How a $100 bill ends up costing Target $3.1 million

[Amused]

Get ready to be shocked...

I agree with the verdict AND the damages.

Why?

First, the woman was wrongfully defamed, horribly, by Target. If you're going to send out emails and letters defaming someone, you better be DAMN sure you have all the facts AND a conviction on your side. The Loss Prevention Employee jumped the gun and did NOT wait until the Secret Service conducted their investigation to find what their conclusion was. The employee's actions almost seem malicious. This woman MORE than had a case here. Target (by way of it's trained employee) willfully and purposefully went out of it's way to destroy this woman's reputation in the professional world. The very profession she earned a living from.

Second, the punitive damages MUST be high enough to HURT the company. In fact, 3 million is not enough in this case, as it will not even pinch Target for it's actions. It won't even make a scratch. But hopefully the press this case has generated will be enough for Target to create a policy that states LP employees MUST wait for the outcome of an investigation before destroying the reputation of SUSPECTS in criminal cases.

I usually oppose most lawsuits as frivolous, but this one is not. I usually oppose most damages because they are excessive for the harm caused, but in this case, the damages must be enough to send a message that what happened here was egregious, reckless, irresponsible and caused great harm to this woman's reputation and ability to continue in her chosen profession.

This was not a woman looking for deep pockets. This was a woman who, as a lowly individual, had a large company use it's resources and local organizations to defame her and destroy her career.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: mugs
I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't make a good faith effort to help out other businesses.

Not real clear on what constitutes "Good Faith" are you? Unproven allegations are bad enough, but FALSE one's are another tactic entirely.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: mugs
I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't make a good faith effort to help out other businesses.

Actually, the lesson here is that you should wait until the outcome of an investigation before you utterly destroy a person's reputation and livelyhood.

But wait!!!

After reading the article again, we see that Target did not even INITIATE an investigation, but instead simply used mass media to defame the woman with NO proof whatsoever as to her guilt.

She more than had a case, and the punitive damages should have been higher. Enough to really pinch Target.

 

[kranky]

Originally posted by: Amused
Second, the punitive damages MUST be high enough to HURT the company. In fact, 3 million is not enough in this case, as it will not even pinch Target for it's actions. It won't even make a scratch. But hopefully the press this case has generated will be enough for Target to create a policy that states LP employees MUST wait for the outcome of an investigation before destroying the reputation of SUSPECTS in criminal cases.

I'm on the fence. Here's an employee who acted alone. Wasn't ordered by any one to do what he did. If that is going to cost the company $3 million, then I have an idea for a new business. People hire me to place "moles" into competing businesses. Let's say the local Toyota dealer hires me to plant an employee at the Suzuki dealer. The employee pulls something that subjects the Suzuki dealer to a huge lawsuit. Maybe something like this case, maybe installing a camera in the woman's bathroom and purposely letting it be found. If I charge the Toyota dealer $100K for that and it ends up costing the Suzuki dealer millions in punitive damages, that would be a small price for running the competition potentially out of business.

The point is that huge punitive damages should be assessed when the company needs to be punished for doing something - an entrenched system of discrimination, etc. . I'm not so sure it is the right thing to do if it's just one wacko employee doing something he/she wasn't authorized to do. What can a company do to protect itself?

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs
I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't make a good faith effort to help out other businesses.

Actually, the lesson here is that you should wait until the outcome of an investigation before you utterly destroy a person's reputation and livelyhood.

But wait!!!

After reading the article again, we see that Target did not even INITIATE an investigation, but instead simply used mass media to defame the woman with NO proof whatsoever as to her guilt.

She more than had a case, and the punitive damages should have been higher. Enough to really pinch Target.

