More of What's Wrong with Our Litigious Society

[Ben]

Woman awarded $4.6 million for being pricked by a hypodermic needle (while slapping it out of her daughters hand) at a Target parking lot.

Really two sides have fault here IMO - Target and the jury.

Considering the woman had to go on a drug regime, the $12K her attorney asked of Target was chump change for them. Target should have settled and shutup. Then the jury wanted to "send a message", but the message was ridiculous. I could see the message being even a couple hundred thousand (given the woman didn't contract anything from the needle), but $4.6 million is ridiculous and will only encourage others to be sue-happy.

Given the information in the story, other than it not being smart to "slap the hypodermic" out of her daughter's hand versus just carefully taking it, I can't really blame the plantiff here. Her original request seemed pretty fair. Yes, it's not Target's fault that some druggie dropped their needle on Target property, but $12K is probably well within "doing business" for Target.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/09/11/woman-stuck-by-needle-in-target-parking-lot-awarded-4-6-million.html

Edited for dyslexia.

[MillCreek]

I will be interested to see the appeal by Target.  I have not read the case, but I am curious to see what duty Target had to ensure there were no discarded hypodermic needles in the parking lot.  I can see that being the reason why Target refused to settle even for $ 12K.  

PS: Up here in Heroin Usage Central, I see discarded needles all over the place: public and private property, from streets to parks to restrooms.  I bought my Facilities department a bunch of those extension claw grabbers that they can use to pick up the discarded needles and put them in a sharps container.

[Boomhauer]

*expletive deleted*ing ridiculous.

And yet back when I was a firefighter had I been stabbed by a goddamn junky with a needle or one had spit in my face I'd get jack *expletive deleted*it.

[SteveS]

I would expect to see this reduced significantly on appeal.

[Firethorn]

I would expect to see this reduced significantly on appeal.

I agree.

I have not read the case, but I am curious to see what duty Target had to ensure there were no discarded hypodermic needles in the parking lot.  I can see that being the reason why Target refused to settle even for $ 12K.

This is my thought.  I think businesses should have a reasonable standard of care.  IE stuff like spills being marked and cleaned up in a reasonably fast period of time.  If a person spills their own drink and then immediately slips on it, that exceeds the business's requirements for a good standard of care.  And yes, I've read of lawsuits like that.  Including a woman hurt by children running around the store unchecked.  Seemed reasonable until you found out that they were her own children running around, and she was arguing that the store should have done what I believe to be her job.

The parking lot is uncontrolled outside area.  Sure, they should probably pick up the trash on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean that you should run around without shoes on and such.

I'm also curious as to the drug regimen she went through for it.  Anti-HIV drugs and antibiotics I presume? (checks article), yep, anti-HIV.  Which were apparently enough to leave her bedridden, when those drugs don't typically do that even to those suffering from HIV.

And yes, Target made what I'd consider a reasonable offer - $750, which should cover the medical exam and drugs, but not the lost wages from the drug reaction that left her in bed and presumably missing work.

[Ben]

The parking lot is uncontrolled outside area.  Sure, they should probably pick up the trash on a regular basis, but that doesn't mean that you should run around without shoes on and such.

I agree. I was looking at the $12K as cheaper for Target than fighting it, even if they were in the right. Sometimes as a large corporation, you have to look at what's most expeditious over what's right (up to a point).

[Hawkmoon]

I agree. I was looking at the $12K as cheaper for Target than fighting it, even if they were in the right. Sometimes as a large corporation, you have to look at what's most expeditious over what's right (up to a point).

That's true, but they also have to factor into the equation the message that gets sent every time they settle. Pay this woman $12,000 and pretty soon they'll have parking lot needle sticks on a daily basis.

It's a lose-lose for the retailers in situations like this.

[MillCreek]

I agree. I was looking at the $12K as cheaper for Target than fighting it, even if they were in the right. Sometimes as a large corporation, you have to look at what's most expeditious over what's right (up to a point).

Oh, I deal with this all the time: it would be cheaper for me to settle a medmal claim for a nuisance value rather than litigating it.  However, since these settlements are reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank and the state licensing board, and you have to report it for hospital credentialing, most physicians will not agree to this type of settlement (Most medmal policies for physicians require the consent of the insured to settle the case).  Plus, it is my belief, and that of most claim managers, that if you get a reputation amongst the plaintiff bar of making nuisance settlements to save money, this increases the number of such claims being filed.  If you get a reputation that you will make plaintiff counsel work for their money, they will think twice before filing a non-meritorious claim.

