There are many injury claims, settlements and verdicts in personal injury cases with Florida Target Stores.You may have a case if Target’s carelessness causes your injury in Florida. There is a ton of information on this site about Florida slip and fall claims and other types of cases. Here, I focus on Florida Target cases.
A great way for me to talk about slip and fall injury claims with Florida Target stores is to go over past cases. The cases on this page are not mine unless I specifically say that they are.
Sowell v. Target Corporation, Dist. Court, ND Florida 2014
In Sowell, Mary Sowell sued Target Corporation. The United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Panama City Division issued an order on May 28, 2014.
After suing Target, Sowell asked Target for the surveillance video of her fall. Target asked the court to not require it to give Sowell a store surveillance video depicting her slip and fall accident.
Tip: A store surveillance video may be a huge part of a slip and fall victim’s case. This is because it may eliminate a “he said, she said.”
In the alternative, Target asked the court to allow it to withhold giving the video to Sowell until after her deposition (verbally sworn recorded statement under oath). The court denied Target’s request.
The court required Target to produce the surveillance video for inspection and copying prior to Sowell’s deposition. This is good for Sowell because the video can help refresh her recollection of the events leading up to the fall, the fall itself, and the events after the fall.
Target’s wants the injured person to make inconsistent statements, so that it may make the claimant seem that they do not have an accurate recollection of the slip and fall details.
Target said that the video taken by its store cameras would have been erased in the ordinary course of business after a period of time but instead was preserved and maintained under the direction and policies of Target’s claims department.
Target did not submit any evidence regarding its policy, if any, for recording over surveillance tapes or any evidence identifying the policy of Target for retaining the video when there is an accident in the store.
As a basis for requiring Target to give Sowell the video, it cited the case of Schulte v. NCL (Bahamas) Ltd., no. 10-23265-CIV, 2011 WL 256542 (S.D. Fla. Jan. 25, 2011) where the Court said that a surveillance video of a slip and fall incident aboard a cruise ship must be given to the claimant.
Slip and Falls on the Sales Floor
Take pictures of any substance on the floor if you slip and fall at Target. Take a close up (seen above).
Take pictures from further away as well (as seen above).
Slip and Falls near Check Out Areas at Targets Stores in Florida
A customer may slip and fall on a substance near the checkout counter of a Target Store. The customer should take pictures of the substance.
Pictures should be taken from:
- Close up and far away; and
- Multiple angles
Accidents in a Starbucks store inside a Florida Target Store
Many Target Stores in Florida have a Starbucks inside. Starbuck’s carelessness may cause a customer to get injured.
If so, the customer may have an injury case against Starbucks. The most likely claim in this area would be if a person slips on moisture.
This includes water, coffee, lemonade, whip cream or another liquid. Someone may also trip and fall over a mat or object.
Starbucks should inspect its mats to make sure that they have good traction on the bottom.
I have settled many slip and fall cases for people hurt in Florida or on a cruise. The verdicts below against Target are not my cases.
Target Verdicts and Cases for Florida Slip, Trip and Falls
In Nucci v. Target Corporation, Fla: Dist. Court of Appeals, 4th Dist. 2015, Maria Nucci sued Target for her personal injury. This is not my case.
The claimant had two Florida lawyers. One was from Orlando, Orange County, Florida. The other was from Fort Lauderdale.
Target was defended by Nicolette N. John and Thomas W. Paradise of Vernis & Bowling of Broward, P.A., in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida.
The appeals court affirmed (agreed with) the trial court’s ruling that she was required to give Target photographs from her Facebook account.
