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

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: 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:

People without legal experience lack the ability to comprehend such nuances.

Second lady: "Insurance? Pfffffft. I'd rather risk it."
Engineer: "Errors and Omissions insurance? I don't make mistakes."
Lawyer: "Rule 11 sanctions? No way!"

 

[Foxery]

Man, this thread just makes me want to get a stack of $2 bills from the bank and go nuts. I wonder how often they're simply accepted as $20s instead of rejected.

(No, I'm not really dishonest enough to try)

 

[Genx87]

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?

I believe your scenario would fall under Fraud.

 

[yowolabi]

Originally posted by: MrPickins
I don't necessarily agree with the damages, but it sounds like she had a pretty solid case for defamation.

Agreed.

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.

It's not "punitive" if it's a small amount. The point of punitive damages is to punish the company to an extent that they'll make sure they don't do the same action again in the future. How much do you think Target needs to be lose before they make sure to not repeat their actions? Actually, that's irrelevant. 12 random people put that number at 3 million, and they put a whole lot more thought into it than us.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: kranky
Here's an employee who acted alone. Wasn't ordered by any one to do what he did.

Target is liable for its employees conduct and negligence based on the employer-employee relationship that creates liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

 

[Train]

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.

who gets to decide if your guilty of robbery? 12 random people do. But can the same 12 random people then sentence you to life in prison for that robbery? No they cant, they have a hard limit they can sentence (and even that is subject to reduction by the judge)

Can this lady sue Target for damages to her reputation? Sure. Should she get $3 million? Thats stupid as hell and is one of the reasons this country is so fucked up.

 

[Safeway]

Train: Should she get $3 million? Thats stupid as hell and is one of the reasons this country is so fucked up.

No, disallowing such punitive damages would be stupid as hell and result in even more fucked up conduct.

For instance, a human life is worth ~$1,400,000, in the eyes of insurance companies and courts. If grossly negligent conduct kills a construction worker, the family would probably be awarded ~$1,400,000 in actual damages for lost wages, emotional distress, etc. That is a slap on the wrist for the company. When the jury throws in $40,000,000 in punitive damages, that tells the construction company that it will be far cheaper in the long run to exercise ordinary care for the safety of their employees, even if instituting such procedures will cost $20,000,000.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Train: Should she get $3 million? Thats stupid as hell and is one of the reasons this country is so fucked up.

No, disallowing such punitive damages would be stupid as hell and result in even more fucked up conduct.

For instance, a human life is worth ~$1,400,000, in the eyes of insurance companies and courts. If grossly negligent conduct kills a construction worker, the family would probably be awarded ~$1,400,000 in actual damages for lost wages, emotional distress, etc. That is a slap on the wrist for the company. When the jury throws in $40,000,000 in punitive damages, that tells the construction company that it will be far cheaper in the long run to exercise ordinary care for the safety of their employees, even if instituting such procedures will cost $20,000,000.

Your post might make sense if said company could avoid the punitive damages by instituting required changes. You make it sound as if the company would pay $20 mil to institute changes than pay the $40 mil in damages. But they pay both...

so how exactly is that fair again?

As an earlier poster pointed out, todays civil lawsuits have turned into get rich quick opurtunism.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Safeway

Train: Should she get $3 million? Thats stupid as hell and is one of the reasons this country is so fucked up.

No, disallowing such punitive damages would be stupid as hell and result in even more fucked up conduct.

For instance, a human life is worth ~$1,400,000, in the eyes of insurance companies and courts. If grossly negligent conduct kills a construction worker, the family would probably be awarded ~$1,400,000 in actual damages for lost wages, emotional distress, etc. That is a slap on the wrist for the company. When the jury throws in $40,000,000 in punitive damages, that tells the construction company that it will be far cheaper in the long run to exercise ordinary care for the safety of their employees, even if instituting such procedures will cost $20,000,000.

Your post might make sense if said company could avoid the punitive damages by instituting required changes. You make it sound as if the company would pay $20 mil to institute changes than pay the $40 mil in damages. But they pay both...

so how exactly is that fair again?

As an earlier poster pointed out, todays civil lawsuits have turned into get rich quick opurtunism.

Such lawsuits against a handful of companies urge the vast majority of companies to exercise ordinary care. Those that do not are then made into examples. Fair is fair.

Now, if they would only apply this rational to those drivers without insurance. $200 ticket and $25,000 in punitive damages. Sure, it would bankrupt an unlucky few, but you bet that there would be a flood of previously uninsured drivers getting insurance.

Too many time people say that paying a ticket a year (and one month of insurance) is cheaper than maintaining continual coverage. Further, it is unlikely that a person would be ticketed each and every year, so this scheme is even less expensive.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: Train

Originally posted by: Safeway

Train: Should she get $3 million? Thats stupid as hell and is one of the reasons this country is so fucked up.

No, disallowing such punitive damages would be stupid as hell and result in even more fucked up conduct.