And in a Country that gives politicians a pass for milking the public, it's insane to decry her verdict.
This is why the "Corporate Veil" (and by extension, the bestowing of rights upon corporate juristic personas) is an anthema to this nation. It allows individuals to hide behind this veil of invincibility simply because they work for a Corporation and their actions are done to "protect BUSINESS".
Character assasination is just as evil as real assassination... well a little hyperbolic, but I'll stand with it.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: kranky


I'm on the fence. Here's an employee who acted alone. Wasn't ordered by any one to do what he did.

However, he did it under the auspices of a TARGET LOSS PREVENTION Employee, acting in concert with the affiliated businesses on that mailing list, in contradiction with the Basic Civil Right of Due Process, Right to Face one's accuser, Challenge Evidence AND last but not least BEING INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW. ANYTHING beyond that is UN-AMERICAN.

If that is going to cost the company $3 million, then I have an idea for a new business. People hire me to place "moles" into competing businesses. Let's say the local Toyota dealer hires me to plant an employee at the Suzuki dealer. The employee pulls something that subjects the Suzuki dealer to a huge lawsuit. Maybe something like this case, maybe installing a camera in the woman's bathroom and purposely letting it be found. If I charge the Toyota dealer $100K for that and it ends up costing the Suzuki dealer millions in punitive damages, that would be a small price for running the competition potentially out of business.

The point is that huge punitive damages should be assessed when the company needs to be punished for doing something - an entrenched system of discrimination, etc. . I'm not so sure it is the right thing to do if it's just one wacko employee doing something he/she wasn't authorized to do. What can a company do to protect itself?

Not defend stupidity and criminal behavior. Take that "Zero Tolerance" bullshit and apply it directly to their forehead.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: AlienCraft

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs
I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't make a good faith effort to help out other businesses.

Actually, the lesson here is that you should wait until the outcome of an investigation before you utterly destroy a person's reputation and livelyhood.

But wait!!!

After reading the article again, we see that Target did not even INITIATE an investigation, but instead simply used mass media to defame the woman with NO proof whatsoever as to her guilt.

She more than had a case, and the punitive damages should have been higher. Enough to really pinch Target.

And in a Country that gives politicians a pass for milking the public, it's insane to decry her verdict.
This is why the "Corporate Veil" (and by extension, the bestowing of rights upon corporate juristic personas) is an anthema to this nation. It allows individuals to hide behind this veil of invincibility simply because they work for a Corporation and their actions are done to "protect BUSINESS".
Character assasination is just as evil as real assassination... well a little hyperbolic, but I'll stand with it.

There is nothing wrong with incorporating and this case has nothing to do with that.

Obviously the system CAN work when the little person is abused by the large companies, as is shown here. In fact, it even "works" when it shouldn't, as seen by the huge number of frivolous lawsuits against companies that are won, or settled when they should have been thrown out in the first place.

No individual would work hard to start a company, and work even harder to grow it into a major company without incorporation, especially not with how litigious our society has become. Who wants to lose their home and private assets when some dumbass slips on her own spilled soda and sues you? Separating private assets from business assets is the only way people will create the very jobs, goods and services you benefit from.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs
I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't make a good faith effort to help out other businesses.

Actually, the lesson here is that you should wait until the outcome of an investigation before you utterly destroy a person's reputation and livelyhood.

But wait!!!

After reading the article again, we see that Target did not even INITIATE an investigation, but instead simply used mass media to defame the woman with NO proof whatsoever as to her guilt.

She more than had a case, and the punitive damages should have been higher. Enough to really pinch Target.

The thing that strikes me as odd here is that she must be really, really bad at her job.
1. She tried to use a 1974 $100 bill; as a loss prevention employee, she would have to know that's suspicious.
2. She tried to use it at a second store in the same chain after being turned away at the first; as a loss prevention employee, she'd REALLY have to know that is suspicious.

If she lost her job over this (do we know that to be the case?), she wasn't good at it to begin with.