In her personal injury lawsuit, Nucci claimed that on February 4, 2010, she slipped and fell on a foreign substance on the floor of a Target store. In the lawsuit, she claimed the following:
- Suffered bodily injury
- Experienced pain from the injury
- Incurred medical, hospital, and nursing expenses, suffered physical handicap
- Suffered emotional pain and suffering
- Lost earnings
- Lost the ability to earn money
- Lost or suffered a diminution of ability to enjoy her life
- Suffered aggravation of preexisting injuries
- Suffered permanent or continuing injuries
- Will continue to suffer the losses and impairment in the future
Target took Nucci’s deposition on September 4, 2013. Before the deposition, Target’s lawyer viewed Nucci’s Facebook profile and saw that it contained 1,285 photographs. Target’s lawyer examined Nucci’s Facebook profile two days after the deposition and saw that it listed only 1,249 photographs.
Warning! Do not delete photographs on Facebook or any other social network.
Valles v. Target Corporation, Dist. Court, SD Florida 2015
In Valles, Christine Valles and William Emilio Valles sued Target Corporation. The case wound up in the United States District Court, S.D. Florida, which is federal court.
The appeal was decided on April 9, 2015. The judge granted Target’s Motion for Summary Judgment and dismissed the case.
Christine Valles was shopping at a Target store in Pembroke Pines, Florida with her daughter-in-law, Kelly. While the two were separated, Christine Valles fell.
My thoughts: The judge felt that the fact that no one saw her fall was important enough to mention it in his order (ruling).Target will decrease the full settlement value of your slip and fall case if no one saw you fall, and it was not recorded on their video surveillance.
This is because a jury may not believe that you fell. Valles sued Target, claiming that its negligence caused her injuries.
Target asked for a summary judgment (dismissal), arguing that Valles had no evidence to show that Target was negligent. Valles opposes the motion, arguing that the evidence shows there was something on the floor that caused her to slip and fall.
Because Valles did not present any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would give rise to an inference that a foreign substance had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time to charge Target with constructive knowledge of its presence, the Court granted Target’s summary-judgment motion.
It dismissed the case. The judge then wrote the following:
1. Florida law requires a slip-and-fall plaintiff prove the store had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition that caused her to fall.
The mere fact that a person falls in a store does not automatically mean that the store is liable. Bucholtz v. City of Jacksonville, 72 So. 2d 52, 53 (1954). Before there can be a recovery for an injury of this kind, the person must show some negligence on the part of the store.
The person claiming negligence must prove that the store was aware, or should have been aware, of the dangerous condition that caused her injuries. Publix Super Markets, Inc. v. Schmidt, 509 So. 2d 977, 978 (Fla. 4th DCA 1987). (Learn more about Publix slip and fall injury cases in Florida).
Florida has a statute (law) that applies for slip and falls at a store. It says:
If a person slips and falls on a transitory foreign substance in a business establishment, the injured person must prove that the business establishment had actual or constructive knowledge of the dangerous condition and should have taken action to remedy it.” Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1) (2013).
Constructive knowledge may be proven by circumstantial evidence showing that . . . the dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the business establishment should have known of the condition. Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1)(a) (2013).
In many negligence cases the critical issue is whether the store should have been aware of the dangerous condition. A person can establish this fact by producing some evidence to indicate how long the condition existed, how it was created, or who caused it.
For example, a person could show that a store should have been aware of a dangerous condition by presenting evidence that she slipped on a “piece of black looking rotten banana,” on the floor of area that was “exclusively occupied” by the store’s employees, that had not been cleaned for “about an hour and a half” before she fell. Marlow v. Food Fair Stores of Fla.,284 So. 2d 490, 491-93 (Fla. 3d DCA 1973). (Learn more about Florida supermarket slip and fall injury claims).
The fact that the banana was black and rotten suggests that it had been there for some time since a banana is usually yellow and becomes darker the longer it is exposed to the air. The fact that it was in an area of the store exclusively occupied by store employees suggests a store employee dropped it there.
And the fact that the area had not been cleaned or inspected for an hour and a half suggests that the store could have discovered it if it had a more regular cleaning schedule.
In another example, a person was able to establish that a foreign substance (a collard green leaf) was on a store’s floor long enough to charge the store with constructive knowledge of its presence by presenting testimony that the collard green leaf was “old, wilted, and dirty looking.” Montgomery v. Fla. Jitney Jungle Stores, Inc., 281 So. 2d 302, 303, 306 (Fla. 1973).