[Scout26]

Shouldn't the woman's own healthcare cover this?  I mean everyone has to have insurance these days right?   


But yes, I agree with the not settling.   And that it should be reduced on appeal to $7.50.  1% of the original offer. 

[Ben]

Oh, I deal with this all the time: it would be cheaper for me to settle a medmal claim for a nuisance value rather than litigating it.  However, since these settlements are reported to the National Practitioner Data Bank and the state licensing board, and you have to report it for hospital credentialing, most physicians will not agree to this type of settlement (Most medmal policies for physicians require the consent of the insured to settle the case).  Plus, it is my belief, and that of most claim managers, that if you get a reputation amongst the plaintiff bar of making nuisance settlements to save money, this increases the number of such claims being filed.  If you get a reputation that you will make plaintiff counsel work for their money, they will think twice before filing a non-meritorious claim.

Good points that I hadn't considered.

[Firethorn]

I agree. I was looking at the $12K as cheaper for Target than fighting it, even if they were in the right. Sometimes as a large corporation, you have to look at what's most expeditious over what's right (up to a point).

On the other hand, you have the long term.  Establish that you'll pay $12k to avoid a lawsuit, you'll become an annual target for those who live off of threatening lawsuits.  IE fold once and dozens will come out of the woodwork.  Better to fight the occasional case than to have hundreds coming with their hand out.

Shouldn't the woman's own healthcare cover this?  I mean everyone has to have insurance these days right?   

Depends on the plan she got.  Many are still high deductibles, so if she went to the emergency room in a panic, I could see her racking up $750 in deductibles and copays.  Her having to stay home while on the meds, unpaid, would be where most of the expense comes in.

[De Selby]

Whatever the merits of refusing supposed nuisance claims, a 6.4 million judgment makes you a whole new class of target for litigation.

I remember reading a study on jury awards.  The upshot was that plaintiffs are wrong more often about damages, but when defendants are wrong, they tend to be really really wrong about what claim is worth.

This case seems to share similarities with the famous McDonald's case.  IIRC, the plaintiff tried to settle for straight medical bills in that case too.

[T.O.M.]

The article seriously lacks in facts to help me decide if I think Target was liable at all.  Should they have settled?   Hindsight sure says yes, but I don't know what it looked like at the start.

On the McDonald's coffee case, I saw a presentation on it at a seminar once.  Going in, I had the opinion that it was a ridiculous outcome...of course coffee is hot.  Dumb jury, right?  Then I saw the evidence.  Woman suffered 2nd and 3rd degree burns on her thighs, and had to undergo skin graffs.   If I remember right,  the industry standard for coffee was around 180 degrees, and McDonalds served theirs at well over 225.

[K Frame]

"McDonalds served theirs at well over 225."

 

Do they serve it in pressure cooker cups to keep the temperature up to that level?

Given that the boiling point of water/coffee is around 212 deg. F at sea level...

Well, you do the math on that one.

[De Selby]

"McDonalds served theirs at well over 225."

 

Do they serve it in pressure cooker cups to keep the temperature up to that level?

Given that the boiling point of water/coffee is around 212 deg. F at sea level...

Well, you do the math on that one.

The key fact was that McDonald's was serving coffee at a temp known to cause serious injuries, and continued to do so despite multiple incidents and internal warnings.

Had the old lady not taken them to task, someone else would've. 

[K Frame]

I'm not disputing that.

I'm disputing Chris' apparent failure of 3rd grade remedial science.

Which explains why he has a law degree.

[De Selby]

I'm not disputing that.

I'm disputing Chris' apparent failure of 3rd grade remedial science.

Which explains why he has a law degree.

While I'm not certain, I'm pretty sure surface tension can cause hotter than boiling water to remain liquid.  Seems to be implicated in lots of scalding injuries.

Maybe a resident science person can tell us

[dogmush]

McDonalds was not superheating their coffee.

Company policy at the time was to serve the coffee at 185 degrees, which they did.  185 degree liquid is hot enough to cause third degree burns, and presents a serious scalding hazard.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Which brings us to another problem of our litigious society.  Folks are often (mis)informed by media pushing a narrative during run up and a trial, and those misconceptions, half truths and outright lies can continue to be believed and shape opinion for years and decades after the case is settled, and they've been proven false.