An e-mail to 31 people is not "mass media." Sending the e-mail without knowing she was guilty was not smart. But I agree with kranky that large punitive damages should only be awarded for systemic problems and not isolated incidents of a single employee not following corporate policy. There is no way for companies to screen out every employee who may potentially do something stupid that will expose the company to liability.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs
I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't make a good faith effort to help out other businesses.

Actually, the lesson here is that you should wait until the outcome of an investigation before you utterly destroy a person's reputation and livelyhood.

But wait!!!

After reading the article again, we see that Target did not even INITIATE an investigation, but instead simply used mass media to defame the woman with NO proof whatsoever as to her guilt.

She more than had a case, and the punitive damages should have been higher. Enough to really pinch Target.

The thing that strikes me as odd here is that she must be really, really bad at her job.
1. She tried to use a 1974 $100 bill; as a loss prevention employee, she would have to know that's suspicious.
2. She tried to use it at a second store in the same chain after being turned away at the first; as a loss prevention employee, she'd REALLY have to know that is suspicious.

If she lost her job over this (do we know that to be the case?), she wasn't good at it to begin with.

An e-mail to 31 people is not "mass media." Sending the e-mail without knowing she was guilty was not smart. But I agree with kranky that large punitive damages should only be awarded for systemic problems and not isolated incidents of a single employee not following corporate policy. There is no way for companies to screen out every employee who may potentially do something stupid that will expose the company to liability.

is it against the law to use a 1974 bill? then nothing else past that really matters.

 

[MikeyIs4Dcats]

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: mugs
I guess the lesson here is that you shouldn't make a good faith effort to help out other businesses.

Actually, the lesson here is that you should wait until the outcome of an investigation before you utterly destroy a person's reputation and livelyhood.

But wait!!!

After reading the article again, we see that Target did not even INITIATE an investigation, but instead simply used mass media to defame the woman with NO proof whatsoever as to her guilt.

She more than had a case, and the punitive damages should have been higher. Enough to really pinch Target.

The thing that strikes me as odd here is that she must be really, really bad at her job.
1. She tried to use a 1974 $100 bill; as a loss prevention employee, she would have to know that's suspicious.
2. She tried to use it at a second store in the same chain after being turned away at the first; as a loss prevention employee, she'd REALLY have to know that is suspicious.

If she lost her job over this (do we know that to be the case?), she wasn't good at it to begin with.

An e-mail to 31 people is not "mass media." Sending the e-mail without knowing she was guilty was not smart. But I agree with kranky that large punitive damages should only be awarded for systemic problems and not isolated incidents of a single employee not following corporate policy. There is no way for companies to screen out every employee who may potentially do something stupid that will expose the company to liability.

Why is a 1974 bill suspicious? I guarantee that as long as the economy continues to worsen, you will see more and more old bills circulating as people empty currency collections and coffee cans and closets.

Without knowing what she was attempting to buy, who can say, but she may have been buying something available only at Target or an advertised deal, or may have preferred Target as a store.

And how do you begin to judge her job performance over this? If she was accused of theft and other crimes, that could possibly taint her in people's minds forver. As someone else said, would you hire someone accused of embezzlement, would you let an alleged child molester babysit your child? Legal acquittal often does not change peoples minds. Did you think OJ was innocent of murder just because he was found not-guilty?

 

[BW86]

Originally posted by: waggy
good for her.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: MikeyIs4Dcats

Why is a 1974 bill suspicious?

Because most are out of circulation, and older bills are commonly used to make "undetectable" counterfeits.

And how do you begin to judge her job performance over this?

If she didn't recognize her own actions as suspicious, she's not very good at her job. The suspicions turned out to be wrong, but that doesn't make them unreasonable. After being turned away the first time, the smart thing to do would be to take the bill to a bank and exchange it for a newer bill. Taking it to another Target to try again is something I'd expect from the general public, but not from a loss prevention worker.

 

[torpid]

Originally posted by: Amused
I usually oppose most damages because they are excessive for the harm caused, but in this case, the damages must be enough to send a message that what happened here was egregious, reckless, irresponsible and caused great harm to this woman's reputation and ability to continue in her chosen profession.