Winn Dixie bought Jitney Jungle after that case. (Learn about Florida Winn Dixie slip and fall claims).
The fact that the leaf was old, wilted, and dirty suggests that it had been on the floor for a relatively long time since collard green leaves presented for sale in a store’s produce section usually appear new, fresh, and clean.
As a final example, a person was able to establish that the dangerous condition that caused her to slip and fall (orange juice concentrate) existed for a sufficient length of time to charge the store with constructive knowledge by presenting evidence that the “orange juice concentrate . . . was partially frozen and partially liquefied.” Gizzard v. Colonial Stores, Inc., 330 So. 2d 768, 769 (Fla. 1976).
The fact that the orange juice concentrate, which is kept frozen, had partially melted suggests that the orange juice concentrate was on the floor for a relatively long time.
The take-away from these examples is that, under Florida law, a person claiming that a store was negligent by not cleaning up a dangerous condition must present some evidence that the dangerous condition that caused her fall existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the store would have known of the condition. Fla. Stat. § 768.0755(1)(a) (2013); see also Vallot v. Logan’s Roadhouse, Inc., 567 F. App’x 723, 726 (11th Cir. 2014) (affirming an order granting summary judgment— under the framework of Florida Statute Section 768.0755(1)(a)—where the plaintiff failed to establish that the restaurant had actual or constructive notice of a slippery substance on the floor where he fell). (Learn about Florida restaurant slip and fall injury claims).
Back to the facts of Valles.
2. Valles did not present any evidence to establish that a dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that Target would have discovered it if it acted reasonably.
No one ever saw anything on the floor near where Valles fell. Christine Valles did not see anything.
Her daughter-in-law, who was at the store with her, did not see anything. And none of the Target employees saw anything on the floor.
And the area had been inspected by a Target employee less than 20 minutes before Valles fell.
My thoughts: The court seems to suggest that 20 minutes is not enough time to create constructive notice. However, this is just one factor in this case.
Although Valles had evidence to support an inference that there may have been something on the floor that day in the Target store, she has not presented any evidence to support the inference that the condition existed for such a length of time that, in the exercise of ordinary care, the store would have known of the condition.
In responding to Target’s summary-judgment motion, Valles relied on her testimony that after the fall she felt something sticky on the bottom of her shoes, and her daughter-in-law’s testimony that Target employees were cleaning up something on the floor near her feet where there did not appear to be any blood.
The inference she draws is that there was something on the floor of the Target store that caused her to fall. But even accepting this inference as true, Valles has still not presented any evidence to show that a Target employee put the substance on the floor, that Target knew about the substance and didn’t clean it up, or that Target should have known about the substance and cleaned it up.
She has offered no evidence that would give rise to an inference that the substance had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time to charge Target with constructive knowledge of its presence.
The court said that this case is not like the melted-orange-juice-concentrate case, the old-wilted-dirty-collard-green-leaf case, or the black-rotten-banana case. Based on the absence of evidence presented by Valles, this case would be described as the invisible-disappearing-liquid case.
Because Valles has not presented any evidence, either direct or circumstantial, that would give rise to an inference that the foreign substance had been on the floor for a sufficient length of time to charge Target with constructive knowledge of its presence, this case must be dismissed. See Evens v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 468 So. 2d 1111, 1112. (Learn more about slip and fall injury claims against Airlines in Florida).
Conclusion in Valles Case
The judge said that this is a hard case.
My thoughts: Any Florida slip and fall lawyer will tell you that slip and fall cases are difficult. Some cases are harder than others though.
There is no doubt that Christine Valles fell in the Target store and suffered very serious injuries. By all accounts, these injuries have had a substantial impact on her life.
But the law does not make a store responsible to every person that gets hurt while shopping. To hold a store responsible, the person must be able to prove that she was injured because the store failed to do something that a reasonable store would have done.