[K Frame]

While I'm not certain, I'm pretty sure surface tension can cause hotter than boiling water to remain liquid.  Seems to be implicated in lots of scalding injuries.

Maybe a resident science person can tell us

Yes. Super heating can happen in a microwave if there are no nucleation points to allow bubbles to form. That normally will only happen with a vessel that is perfectly smooth, unscratched, and new.

Superheated water, when disturbed, will often erupt violently out of the vessel in which it was heated and can cause severe burns.

But that's NOT what McDonald's was doing with its coffee.

[Ben]

Okay, you guys have schooled me. :)

I guess I was weighting way too much hindsight into the OP.

[De Selby]

Yes. Super heating can happen in a microwave if there are no nucleation points to allow bubbles to form. That normally will only happen with a vessel that is perfectly smooth, unscratched, and new.

Superheated water, when disturbed, will often erupt violently out of the vessel in which it was heated and can cause severe burns.

But that's NOT what McDonald's was doing with its coffee.

I was mainly trying to defend Chris from the charge of 3rd grade science fail there. 

[dogmush]

Yes. Super heating can happen in a microwave if there are no nucleation points to allow bubbles to form. That normally will only happen with a vessel that is perfectly smooth, unscratched, and new.

Superheated water, when disturbed, will often erupt violently out of the vessel in which it was heated and can cause severe burns.

But that's NOT what McDonald's was doing with its coffee.

Thread Drift:

Superheating is actually a really cool thing to demonstrate to kids that friends have been silly enough to ask you to babysit.  New pyrex dish, water microwave, and a bouillon cube.  I had them all dressed out in a chemical apron and gloves, and eye-pro to drop the cube in and demonstrate what happens when superheated fluid is given places to form bubbles.

Then we explored the term "exothermic".






I don't get asked to babysit much.

[T.O.M.]

What I'm guilty of is (1) bad memory from a seminar I took in 2004 or so and, (2) Monday morning syndrome.  More the second than the first.  

Point is that the case had become a punchline about how dumb lawsuits can bring in big money.  I went along with it.  Sued because the coffee was hot?  Of course coffee is hot.  Why wouldn't the woman know that?  Then, when I actually saw the damage, as well as the evidence, I understood why the suit was brought.  I wonder if Target here had some knowledge of the needles in the lot and did nothing to clean them up?  If so, and given that they would have a duty to make safe a known risk to people on the property, then there could be liability.

That said, I've got to agree with MillCreek, part of the problems in the litigation "business" are the nuisance settlements.  It especially drives me batty in the insurance industry.  SWMBO tells me about cases she's involved in where it's pretty clear that there is no liability, but the company throws money at it to go away.  There are a bunch of ambulance chasers I know of who do this for a living...file questionable lawsuits, call the insurance company with a nuisance level offer, settle for quick cash, and make up in volume of cases what they don't get in size of judgments.  

[zxcvbob]

Company policy at the time was to serve the coffee at 185 degrees, which they did.  185 degree liquid is hot enough to cause third degree burns, and presents a serious scalding hazard.

Point is that the case had become a punchline about how dumb lawsuits can bring in big money.  I went along with it.  Sued because the coffee was hot?  Of course coffee is hot.  Why wouldn't the woman know that?  Then, when I actually saw the damage, as well as the evidence, I understood why the suit was brought.  I wonder if Target here had some knowledge of the needles in the lot and did nothing to clean them up?  If so, and given that they would have a duty to make safe a known risk to people on the property, then there could be liability.

I'm pretty sure 185 is brewing temperature for coffee.  So if McD's held the coffee for serving at 160, the cup you receive could be anywhere between 160 and 185, depending on how fresh it is.  Holding it at brewing temperature makes sense from a quality control perspective.

The fact that the injuries were horrible does not really change the parties' responsibilities, does it?  If McD's held their coffee at 160 degrees for serving, and she got a cup right after it was brewed and the same accident happened, the lawyers would have been all over them about serving a cup of coffee hotter than the holding temperature. 

When something terrible happens, we look for someone to punish, and you fell for it.  It doesn't even matter if it was their fault, especially if they have deep pockets (like McDonald's), or if it's someone we hate anyway (like gun owners after a mass shooting where the shooter offs himself)

[K Frame]

I was mainly trying to defend Chris from the charge of 3rd grade science fail there. 

Yeah, but he still has a law degree, and that's pretty damned indefensible...