The supreme court has pretty well defined what guidelines to use for punitive damages. The test for "reprehensibility" doesn't seem to indicate that a huge difference in the punitive vs actual damages is justified here, IMO.

From this lnk:

To determine a defendant?s reprehensibility?the most important indicium of a punitive damages award?s reasonableness?a court must consider whether: the harm was physical rather than economic; the tortious conduct evinced an indifference to or a reckless disregard of the health or safety of others; the conduct involved repeated actions or was an isolated incident; and the harm resulted from intentional malice, trickery, or deceit, or mere accident.

I don't think this satisfies any of those criteria.

Furthermore, they noted this as well:

the Court has been reluctant to identify concrete constitutional limits on the ratio between harm, or potential harm, to the plaintiff and the punitive damages award; but, in practice, few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages will satisfy due process.

This is a 31-to-1 ratio. Seems excessive to me.

At any rate, this amount is subject to judicial review and will likely be greatly reduced.

 

[SP33Demon]

Excessive award.

 

[bctbct]

Originally posted by: kranky

Originally posted by: Amused
Second, the punitive damages MUST be high enough to HURT the company. In fact, 3 million is not enough in this case, as it will not even pinch Target for it's actions. It won't even make a scratch. But hopefully the press this case has generated will be enough for Target to create a policy that states LP employees MUST wait for the outcome of an investigation before destroying the reputation of SUSPECTS in criminal cases.

I'm on the fence. Here's an employee who acted alone. Wasn't ordered by any one to do what he did. If that is going to cost the company $3 million, then I have an idea for a new business. People hire me to place "moles" into competing businesses. Let's say the local Toyota dealer hires me to plant an employee at the Suzuki dealer. The employee pulls something that subjects the Suzuki dealer to a huge lawsuit. Maybe something like this case, maybe installing a camera in the woman's bathroom and purposely letting it be found. If I charge the Toyota dealer $100K for that and it ends up costing the Suzuki dealer millions in punitive damages, that would be a small price for running the competition potentially out of business.

The point is that huge punitive damages should be assessed when the company needs to be punished for doing something - an entrenched system of discrimination, etc. . I'm not so sure it is the right thing to do if it's just one wacko employee doing something he/she wasn't authorized to do. What can a company do to protect itself?

Then Suzuki has the same opportunity to make their case against Toyota and sue them under the very system used in this case.

 

[AlienCraft]

Originally posted by: Amused

There is nothing wrong with incorporating and this case has nothing to do with that.

Obviously the system CAN work when the little person is abused by the large companies, as is shown here. In fact, it even "works" when it shouldn't, as seen by the huge number of frivolous lawsuits against companies that are won, or settled when they should have been thrown out in the first place.

No individual would work hard to start a company, and work even harder to grow it into a major company without incorporation, especially not with how litigious our society has become. Who wants to lose their home and private assets when some dumbass slips on her own spilled soda and sues you? Separating private assets from business assets is the only way people will create the very jobs, goods and services you benefit from.

In theory and in a perfect world, or if people weren't flawed, you might be right. But we are flawed, cynical and selfish beasts and those that would game the system, or use it's veil to insulate themselves from their poor judgement or criminal nature screw it for those that don't. Furthermore, given that there is no "soul" within this entity, it is by it's very construct sociopathic in it's single ended profit above all motives. People temper their judgements with a concern for their environs, a corporation doesn't and wouldn't care, and historically, haven't given those ancillary concerns the same weight that the humans do..
It's not the "corporation" per se, it's simply that they attain a status beyond that of the ordinary human citizen as they grow their fortune, grow into an international entity, with no allegiance save that of the dollar and their shareholder's interests.
People can be tried and hung for treason, A corporation would simply make a donation.