In this case, there is simply no evidence that Target failed to do something that a reasonable store would have done.
For these reasons, the Court granted Target’s motion for summary judgment. Target won. The injured lady lost and got nothing.
Garcia v. Target – Defense verdict. October 2014.
Rosa Garcia and her son, Frank Garcia, went to Target Corporations’s store. It is located at 5800 South University Drive in Davie, Broward County, Florida. They were there to have their eyes examined. They were also there for food shopping.
They were there for many hours. It was not raining. She “did not notice it was wet.” While exiting the Target store, she slipped and fell.
Before she fell, Rosa did not see anything on the floor because she said she was walking. Following the fall, she saw that the floor was wet. She also noticed her pants were wet. She said she saw “drops of water [and] water all over.”
She said the water was covering about two or three floor tiles. Frank noticed that the floor was wet after her fall. He saw a puddle where she fell. It was surrounded by water with footsteps.
He noticed a footprint from a Timberland brand boot in the water. He also saw other footprints. He said it looked as if crowds of people had walked in after it was raining. There was a streak.
After the accident, a Target employee wiped the floor. They placed a “caution wet floor” sign there. Target tried to have the case dismissed based on Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So.3d 1087 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.2011). The shopper’s attorney said that Delgado is distinguishable.
Her attorney also argued that the footprints in the water create a question of fact as to Target’s constructive notice. The judge issued an opinion which said:
“In Delgado, the plaintiff, who slipped and fell, initially testified she did not see the substance on which she slipped, but that it looked like water because it was transparent.
There was no evidence in the record that it was raining or that any of the defendant laundromat’s washers or sinks were located near where she fell. Id. at 1090.
Nor were there any additional facts that the spill was on the floor for a long a period of time prior to the accident. Id.
The court noted that the plaintiff testified that she did not know where the water came from, she did not see any water anywhere else other than where she slipped, she did not know how long the water was on the floor, and she did not know of any laundromat employees who knew the water was on the floor. Id.”
The court disagreed with Target that Delgado is the same as the Target case.
The court said that shopper’s son testified that there were “footprints in the water on the floor and that it appeared crowds of people had walked in after it was raining, despite the fact that there is evidence that it was not raining the day Plaintiff fell in the store.
These facts raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Defendant knew there was water on the floor but ignored it or should have discovered it earlier.”
The customer filed a lawsuit in state court. Target removed the case to federal court.
Target’s attorney was David Cooney of Cooney Trybus. Rosa Garcia v. Target Corporation.
My thoughts: Target usually removes slip and fall cases to Federal Court. Some Florida federal judges are more likely than Florida state court to dismiss a slip and fall case. This is true if it is a case that is tough to prove that Target is negligent.
Florida slip and fall cases may still be won if there is a warning sign in place. Though, they are usually much tougher.
Slip and fall cases are difficult. You can see that from this defense verdict. The shopper’s attorney probably spent $15,000 to $20,000 of his own money on the case. This is in addition to countless hours spent working on the case.
Doudeau v. Target Corporation, Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2014
Marie Corrine Doudeau sued Target Corporation. The case was appealed to United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
It issued an opinion on July 25, 2014. Doudeau was shopping at the Target store in Hollywood, Broward County, Florida, with her daughter, Danielle Bohenstiel, on August 1, 2011.
It had been raining intermittently and there was standing water in the parking lot and the area in front of the store.
Doudeau proceeded to the back of the store and walked around the entire store before heading back towards the front. She was in the front of the store, near the “One Spot,” which was located approximately ten to fifteen feet from where the carpet at the entrance of the store ended.
While holding onto the side of her daughter’s shopping cart and walking, Doudeau slipped and fell to the floor. Doudeau testified that she landed in a twelve-inch puddle of clean water that had no tracks or footprints in it.
The district (trial) court granted summary judgment in favor of Target Corporation in her personal injury lawsuit. Doudeau appealed. The appeals court said that the district court relied primarily upon two cases in its decision.
