Maryland Personal Injury Lawyers
Target is a popular big-box store we are all familiar with. It is hard to throw a stone in suburbia today without hitting a Target. We have all been to one. With busy stores across the country, Target has an obligation to provide its consumers with a safe shopping experience, including well-maintained shopping facilities and carrying safely designed and manufactured products.
Target faces many lawsuits. If you are claiming more than $75,000 and you are not in Minnesota, you can expect Target to remove the case to federal court in many cases.
Lawyers, if you are bringing a claim, remember that these big retailers have zillions of pages of procedures, and they don’t train their $12-an-hour employees to the point where they know these procedures.
One more thing to keep in mind: ask for the surveillance film early in the case. These days, these stores have cameras everywhere.
Target’s Approach to Settling Lawsuits
Like many large corporations, Target takes a strategic approach to lawsuits, whether they involve personal injury, product liability, or employment-related claims. The company’s settlement strategy is more pragmatic than, for example, Walmart’s, which is a little more scorched earth.
How Target’s claims adjusters and lawyers handle a claim depends on the strength of the case and the likelihood of success at trial. Target will push toward early settlements in cases where it knows it will likely lose. But if there is real uncertainty about liability, Target is likely to deny the claim and fight, at least up to the pre-trial conference where its stance is a little less hardline.
Slip and Fall Claims
Most of the personal injury lawsuits against Target that have gone to trial are slip-and-fall cases. In this claim, plaintiffs generally allege that they fell because either (1) Target created a condition that caused them to fall (usually the best facts for plaintiffs), or (2) Target knew or should have known of a hazard that might cause someone to fall and did not do enough (usually nothing) to prevent the hazard.
There are a lot of very high verdicts in slip-and-fall cases like this. But these cases can sometimes be challenging, too, because a plaintiff’s lawyer has to show that the fall was due to the negligence of Target. The mere fact that the person fell is not enough to bring a viable claim.
From looking at recorded jury verdicts, it is easy to form the impression that Target looks to settle these cases if there is a real chance of a jury awarding a significant award.
Target Lawsuit Settlement Amounts and Jury Payouts
If you look at the verdicts in slip-and-fall cases around the country, you see very few plaintiffs’ verdicts. What does this tell you? One interpretation is that Target is a tough competitor in personal injury cases.
Another interpretation, and the one we subscribe to, is that Target simply does not let the good cases go to trial. If you read the details of some of these defense verdicts, it is pretty clear why the plaintiff lost. The good cases with Target have a good chance of reaching a settlement, and you do see a good number of reported settlements with Target (and attorneys rarely report settlements).
Here are a few of the sample verdicts and settlement amounts involving Target or that happened in one of their stores. These are not, by any stretch, representative verdicts – one way or the other – of what to expect in your potential claim.
- 2024, New York, Verdict of $1,500,000. The female plaintiff, age 33, said she was lawfully at a Target store when she slipped and fell due to a wet, slippery surface near an ice machine. The plaintiff reportedly suffered right knee lateral and medial meniscus tearing which required arthroscopy, a partial lateral meniscectomy and resulted in post-surgical scarring, as well as a right hip dislocation and cervical and lumbar strains with significant limited use. According to the plaintiff, the ice machine was in a state of disrepair and the store’s floor was allowed to become and remain in a wet, slippery, dangerous condition.
- 2024, Illinois, Verdict $310,000: The plaintiff alleged that she slipped and fell at a Target store outside Chicago. She claimed that the floor was known to be slippery by store employees but nothing was done about it and no warning signs were placed. She allegedly suffered back injuries as a result of the fall, for which she underwent steroid injection treatment. She claimed future medical expenses based on the recommendation that she undergo surgery. The verdict included $110,000 past medical expenses and $60,000 for future medical expenses.
- 2023, New Jersey, Settlement of $28,000. Plaintiff, a minor, said she was a patron at a store owned and/or operated by defendant Target Corporation when she was struck in the head by heavy boxes that fell from a high shelf. The plaintiff said she suffered personal injuries, which include injuries to her head, due to the accident. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s negligence, which included failing to properly secure heavy boxes that were stacked on a high shelf, failing to properly maintain the store premises and failing to properly remedy the unreasonably hazardous condition, caused the accident.
- 2022, Texas, Verdict $307,188. The plaintiff, 21 years old, claimed to suffer injuries to her lumbar spine with radicular symptoms and pain in the back, neck and sacrum, requiring epidural steroid injections and rhizotomy with L5-S1 laminectomy discectomy recommended, after she slipped and fell on an unknown slippery substance on the floor of a retail store operated by defendant Target Corp. The plaintiff contended that the defendant was liable for her damages under the theory of premises liability and negligence. This case is a good example of how a young plaintiff can drive up the value of a case.