 

[Safeway]

Factual and Procedural Background

On February 23, 2006, Plaintiff, Rita Cantrell, attempted to purchase items from a Target Store in Greenville, South Carolina, with a 1974 Series $ 100.00 bill. Target employees, believing that the $ 100.00 bill was counterfeit, refused to accept it. Plaintiff left the store without purchasing the items.

The next day, Michael Proctor, one of Target's Asset Protection Specialists, e-mailed a picture of Plaintiff, which was taken from one of Target's security video cameras, to Douglas Guerry, an employee of Macy's. The e-mail stated: "Douglas, The lady pictured [*2] attempted to use a counterfeit 100 dollar bill today at 11:40 a.m., it was an older style bill, series 1974. She had a large Belk's bag with her so she may have hit the mall today." [Docket Entry # 17-3].

In addition to his employment with Macy's, Douglas Guerry is the communications liaison for an organization known as the Carolina Organized Retail Theft Task Force or "CORTTF." Mr. Guerry formed CORTTF for the purpose of sharing information within the retail loss prevention arena, primarily in the Upstate region of South Carolina. The CORTTF membership list contains approximately 63 members and includes retailers, state and federal law enforcement agencies, and private investigators. [CORTTF Membership List, Docket Entry # 23-9].

Mr. Proctor testified that he sent the e-mail concerning the Plaintiff to Mr. Guerry with the intent that Mr. Guerry disseminate the information to other members of CORTTF. [Depo. of Michael Proctor, Docket Entry # 23-8].

After receiving the e-mail from Mr. Proctor, Mr. Guerry forwarded the original e-mail to the members of CORTTF. Among the CORTTF members who received the forwarded e-mail from Mr. Guerry were Michelle Barton and Dennis Caruso of the Loss Prevention [*3] Department of Belk, Inc. located at the Haywood Mall office of Belk in Greenville, South Carolina. Ms. Barton and Mr. Caruso recognized Plaintiff as an employee of Belk. After first contacting local law enforcement regarding the e-mail and the alleged counterfeit $ 100.00 bill, Ms. Barton contacted the United States Secret Service field office for Greenville, South Carolina.

On or about March 1, 2006, Secret Service agents were dispatched to Belk where they interviewed Plaintiff. Plaintiff presented the alleged counterfeit $ 100.00 bill to the agents who determined that the bill was valid United States currency.

Shortly thereafter, Ms. Barton sent an e-mail regarding the alleged counterfeit $ 100.00 bill to Mr. Guerry and all other members of CORTTF. Ms. Barton's e-mail stated: "Secret Service, Agent Greg Johnson, has tested this bill and found it to be real. Please disregard any prior e-mails on this customer. Destroy any pictures relating to this message." [Docket Entry # 17-4]. Mr. Guerry also sent a "corrective" e-mail to the members of CORTTF which stated: "Disregard the counterfeit note email sent out recently. It has been investigated and resolved." [Docket Entry # 17-4].

On September [*4] 27, 2006, Plaintiff filed the present action asserting two causes of action: 1) defamation (libel per se); and 2) negligence. Plaintiff's defamation cause of action is based on the publication of the alleged defamatory e-mail sent by Mr. Proctor to Mr. Guerry of Macy's and CORTTF. Plaintiff's negligence cause of action is based on failure to train and failure to exercise reasonable care. Plaintiff alleges that: 1) Target failed to properly train its employees in how to recognize and identify counterfeit United States currency; 2) Target's employees failed to properly and thoroughly examine the $ 100.00 bill in order to determine the bill's authenticity; and 3) Target failed to supervise and properly train its employees to reasonably investigate suspicious activity before publishing accusations of criminal conduct.

On March 13, 2008, Target moved for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as to Plaintiff's two causes of action.

Come on ATOT. Of course news agencies are going to spin this story as yet-another-McDonald's case. (The McDonald's case is not trivial, and that title is a bit of a misnomer. The McDonald's burn victim attempted to settle multiple times for merely her medical expenses -- but Target tried to bully her.)