In Sammon v.Target Corporation, 2012 WL 3984728 (M.D. Fla. 2012), the court granted summary judgment to Target because it held that the plaintiff had not shown constructive or actual knowledge on the part of the corporation.
The court pointed out that it had not been raining and there was no indication of how the water plaintiff slipped in had gotten on the floor.
Similarly, in the other case, Delgado v. Laundromax, Inc., 65 So.2d 1087 (Fla. 3d DCA 2011), the court granted summary judgment to the defendant because the plaintiff provided no evidence that the defendant had constructive or actual knowledge of the presence of water on the floor at a laundromat.
There, too, the court pointed out that there was no evidence that it was raining or had rained, which would have provided the source of the water. Learn more about slip and fall injury claims against Florida laundromats.
By contrast, in Doudeau, the appeals court said that there was testimony that it had been raining and there was standing water in the parking lot.
Further, an employee who helped Doudeau after she fell stated that the water must have been tracked in from outside. Another Target employee testified that the area ten to fifteen feet away, where the carpet met the tile, was a known slip and fall area when it rained.
The appeals court said that although the district (trial) court assumed that this area—with respect to which a Target employee said was a known slippery area when it rained—was “an entirely different location of the store from where the plaintiff fell,” a reasonable jury could find otherwise.
While the district court stated that the testimony of Target employee Michael Protz was that he had walked through the area less than four minutes before the fall and there was nothing there, Protz actually testified that he did not see anything on the floor.
A review of the surveillance video shows Protz walking through the area but his gaze is not on the floor but instead at the customers, which would be logical given that Protz is in charge of loss protection.
That same surveillance footage does not reveal any water being spilled on the floor between Protz’s walkthrough and Doudeau’s fall.
These facts, taken in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, support a reasonable inference that Target had constructive knowledge that rainwater could create a slippery floor in the area where Doudeau fell and that the water could have been on the floor long enough for Target discover it.
The appeals court reversed the trial court and let the case proceed to trial. However, the jury returned a defense verdict for Target in October 2014.
The appeals decision prior to the trial is Doudeau v. Target Corporation, Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2014.
Feliciano v. Target Corporation, Dist. Court, MD Florida 2014
In Feliciano, Arcadia Feliciano sued Target Corporation. The case was heard in the United States District Court, M.D. Florida, Fort Myers Division.
The court issued an order on May 27, 2014.
On August 23, 2011, Plaintiff visited Target’s retail store (the “Store”) located at 8040 Mediterranean Drive, Estero, Florida. While shopping, she slipped and fell on a clear liquid substance on the floor and sustained personal injuries.
She said the liquid on the store’s floor may have been water or oil, but she did not know for certain. She did not see the liquid before falling because she was pushing a shopping cart and not looking at the floor.
Tip: It helps the injured person’s case if they did not see the liquid before the fall. Less comparative negligence is generally attributed to the slip and fall victim.
On the other hand, if you saw the liquid before you fell, or should have seen it, then your claim value is lower.
The liquid was about the size of notebook paper and was “clear, clear, very clear, clean.” She did not see footprints, shopping cart tracks, or any other indication that someone had walked through the liquid.
She did not know how long the substance had been on the Store’s floor before she fell. None of Target’s employees told her how the spill got on the Store’s floor. Sometime during her slip and fall, Plaintiff made an oral statement to Target, which was documented in its Guest Incident Report.
After receiving her statement, Target wiped up the liquid on the floor. Target has a general rule for detecting and correcting unsafe conditions: “[A]ll employees are trained to continually look out and inspect the premises to identify and correct possible unsafe conditions in an effort to keep the Store reasonably safe for Guests and Team Members.”
Before August 23, 2011, she frequented the Store approximately once per month and never noticed any liquid spills or debris on the floor. On February 27, 2013, she sued Target, claiming that they negligently maintained the Store’s premises and failed to warn her of a dangerous condition that it knew or should have known existed.
