biased, no, you shouldn't be on the jury and should be excluded for cause.

 

[Skull Pilot]

well, i don't know what the evidence was. perhaps there was a history of the parking lot being used by drug dealers and leaving hypodermic needles behind. again, i'm not speaking to the correctness of the verdict because there is so little information. i'm just talking generally about the standard for liability.

And that's the thing. If I owned a parking lot and druggies used it as a place for dealing, not my problem. Don't get me wrong, if I let the cops know (the people charged by society to look after such things) and they did nothing, then maybe go after them? Especially if I have notified them to get rid of these people. Even then, the person/people responsible are those who have left the paraphernalia there.

or maybe you put up a fence and keep them out to avoid the dangerous situation??? maybe????

did they ask the police to get rid of the folk? or could they have done something simple like go in mornings and clean the area?

is it possible the woman got the money she did because the needle was infected with HIV or hepatitis? or that they thought it might be and the woman spent months taking the drug cocktail to prevent getting AIDS? those would all have a value to a jury

Not if I was on the jury it wouldn't

well, not having been on the jury, you wouldn't know what the evidence was that they saw.

and if you went in that biased, no, you shouldn't be on the jury and should be excluded for cause.

Oh I can get on any jury. It's not that difficult

 

[jillian]

well, i don't know what the evidence was. perhaps there was a history of the parking lot being used by drug dealers and leaving hypodermic needles behind. again, i'm not speaking to the correctness of the verdict because there is so little information. i'm just talking generally about the standard for liability.

And that's the thing. If I owned a parking lot and druggies used it as a place for dealing, not my problem. Don't get me wrong, if I let the cops know (the people charged by society to look after such things) and they did nothing, then maybe go after them? Especially if I have notified them to get rid of these people. Even then, the person/people responsible are those who have left the paraphernalia there.

or maybe you put up a fence and keep them out to avoid the dangerous situation??? maybe????

did they ask the police to get rid of the folk? or could they have done something simple like go in mornings and clean the area?

is it possible the woman got the money she did because the needle was infected with HIV or hepatitis? or that they thought it might be and the woman spent months taking the drug cocktail to prevent getting AIDS? those would all have a value to a jury

Not if I was on the jury it wouldn't

well, not having been on the jury, you wouldn't know what the evidence was that they saw.

and if you went in that biased, no, you shouldn't be on the jury and should be excluded for cause.

Oh I can get on any jury. It's not that difficult

so you'd lie?

 

[Skull Pilot]

And that's the thing. If I owned a parking lot and druggies used it as a place for dealing, not my problem. Don't get me wrong, if I let the cops know (the people charged by society to look after such things) and they did nothing, then maybe go after them? Especially if I have notified them to get rid of these people. Even then, the person/people responsible are those who have left the paraphernalia there.

or maybe you put up a fence and keep them out to avoid the dangerous situation??? maybe????

did they ask the police to get rid of the folk? or could they have done something simple like go in mornings and clean the area?

is it possible the woman got the money she did because the needle was infected with HIV or hepatitis? or that they thought it might be and the woman spent months taking the drug cocktail to prevent getting AIDS? those would all have a value to a jury

Not if I was on the jury it wouldn't

well, not having been on the jury, you wouldn't know what the evidence was that they saw.

and if you went in that biased, no, you shouldn't be on the jury and should be excluded for cause.

Oh I can get on any jury. It's not that difficult

so you'd lie?

No I would say I would listen to and regard all evidence before I made a decision and I would