« Robert Cottrol on the Black Experience | Main | Report: two of the servicemen attacked in Chattanooga shot back »
Target, or its attorneys, appear to be insane
A mental case run into a Target, pursued by some bystanders (reasons for pursuit unstated). Mental case begins stabbing a teenage girl. One of the pursuers, Michael Turner, makes a flying tackle and drags the mental case off her. Now Target is suing Turner.
According to story, the mental case had stabbed a friend of Turner outside the store, and Turner and others pursued him inside.
My guess from the above stories: the teenager has sued Target, and target made a third-party claim against Turner and the other pursuers, claiming that were partially to blame because their initial pursuit of the mental case led to the stabbing. Good luck with the jury -- if it gets that far.
Hat tip to Alice Beard and Sixgun Sally....
6 Comments | Leave a comment
Yes, Target's claim is asinine but so is the teen's tort against Target. Does she (or her parents and attorney) expect that Target should have magnetometers and armed response at all public entrances? (I know, I know, they are just interested in Target's deep pockets and/or liability insurance.) I would like to see her claim. What is the theory under which Target is negligent?
Target is one of those companies asking customers to come into their store defenseless. Seems to me they are obligated to provide defense for their customers. They will hopefully get what they deserve.
I don't remember Target being posted here in MO. I don't go inside very often, but am near one regularly. I'll take a look at the doors next time I'm in the neighborhood.
As for the nonsense lawsuits - my answer would be loser-pays. Plaintiff must state a specific dollar amount being claimed at the beginning of the case, and cannot be awarded more than that in a final judgment. If plaintiff fails to get the full amount claimed (by even a dollar) then plaintiff is a "loser" for this purpose and must play defendant's costs and legal fees. To give it teeth, plaintiff's lawyer has joint and several liability if he has a financial interest in the case (i.e. a contingent fee arrangement - if he's in on the upside, he's in for the downside as well.) To give it real teeth, liability is for actual fees and expenses paid or incurred by defendant, without regard to what some judge thinks should be "reasonable."
Sadly, since most state legislatures have a large percentage (if not a majority) of plaintiff's lawyers who make their living off contingent fees, the political likelihood of loser-pays laws ever being adopted is about zero. Until the populace decides to take up their pitchforks and carry out Shakespeare's famous instruction with regard to lawyers.
If the economy were to get worse by just a little, Target would be done for. They are just barely hanging on as is. The Target in my area has closed.
> loser-pays
Because imposing a cost to exercise one's 7th amendment rights is an effective way to discourage people from exercising their 7th amendment rights; i.e., create a "chilling effect".
Just like imposing a cost (fees, mandatory insurance, etc.) to exercise one's 2nd amendment rights.
Thank you for reminding me that the gun-owner rights movement hates freedom as much as the progressive libtards.
Well if the pursuers had been armed and shot said mental case dead, the teen would not have been stabbed. However, they did give chase so target seems to be the ones in need of mental help as well.