After discovery closed on April 4, 2014, Target moved for summary judgment, arguing that it did not breach its duty to Plaintiff and that Plaintiff failed to present evidence that it had actual or constructive knowledge of the condition that caused her to slip under Florida law.
Basically, Target asked the court to dismiss the case. The court said mere presence of liquid on the floor is not enough to establish constructive knowledge.
The undisputed material evidence shows that Plaintiff cannot establish the essential elements of her negligence claims under Florida law. Target did not cause the liquid on which Plaintiff slipped to be on the floor; therefore, it did not have actual knowledge of the liquid to remedy it.
To establish Target’s liability, therefore, Feliciano must show that Target had constructive knowledge of the liquid. The evidence does not support such a finding.
In fact, the evidence suggests a lack of notice, as Feliciano described the liquid as “clear, clear, very clear, clean.” She saw no footprints or shopping cart tracks through the liquid.
There is no evidence of the liquid’s source or how long it remained on the floor. Without such evidence, the Court cannot find the liquid was on the floor for such a length of time that Target should have known about it.
There is no indication that spills or other debris regularly occurred such that the dangerous condition on the Store’s floor was foreseeable to Target. In fact, Feliciano said that she had never noticed any liquid spills or debris on the Store’s floor during one of her regular trips to the Store prior to the incident.
Feliciano did not have evidence that Target’s employees neglected their ongoing responsibility to look for and correct any unsafe floor conditions in the store during their work hours.
The Court dismissed her case.
Case: In Berard v. Target Corporation, Court of Appeals, 11th Circuit 2014, Tammy Berard sued Target Corporation.
While shopping at one of Target’s stores, Berard slipped on a liquid substance on the floor. Although Berard did not fall, she suffered personal injuries as a result of the incident.
Berard did not argue — and nothing evidenced — either that Target caused the spill or had actual knowledge of the spill. Thus, to establish Target’s liability under the statute, Berard needed to show that Target had constructive knowledge of the spill.
Berard testified that:
- The liquid substance on the floor appeared to be water.
- The liquid was “clean,” “clear,” and not “dirty.”
- The area around the spill was “clean and dry”
- Although the spill was in a high traffic area of the store, Berard saw no footprints, cart tracks, or other marks through the spill.
Both Berard’s daughter-in-law (who was with Berard at the time of the incident) and Target’s store manager described the spill as appearing to be fresh.
The appeals court said that viewing this evidence in the light most favorable to Berard, she has not shown that the spill existed for such a length of time that Target should have known about it.
The court said that Berard’s argument that Target should be held liable under a theory of negligent mode of operation does not apply foreclosed by her testimony that she was a regular shopper at Target’s store, that the store always appeared to be clean and well-maintained, and that Target had done nothing wrong to contribute to the incident.
If the injured person’s testimony that the facility was “always clean”, you cannot win on theory of negligent operation . Berard provided no evidence that her injuries resulted from a mode of operation employed negligently by Target.
*The court said that the negligent mode of operation theory merely recognizes the common-sense proposition of negligence law that the duty of care required under the circumstances may consist of taking reasonable precautions so as to minimize or eliminate the likelihood of a dangerous condition arising in the first instance.
My thoughts: This case implies that Target may be liable under a theory of negligent mode of operation in certain cases.
Gordon v. Target Corp., 07-80412-CIV, 2008 WL 2557509 (S.D. Fla. June 2008)
In Gordon, Faith Gordon and Steven Gordon sued Target Corporation. The United States District Court, S.D. Florida heard the case.
This is not my case, though I have settled many Florida slip and fall claims.
Even though this case is from 2008, it is still important. It was cited in the 2015 case of Garcia v. Wal-Mart Stores, East, LP, Dist. Court, MD Florida. (Learn more about slip and fall injury claims against a Florida Walmart).
This Gordon case arose out of a slip and fall which occurred on August 23, 2006 at a Target store located in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida. The customer and her spouse filed their lawsuit in the Circuit Court of Palm Beach County, Florida claiming negligence and loss of consortium.