For instance, a human life is worth ~$1,400,000, in the eyes of insurance companies and courts. If grossly negligent conduct kills a construction worker, the family would probably be awarded ~$1,400,000 in actual damages for lost wages, emotional distress, etc. That is a slap on the wrist for the company. When the jury throws in $40,000,000 in punitive damages, that tells the construction company that it will be far cheaper in the long run to exercise ordinary care for the safety of their employees, even if instituting such procedures will cost $20,000,000.

Your post might make sense if said company could avoid the punitive damages by instituting required changes. You make it sound as if the company would pay $20 mil to institute changes than pay the $40 mil in damages. But they pay both...

so how exactly is that fair again?

As an earlier poster pointed out, todays civil lawsuits have turned into get rich quick opurtunism.

Such lawsuits against a handful of companies urge the vast majority of companies to exercise ordinary care. Those that do not are then made into examples. Fair is fair.

Now, if they would only apply this rational to those drivers without insurance. $200 ticket and $25,000 in punitive damages. Sure, it would bankrupt an unlucky few, but you bet that there would be a flood of previously uninsured drivers getting insurance.

Too many time people say that paying a ticket a year (and one month of insurance) is cheaper than maintaining continual coverage. Further, it is unlikely that a person would be ticketed each and every year, so this scheme is even less expensive.

You're obviously not familiar with "Driver responsibility fees" (Michigan and New Jersey so far) which in thier current form, are unconstitutional.

They do the opposite of what you think they would do. Which is why your argument sucks.

 

[marincounty]

Those that say this award is excessive, are you also in favor of a limit on Target's profit?

November 20 2007
The Minneapolis-based retailer said quarterly net earnings were $483 million, or 56 cents a share, down from $506 million, or 59 cents a share, in the same period a year ago
Total revenue in the quarter rose 9.3 percent to $14.82 billion from $13.57 billion in 2006, while third-quarter same-store sales increased 3.7 percent.

A $3million award against Target, with $15 billion in quarterly revenue, is the equivalent of you or me getting a parking ticket. Think of the poor corporation.

 

[Safeway]

Your argument that the existence of such laws in two states (and adding that they are unconstitutional) is what sucks. My addition of that opinion bears no weight on my argument that such punitive damage awards urges industries to comply.

Learn what to attack. You have no legal education, obviously, and are just plain incorrect.

 

[Train]

oh wow that 58 cents a share they paid out over the past year?
Which, based on thier current stock price, pays a smaller return than a crappy, no minimum balance savings account at a local credit union.

 

[Train]

Originally posted by: Safeway
Your argument that the existence of such laws in two states (and adding that they are unconstitutional) is what sucks. My addition of that opinion bears no weight on my argument that such punitive damage awards urges industries to comply.

Learn what to attack. You have no legal education, obviously, and are just plain incorrect.

But as you failed to address, the damages apply wether that make the changes or not.

These lawsuits are opurtunism. Lawyers inflate the damages to astronomical values because they get a % of total awarded amount. If they were paid a flat fee, this would have never happened.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: 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.

I still don't understand where the Actual damages came from. Let's assume that all factual points in the brief are true and were uncontested. The brief makes it sound like the email was sent out, and that shortly thereafter, the plaintiff's employer called the Secret Service, the SS Agents showed up and examined the bill, and the employer sent out the "corrective" email. Everybody on the original email list received the "corrective" email.

Based on the most likely sequence of events, all this happened on the same day.

Exactly what loss did the plaintiff suffer? She was defamed for a day?

She was certainly embarassed at work, but only for a few minutes, and then subsequently cleared of all wrongdoing almost immediately. At least, that's what it sounds like to me.

How does this equal $100,000? Was she wronged? Yes. Was she wronged to the tune of $100,000 (likely more than her yearly salary)? Unless there's specific laws dictating actual dollar amounts, it sounds like this is more punitive damages than actual damages.

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: kranky
Here's an employee who acted alone. Wasn't ordered by any one to do what he did.

Target is liable for its employees conduct and negligence based on the employer-employee relationship that creates liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Which applies if the employee acted in the course of employment. The question then becomes, did the employee truly act in the course of employment? The jury obviously decided so, but that doesn't mean they actually were correct.

If the Loss Prevention employee was a part-time security guard, then I'd say there's a good chance he was not acting in the course of employment. But if the LP employee was a manager in charge of the Loss Prevention department, then he probably was acting in the course of employment.

Either way, I think the punitive damages were way too high if the LP employee acted alone (i.e. Target's executive management did not have specific policies encouraging or requiring LP employees to share information on suspected counterfeiters with other businesses). If so, what are they punishing Target for? Not having a specific policy telling their employees not to discuss suspected criminals with outsiders?

Great chilling effect there. Now, unless there's an actual conviction in court, businesses will be reluctant to share information on suspected criminals.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: 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.