Truth is, this Target employee went on a witch hunt. He contacted his friend with the intent to harm the lady's reputation. This information then cascaded into vigilantes calling the Secret Service! Target is liable for its employees conduct and negligence based on the employer-employee relationship that creates liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

And lastly, you think this won't be appealed?

 

[TurtleCrusher]

I am LP at target and i've got to say, we certainly do not do a damn thing unless we have absolute proof.

Personally, i would have taken the $100. If worst came to worst i could only get in trouble for not having psychic money-reader technology implemented in my brain. I mean really. This guy stepped over the line. What makes it worse is that the bill was legit!

Also, i think the "email" sent out isn't anything that should have been brought up in the whole case. As you work in AP, you send out pretty much everything that you see. This is true in all security jobs in major corporations. The employee is nearly obligated to do so. These e-mails stay in house. Usually they never leave surrounding stores.

(I am not a spokesperson for target)

 

[Safeway]

In house is one thing, sending it to the federation of overpowered idiots is another.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH

Originally posted by: akshatp
Link to Story

Excerpt:

A federal jury has ordered Target Corp. to pay a Greer woman $3.1 million after the jury found that the company distributed information that wrongly accused her of trying to pass a counterfeit bill while shopping.

The suit alleged that a Target loss-prevention employee was responsible for an email distributed to dozens of other businesses and law enforcement agencies that warned them to be on the lookout for her after she tried to buy items from two Target stores with a legitimate $100 bill, according to a complaint filed in Greenville federal court.

In its answer to the complaint, Target denied wrongdoing and said that the email communication was "made in good faith."

The email led the U.S. Secret Service to question Cantrell while she was at work at a Belk?s department store in Greenville, where she was employed in the store?s loss-prevention department, the complaint alleged.

The employee?s email -- the contents of which included images of Cantrell shopping and allegations that she had tried to pass a counterfeit bill and had shoplifted -- was sent to 31 members of the group, according to the complaint. Members included local, state and federal law enforcement offices, malls, department stores, home-improvement stores and grocery stores, the complaint alleged

The story says they awarded "$100,000 in actual damages and $3m in punitive damages.

What "actual damages" were caused? Why did she even try to use the same bill again at another Target? She works in loss-prevention at another dept. store, maybe she set the whole thing up??

Her very livelihood in the security field depends on her being perceived as reliable and beyond suspicion. Now that Target has ruined her credibility, whenever she goes into court to testify against a shoplifter every defense attorney will just bring up the Target incident and discredit her testimony, causing the case to be dismissed. Her career in Theft Prevention was over the minute the Feds walked into her store.
It's likely that this incident cost her a couple years' salary and probably forced her to seek out a new career completely. That'd be worth $100,000.

What kind of stupid defense attorney would bring up an unverified allegation of counterfeiting in court? One that a prosecutor could easily counter with documented evidence from the SS. Target may have ruined her street credibility with 31 other companies, but this has no bearing on her credibility in court.

Unless she lost her job, which I really doubt, then I still don't see where $100,000 in ACTUAL damages is coming from. Per Safeway's post, It sounds like the SS cleared her of suspected counterfeiting almost immediately, and her employer knew this. And her employer sent out an email saying the accusatory email was incorrect.

There's something missing from the news article.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Amused
Get ready to be shocked...

I agree with the verdict AND the damages.

Why?

First, the woman was wrongfully defamed, horribly, by Target. If you're going to send out emails and letters defaming someone, you better be DAMN sure you have all the facts AND a conviction on your side. The Loss Prevention Employee jumped the gun and did NOT wait until the Secret Service conducted their investigation to find what their conclusion was. The employee's actions almost seem malicious. This woman MORE than had a case here. Target (by way of it's trained employee) willfully and purposefully went out of it's way to destroy this woman's reputation in the professional world. The very profession she earned a living from.

