“A New Jersey mom is hitting Target right where it hurts with a $1.6 million lawsuit that claims her son was seriously injured while playing on one of the large, red, concrete balls that are situated outside many of its stores.” [New York Post]
More from B. Hill, in comments: “And then someone will sue Target for removing the balls and not having devices in place to prevent cars from crashing through the front doors.”
3 Comments
And then someone will sue Target for removing the balls and not having devices in place to prevent cars from crashing through the front doors.
More on lawsuits over lack of bollards to prevent cars from crashing into stores:
http://overlawyered.com/2016/03/trial-lawyer-theory-crashes-of-cars-into-stores-are-store-owners-fault/
“The brightly colored balls are designed to prevent cars from driving up on the curb, Target says on its website.
But [Venus, the hurt kid’s Mom] Costello claims they are an ‘extreme hazard’ to people and she says Target was negligent for not preventing kids from goofing around on them.”
First observation: How can you disagree with a lady named “Venus”? (especially a Mom, who’s still called “Venus”).
Second observation: She’s probably right. Those red balls are spaced so far apart that they won’t stop kiddie cars.
Oh wait, the kid wasn’t in a kiddie car when hurt? That’s very different. Never mind.