Learn more about this case, Gordon, where the court dismissed a shopper’s lawsuit for slip and fall on a slick floor claim against a Target Store in Palm Beach Gardens, Florida.
$230,801.92 Verdict against Target when male shopper allegedly slipped and fell on laundry detergent in a Target store in St. Petersburg, Florida.
The shopper claimed that Target should have posted warnings and cleaned up the spill before the fall occurred. The case is Rodney Sapp v. Target.
My thoughts: The verdict was in 2011, which is after the new slip and fall law passed in Florida, but I am not sure which law was applied because the fall happened in 2008.
The current law requires the shopper/customer to prove that the store (Target) knew or should have known the liquid detergent (or any substance) was on the floor before the shopper fell.
I do not know what the injuries are in this case so I do not know whether the verdict for pain and suffering was similar to the typical settlement values for pain and suffering for injuries caused by someone else in Florida. As seen from this case, you may have a case against Target if you slip and fall on liquid on its floors.
Actual Case (not mine): $60,000 verdict for pain and suffering for a shopper who fractured her ankle. She claimed that she slipped on a worn out and wet carpet at Target in Miami, Florida.
She argued that Target should have fixed the carpet (a dangerous condition) before her fall.
Target blamed her for not paying attention where she was walking. Her husband made a claim for loss of consortium but the jury did not award him any money. The verdict was in 2010. The case is Hernandez v. Target.
My thoughts: Though I am not 100% certain, I think the entire verdict was for pain and suffering. If so, this verdict is within the range that I use as a starting point for settlement purposes for pain and suffering for an ankle fracture from an accident in Florida caused by someone else. Many juries award give little, if anything, for a loss of consortium claim if the spouse’s injury is not horrible.
$10,000 verdict for pain and suffering for a 75 year old shopper in Target in Miami-Dade County, Florida who fell down. She broke 2 teeth, tore a shoulder (rotator cuff) and had wrist pain. $5,000 was for past pain and suffering and $5,000 was for future pain and suffering.
My thoughts: The jury awarded her $500 a year for her future pain and suffering. I arrived at this amount by using the life tables, which show her life expectancy to be 10 more years. $5,000 divided by 10 is $500 per year. This verdict for pain and suffering is way below the average settlement for pain and suffering for a torn rotator cuff (shoulder).
Florida Injury Cases Involving Target’s Competitors
I have already talked about some of Target’s competitors. Learn about Florida slip and fall injury claims with some of Target’s other competitors such as:
- Costco Wholesale slip and fall injury claims in Florida
- Dollar General slip and fall injury claims in Florida
- Sears slip and fall injury claims in Florida (Coming Soon)
- Big Lots slip and fall injury claims in Florida (Coming Soon)
Did someone’s carelessness cause your injury in an accident in Florida, or on a cruise or boat?
See Our Settlements
Check out some of the many Florida injury cases that we have settled, including but not limited to car accidents, truck accidents, slip or trip and falls, motorcycle accidents, drunk driving (DUI) accidents, pedestrian accidents, drunk driving accidents, taxi accidents, bicycle accidents, store or supermarket accidents, cruise ship accidents, dog bites, wrongful death and much more.
We want to represent you!
Our Miami law firm represents people anywhere in Florida if someone’s carelessness caused their injuries in car accidents, truck accidents, slip, trip and falls, motorcycle accidents, bike accidents, drunk driving crashes, pedestrian accidents, cruise ship or boat accidents, store or supermarket accidents, wrongful death, accidents at someone else’s home, condo or apartment, accidents involving a Uber or Lyft Driver, and many other types of accidents.
We want to represent you if you were injured in an accident in Florida, on a cruise ship or boat. If you live in Florida but were injured in another state we may also be able to represent you.
Call Us Now!
Call us now at (888) 594-3577 to find out for FREE if we can represent you. We answer calls 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year.