Second, the punitive damages MUST be high enough to HURT the company. In fact, 3 million is not enough in this case, as it will not even pinch Target for it's actions. It won't even make a scratch. But hopefully the press this case has generated will be enough for Target to create a policy that states LP employees MUST wait for the outcome of an investigation before destroying the reputation of SUSPECTS in criminal cases.

I usually oppose most lawsuits as frivolous, but this one is not. I usually oppose most damages because they are excessive for the harm caused, but in this case, the damages must be enough to send a message that what happened here was egregious, reckless, irresponsible and caused great harm to this woman's reputation and ability to continue in her chosen profession.

This was not a woman looking for deep pockets. This was a woman who, as a lowly individual, had a large company use it's resources and local organizations to defame her and destroy her career.

We don't have all the facts of the case, so let's just build a likely scenario.

What is Target's policy regarding suspected counterfeit bills? Is there a policy in place that suggests or requires that information regarding suspected counterfeiters be disseminated to other local businesses? I suspect not. I suspect that one of Target's employees joined this Carolina Organized Retail Theft Task Force, and they all agreed to share information. The employee likely sent the email on his own without explicit company approval.

Amused, I believe you mentioned that you run your own chain of retail stores. What is your written policy regarding suspected counterfeiters? Have you ever told your employees not to share information about these types of things?

I'm just suggesting that Target itself probably didn't know about the employee's email until the lawsuit was filed, and didn't have any kind of explicit policy in place telling employees not to do this sort of thing, probably because it's never happened before. If so, then why punish Target with huge punitive damages?

Of course, maybe Target does have a written policy requiring dissemination of information on suspected counterfeiters, but we really can't tell just from the news article.

BTW, I worked at a bank a few years ago, and when we would receive suspected counterfeit bills, we would fill out a Secret Service form, and mail the bill and the form to them. As far as I can remember, we would rarely hear back from the Secret Service, and never quickly.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Safeway
In house is one thing, sending it to the federation of overpowered idiots is another.

Per your own article, the email was sent to an organization that included state and federal law enforcement agencies.

 

[Safeway]

My post is part of the actual brief filed with the Court, from LexisNexis.

tk149: Right, if they had sent the email in-house, exclusively to other Target stores, that is fine. Instead, the guy forwarded it to a friend knowing that he would then send it to his little group of empowered citizens and overeager officials.

Actual damages: Most likely stemming from the defamation charge (slanderous, presumptive comments + defamation of character) and the negligence charge (recklessly, wantonly causing emotional or mental distress). Yes, these are actual damages.

Punitive damages: Awarded purely as an additional slap on the wrist, aimed at Target. Sure, many feel that these awards shouldn't be given to the lucky bastard winning the case, but that is what current law dictates. Some argue that the punitive damages should instead be directed as taxed charitable contributions to non-profits. Opponents to that idea say that juries might then award punitive damages more often and in larger amounts, since the judgment would be used towards a good cause.

Further, punitive damages are awarded exclusively for gross negligence, hence my reference to reckless, wanton conduct.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: Injury
I wanna know how much she sued for, not just how much the jury awarded her.

Most of the time, gross negligence cases merely state in the charge that they are suing for $xxx,xxx and punitive damages. The jury ultimately decides the amount to award for actual and punitive damages, but the only figure put forward by the attorney is for actual damages.

 

[jemcam]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: RichardE

Originally posted by: Baked
They need to put a limit on punitive damages awarded to the gold digger, ummm, I meant plaintiff. This is total bullshit.

If the lady was a person who had lost a leg in surgery where she went in for operation on a toe, would you be against 3 million in damages?

Who gets to decide what is worth punitive and is not? 12 random people, thats who and it should stay that way.

And what about the next lady who needs surgery but can't pony up $20k cash just because the last lady got a multi-million payout? Is that fair?

Ever hear of insurance?:disgust: