Last week a Hinds County jury rendered a $500,000 verdict in McFarland v. Target Corp. Here is the Verdict Form.
Lesa McFarland alleged that she fell in Target on August 4, 2011 on the See Spot Save dollar aisle. This was a high traffic aisle that was often ransacked with items on the floor because….who doesn’t like the dollar aisle?
McFarland slipped and fell on place-mats that were on the floor. [Sidebar: I need to go check out the dollar place-mats at Target].
Target violated their own safety rules by not using shelf guards in the area to keep the [$1] place-mats from falling on the floor. Even worse, Target “lost” the videotape of the aisle from the time of the fall after documenting in the incident report that the video was secured. [Oops!].
Target blamed the Defendant for falling down and noted that the video cameras on the dollar aisle were fake because video cameras are expensive. [And who would go to the trouble of shoplifting from the dollar aisle?].
The jury awarded $55,000 in past medical expenses, so I assume that was the total amount of medical bills. The total verdict was $490,000 for the plaintiff and $10,000 for her husband on his loss of consortium claim.
Update: I neglected to mention in the original post that the jury apportioned 20% of the fault to the plaintiff, which will reduce the judgement to $400,000.
Rocky Wilkins and Shandra Yates of Jackson represented the Plaintiff. William Reese with Hand Arendall in Mobile represented Target. Judge Winston Kidd presided in the case.
Sounds like Target has some good deals on that dollar aisle.
So wait: there was a tape and they lost it, or there never was a tape and they were punished for “losing” it? Either way, sounds like a good one for plaintiff to settle before appeal, unless there are some great facts to support half a mil.
This also answers my question, will this Target close when the Madison one opens. Who can afford to operate a store in Kidd’s jurisdiction?
liability insurance is a cost of doing business. Employees make mistakes, store managers make errors in judgment. That’s what happened here. It doesn’t matter if the case was in Hinds County or another venue. Target was negligent.
Of course, the MSSC tends to ignore the standard of upholding plaintiff verdicts (i.e. verdict upheld if supported by substantial evidence). This gives Defendants in this state 2 bites at the apple in every case, and every liability insurer who underwrites in Mississippi knows this. So maybe you are right.
Look at the verdict form. Past and future pain & suffering $150K, then past & future emotional distress (!) $114K? Only $11K lost wages?
Philip didn’t mention that the jury assessed 20% fault to the plaintiff, so those numbers are going to be trimmed. But I’m skeptical of $264K in noneconomic damages. Toning that down might ward off an appeal.
I did look at the verdict form. You are doing exactly what the MSSC thinks its can do … substitute your judgment for a jury’s judgment. Target gambled, and went to trial when it shouldn’t have. Trying to blame the Plaintiff when Target lost its own video and violated its own safety rules amounts to nothing more than a frivolous defense (which are just as bad as frivolous lawsuits).
However, you are right in that the Plaintiff should probably consider settling on appeal since a Defendant in a civil case in Mississippi always seems to get another “bite at the apple” on appeal.
Losing the video goes to liability, not damages. And it’s possible that the plaintiff proved $264K in pain & suffering. As one does on the internet, I’m commenting on the basis of incomplete facts.
But a quarter-mil in P&S, 2/5 of which is emotional distress (which has a relatively high bar) in a slip and fall? That makes me curious. There’s no reason it shouldn’t make the MSSC curious too. Maybe there’s a good record to support it.
“Losing the tape” or any other evidence is never a good idea. You might as well go ahead and just admit that whatever the other side asserts that that evidence proves, it does a bang-up job of proving. I’m sure that the general line of thought is “they won’t be able to prove I lost it on purpose.” That’s right, they can’t prove you didn’t lose it on purpose. They’re just going to presume you lost it on purpose. The other things you’ll be losing are your credibility and your case.