Archived Big Red Ball on the Loose!

[pennmw]

I already apologize if this is posted somewhere else. I couldn't locate it, if it was.

So I know this is nothing new... thankfully my store doesn't have these things, but it's kinda funny if you think about it. Still, it's crazy how Target is denying her claim. I know they do not want to accept responsibility for it, but really now, Spot... come on...

 

[Kartman]

It wasn't Target's fault one bit, but still... they shoulda payed up.

 

[HRZone]

You are fine it was posted about not on here but on the chat.

Target needs to go after the dude responsible but yeah she definitely has a right to be pissed

 

[DoWork]

The guy hit it... target shouldn't pay because this just extends their liability. The newscaster is trash.

 

[qmosqueen]

lol

 

[qmosqueen]

or this

 

[Spot the doge]

The guy hit it... target shouldn't pay because this just extends their liability. The newscaster is trash.

I also heard the ball was already loose and the store hadn't taken care of it.

 

[mammoth]

I just love how the media is claiming the ball is 2 tons. i.e. 4 thousand pounds. Then they show a man stopping the "2 ton" ball by himself, as it was rolling and gaining momentum.

 

[buliSBI]

Not Targets fault if someone else hit it.

 

[DoWork]

or this

Why is his name tag on his right armpit?

 

[signingminion]

Meanwhile this sheds light on why the pmt had a survey about them...lol

 

[oath2order]

The lady sounds exactly like the stereotypical guest, amazing.

Overreacting story. Lady doesn't watch where she's driving. Do you not see things happening around you?

Also, news report is stupid. What if the cart had hit a car? You'd be flipping shit then.

 

[BoxCutter]

Personally, I think Target should pay for it. The bollard is company property and the company is responsible for making sure it is maintained and secured properly. Also, this is not the first time this has happed at a Target. I know of at least one other instance where a bollard was knocked loose by a pickup truck. This is a known issue that Target has failed to properly remedy. If that ball had hit a person instead of a car, do you think a personal injury lawyer would just sue the driver or owner of that truck? The insurance company denied it because no one will sue Target just for $3500 worth of property damage. Meanwhile, the company is probably getting more than $3500 of bad publicity. Just what the company needs.

 

[Kartman]

Why is his name tag on his right armpit?

He was running late for work.

 

[Hardlinesmaster]

Spot did do this.

 

[NKG]

or this

I hope they are on break otherwise my ETL would be like this in the background -

 

[HRZone]

Personally, I think Target should pay for it. The bollard is company property and the company is responsible for making sure it is maintained and secured properly. Also, this is not the first time this has happed at a Target. I know of at least one other instance where a bollard was knocked loose by a pickup truck. This is a known issue that Target has failed to properly remedy. If that ball had hit a person instead of a car, do you think a personal injury lawyer would just sue the driver or owner of that truck? The insurance company denied it because no one will sue Target just for $3500 worth of property damage. Meanwhile, the company is probably getting more than $3500 of bad publicity. Just what the company needs.

You make some valid points but the last thing I would call Target is negligent, heck the company is almost too cautious as evident by our guest incident protocol and AP procedures.

Sounds like sensationalism to me.

 

[TeamRed]

Imagine it rolling and you are the cart attendant and saying I'm ya there's a red ball rolling down the parking lot...

 

[NPC]

It's the same thing if a shopping cart where to hit your car, due to negligence from another guest. I agree about Target not being responsible....but I'm surprised they didn't just settle. I wonder if that guy who hit the ball can get in a lot of trouble though for leaving the scene. Does it matter that he had no idea it happened?

 

[On6]

If the affected party really wanted to pursue it they could sue Target in civil court. Anyone can sue somebody. They just need to prove it. The burden of proof in civil cases is much lower than that of criminal cases. If there is enough evidence that shows Target knew the red balls weren't secured correctly, then the company can be found liable.

My guess is Target would fight it and the plaintiffs wouldn't have the monetary resources to keep going. But let's not forget the lady that sued and won $3 million against McDonalds after she burnt herself with coffee. Civil juries have been known to side with plaintiffs in cases like this.

And I think people should consider this. You can't really compare the red balls to a shopping cart. It's assumed when you pull into the parking lot that carts are around and may hit your car. The red balls on the other hand are not supposed to move. And in some stores they serve as security devices, much like the concrete poles you see infront of other stores to keep people from driving thru the building. They should be designed to take some hits without moving.

 

[HRZone]

But let's not forget the lady that sued and won $3 million against McDonalds after she burnt herself with coffee. Civil juries have been known to side with plaintiffs in cases like this.

Plus when you find out what really happened it wasn't so frivolous of a lawsuit.

 

[On6]

Plus when you find out what really happened it wasn't so frivolous of a lawsuit.

Which is why Target may have a problem if this isn't a isolated incident. Also having each store PMT do a "survey" on the red balls out front really doesn't help their case. More than anything it acknowledges they may have a problem.

McDonalds refused to settle in that case because it opened up liability for other lawsuits to come. The same reason why in this incident the claim was denied. Target doesn't want to admit possible wrongdoing whether they're actually responsible or not. It's pretty standard procedure for large corporations (or their insurance company) to deny claims like this.

 

[SFSFun]

Which is why Target may have a problem if this isn't a isolated incident. Also having each store PMT do a "survey" on the red balls out front really doesn't help their case. More than anything it acknowledges they may have a problem.

Nobody can prove that PMTs were told to survey the red balls. The only written proof is privileged company information and not something that anyone wanting to sue Target would be able to easily get to.

 

[carramrod]

Also according to the federal rules of civil procedure, subsequent remedial actions cannot be used as evidence. Essentially this means that if the defendant takes action to fix the problem, the plaintiff cannot bring this action into court as evidence.
The example given in my civil law class was this. A tiger jumps over a fence at a zoo and kills a guest. The next day the zoo makes the fence taller. Family of the dead guest sues the zoo. They cannot use the fact that the zoo built the fence taller as evidence that the zoo was negligent by originally building a shorter fence.
The reasoning behind this is that it would make situations more dangerous because defendants would be afraid to fix things, as this fixing could prove that they were negligent in the first place. In the zoo example, the zoo would not want to build the fence taller for fear of opening themselves up to liability. This makes it more likely that someone would be killed again. In the target example, target might be afraid to make sure the balls were safe for fear of making themselves liable for the issue, possibly resulting in more accidents.
It's strange and confusing, but that's just how the law is most of the time.
EDIT: Rule 407, explanation for anyone interested: Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures

 

[On6]

Also according to the federal rules of civil procedure, subsequent remedial actions cannot be used as evidence. Essentially this means that if the defendant takes action to fix the problem, the plaintiff cannot bring this action into court as evidence.
The example given in my civil law class was this. A tiger jumps over a fence at a zoo and kills a guest. The next day the zoo makes the fence taller. Family of the dead guest sues the zoo. They cannot use the fact that the zoo built the fence taller as evidence that the zoo was negligent by originally building a shorter fence.
The reasoning behind this is that it would make situations more dangerous because defendants would be afraid to fix things, as this fixing could prove that they were negligent in the first place. In the zoo example, the zoo would not want to build the fence taller for fear of opening themselves up to liability. This makes it more likely that someone would be killed again. In the target example, target might be afraid to make sure the balls were safe for fear of making themselves liable for the issue, possibly resulting in more accidents.
It's strange and confusing, but that's just how the law is most of the time.
EDIT: Rule 407, explanation for anyone interested: Rule 407. Subsequent Remedial Measures

Good point. It's been awhile since I've took civil law procedures.