I still don't understand where the Actual damages came from. Let's assume that all factual points in the brief are true and were uncontested. The brief makes it sound like the email was sent out, and that shortly thereafter, the plaintiff's employer called the Secret Service, the SS Agents showed up and examined the bill, and the employer sent out the "corrective" email. Everybody on the original email list received the "corrective" email.

Based on the most likely sequence of events, all this happened on the same day.

Exactly what loss did the plaintiff suffer? She was defamed for a day?

She was certainly embarassed at work, but only for a few minutes, and then subsequently cleared of all wrongdoing almost immediately. At least, that's what it sounds like to me.

How does this equal $100,000? Was she wronged? Yes. Was she wronged to the tune of $100,000 (likely more than her yearly salary)? Unless there's specific laws dictating actual dollar amounts, it sounds like this is more punitive damages than actual damages.

This event could have resulted in her getting fired. There are facts unknown to all of us judging the judgment.

 

[Safeway]

Originally posted by: tk149

Originally posted by: Safeway

Originally posted by: kranky
Here's an employee who acted alone. Wasn't ordered by any one to do what he did.

Target is liable for its employees conduct and negligence based on the employer-employee relationship that creates liability under the doctrine of respondeat superior.

Which applies if the employee acted in the course of employment. The question then becomes, did the employee truly act in the course of employment? The jury obviously decided so, but that doesn't mean they actually were correct.

If the Loss Prevention employee was a part-time security guard, then I'd say there's a good chance he was not acting in the course of employment. But if the LP employee was a manager in charge of the Loss Prevention department, then he probably was acting in the course of employment.

Either way, I think the punitive damages were way too high if the LP employee acted alone (i.e. Target's executive management did not have specific policies encouraging or requiring LP employees to share information on suspected counterfeiters with other businesses). If so, what are they punishing Target for? Not having a specific policy telling their employees not to discuss suspected criminals with outsiders?

Great chilling effect there. Now, unless there's an actual conviction in court, businesses will be reluctant to share information on suspected criminals.

If it had been a security guard, chances are, Target would not be held liable at all. Most security guards are independent contractors, hired through an agency.

 

[1sikbITCH]

Originally posted by: 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.

Absolutely every single defense attorney with half a brain would bring up this incident to the jury.

Now the prosecution's witness is on trial instead of his client. The seeds are planted, and the jury is wondering if she is lying. The prosecutor now has to run around and prove that his star witness is not a criminal herself. It becomes about her, not him.

OJ Simpson was exonerated at one time too. Would you have believed any testimony he ever gave in a courtroom again?

 

[SKORPI0]

If that happens to me (1974 $100 bill rejected), I'd stop and think why. First right thing to do was to go to a bank and have it changed to a current $100 bill. I just wonder why this woman (who works in loss prevention) insisted in trying to use it a 2nd or maybe even a 3rd time. WTF, was she thinking? In the back of my mind she could have set this up and tested how stores would react to her presenting them with a 1974 $100 bill very few people see in everyday situation.

In the other hand the Target employee who distributed around the email etc. IMHO overreacted by assuming that the bill was a counterfiet.

 

[FallenHero]

Originally posted by: DayLaPaul

Originally posted by: FallenHero

Originally posted by: akshatp
What if the lady WAS indeed trying to use a fake bill, and then when SS came to inspect it she produced a real one? That would be pretty sneaky.

Eh, I'm surprised the Secret Service even spoke with her. They don't bother with small time shit. Unless you have 10k+ in large bills that are all fake, they don't do anything.

Most people passing off fake bills do it one at a time, I'd imagine. Had her 1974 bill been found counterfeit, I'm sure a warrant would have been drawn up to search her residence and any other places, hoping to break that mythical $10k barrier. But of course it would all start with one solid lead and one counterfeit bill.

Again, having dealt with the Secret service...I can tell you their response to such matters (all three cases dealt with counterfeit 100's)

Me: "Yeah, I need to inform you of a counterfeit 100 used in our town"

SS: "Ok...log it into evidence. You don't need to send it to us. Anything else?"

Me: "...Nope"

SS: "Thanks."

Not saying that they didn't come out...but just the fact that they did surprises me. Maybe the Chicago Office is lazy...

 

[tk149]

Originally posted by: 1sikbITCH

Originally posted by: 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.

Absolutely every single defense attorney with half a brain would bring up this incident to the jury.

Now the prosecution's witness is on trial instead of his client. The seeds are planted, and the jury is wondering if she is lying. The prosecutor now has to run around and prove that his star witness is not a criminal herself. It becomes about her, not him.

OJ Simpson was exonerated at one time too. Would you have believed any testimony he ever gave in a courtroom again?

Despite the fact that she was never actually arrested, much less tried in court? And that she could easily secure an affadavit from the Secret Service exonerating her? I really doubt it. I think any decent prosecutor could make the defense attorney look like an idiot if they put her on the stand.