The Practical Lawyer

September 19-25, 2016

Target learns that settling a case can be a great idea

By Ethan C. Nobles

While adopting a strong position and refusing to budge from it can be a successful technique for negotiating settlements in cases, adopting such a tactic can also prove to be detrimental.

Take a recent case, involving Target, a Minneapolis-based retailer. Back in 2014, a South Carolina woman was stuck with a dirty hypodermic needle that her child found in a Target parking lot in that state.

In spite of the fact that the woman has suffered no long-term effects, she still suffered some time lost from work and had to go through a treatment designed to prevent her from contracting HIV that made her ill. The jury that heard the case awarded her $4.6 million in damages.

Ouch.

What makes this case worse is that Target could have settled the case for $12,000. Instead of accepting that offer, however, the retailer countered with $750 in damages. Seeing how far apart the parties were in what they wanted to settle the case, it is no surprise that the matter went to trial.

The $12,000 offer was designed to cover the South Carolina woman’s damages – medical bills, lost time from work and – we can assume – some pain and suffering. At this point, one can’t help but think Target officials regret adopting a hard line and not being more open to negotiating a settlement.

Perhaps those Target officials thought they had a strong defense in the case. There is some merit to that position as they pointed out there was no proof that Target put the needle in the parking lot or knew or should have known the needle was on store property and the retailer refused to act.

Still, you never do know for sure what’s going to happen when a matter winds up in court. Target had some good defenses and apparently though their case was strong enough to laugh off the $12,000 offer to settle the matter. After getting hit with a $4.6 million verdict, those officials aren’t laughing anymore.

Of course, the case hasn’t ended, as there are some motions that can be made to reduce the amount of damages. However, one never knows how successful attempts to reduce the damages award might be. All one knows for sure is that Target can’t go back and try again to accept that $12,000 offer and be done with the case.

The point here is that Target officials knew they could have been rid of the case for $12,000 in damages, but they decided to roll the dice and try their luck. They failed miserably. This is a great case to keep in mind when talking about settlement in cases – giving the farm away is a terrible idea, but being too rigid can be a problem, too.

Ethan C. Nobles is an attorney in Benton focusing on real estate, evictions, contracts, wills, trusts, incorporations, bankruptcy and other areas of law as the mood strikes. You can reach him at Ethan@NoblesLawFirm.com or visit him on the Internet at NoblesLawFirm.com.