- 2021, California, Settlement of $80,000. A 13-year-old boy, reportedly suffered a broken left thumb and scarring to his elbow and hip right, as well as elbow pain, left thumb pain, right flank pain, abdominal pain and associated swelling, after he was in a bicycle accident with a bicycle purchased by his parents at a Target store, operated by defendant Target Corporation. The minor’s father contended the defendant negligently, among other things, failed to properly assemble and/or inspect the bicycle.
- 2019, California, Settlement of $56,260. This is a product liability lawsuit. A 3-year-old boy’s penis became caught in a potty-training device sold by Target. He suffered a penile laceration and a corpus cavernosum injury. The boy’s injuries left him with permanent erectile dysfunction. His parents alleged that Target knowingly sold a defective device. They also claimed Target knew that the product had injured others but failed to recall it. This case settled for $56,260. 2019, Utah, Jury Verdict of $307,903. A woman slipped and fell on a wet floor while shopping at Target. She suffered a knee ligament tear, a hip tear, and the aggravation of her bursitis. The woman claimed that Target was vicariously liable for their employee’s failure to maintain safe premises, failure to clean up the wet floor, and failure to warn of dangerous conditions. Target denied liability. A jury awarded a $307,903 verdict.
- 2018, Pennsylvania, Jury Verdict of $250,000. A woman tripped on a worn carpet near a Target’s entrance. She suffered permanent knee injuries that required a total knee replacement. The woman alleged that Target’s negligence caused her permanent injuries. She claimed Target failed to maintain safe premises, failed to adequately inspect the premises, and failed to discover the carpet’s worn condition. Target denied liability, arguing that her knee injury was degenerative and denying responsibility. The jury ruled in the woman’s favor and awarded $250,000.
- 2017, New York, Settlement of $30,000. A 4-year-old boy struck a metal clothing rack at a local Target. He suffered a facial laceration that required stitches. His parents alleged that Target failed to maintain safe premises. Target denied liability. This case settled for $10,000.
- 2017, New York, Settlement of $15,000. A 3-year-old boy slipped and fell on a Target bathroom floor, causing his head to strike a urinal’s rim. He suffered a facial laceration. His parents alleged that Target negligently left the bathroom floor in dangerous conditions. This case settled for $15,000. If you have a case like this, you have to know they are tough cases to bring. It is hard to know when the condition was created that caused the harm.
- 2017, Pennsylvania, Jury Verdict of $2,100,000. A woman slipped and fell on spilled soda on a Target’s floor. She suffered a complete hamstring rupture that required surgery. The woman also underwent a lengthy rehabilitation. She wore a body brace and required assistance with bathing and using the bathroom. The woman alleged that Target’s negligence caused her permanent injuries. She claimed they improperly cleaned the spill, created a hazardous condition, failed to properly mop the floor, and failed to cordon off the spill area. Target denied liability, arguing she should have paid attention to her surroundings. The jury ruled in the woman’s favor and awarded $2,100,000.
- 2016, California, Jury Verdict of $1,734,167. A woman tripped and fell over a ladder while shopping at Target, causing a hip fracture. Right before the incident, a Target employee negligently left it in an aisle. She underwent internal fixation surgery, which caused her to suffer avascular necrosis. The woman now needed a total hip replacement and lifelong round-the-clock care. She alleged that Target’s negligence caused her permanent injuries. The woman claimed the Target employee negligently left the ladder unattended. She also claimed Target failed to maintain safe premises. Target denied liability, arguing that the woman should have exercised due care. The jury found Target 90 percent liable and the woman 10 percent liable. They awarded $1,734,167.
- 2016, South Carolina, Jury Verdict of $4,600,000. A woman’s 8-year-old daughter found a hypodermic needle in a Target parking lot. The woman slapped it out of her daughter’s hand. However, the needle struck her right palm. The woman suffered a hand injury and emotional distress. She underwent HIV and hepatitis tests. The woman also took post-exposure prophylaxis, which made her ill and left her temporarily bedridden. She claimed Target failed to keep safe conditions. Target denied liability, arguing she could not prove that Target employees knew of the needle and failed to dispose of it.
- 2016, Florida, Jury Verdict of $280,000. A 75-year-old man slipped and fell on spilled laundry detergent on a Target’s floor. He suffered a meniscus tear that required surgery. The man claimed Target employees failed to clean the spill. He also claimed Target’s “wet look” floor
policy made it difficult to identify clear liquids on the floor. Target denied liability, arguing it did not know of the spill. The jury awarded the man $280,000. - 2015, New Jersey, Settlement of $35,000. A boy suffered personal injuries after his bicycle’s wheel came off, causing his fall. This was the third time he rode the bike. His parents purchased the bicycle at Target. They alleged that Target negligently assembled and maintained the bicycle before selling it. This case settled for $35,000.
- 2013, Pennsylvania, Jury Verdict of $835,000. The plaintiff, a 52-year-old driver delivering rubbish containers, tripped and fell over a chunk of cement at a construction site when exiting his vehicle. The plaintiff sues the construction site’s general contractor and a demolition subcontractor working at the site. Plaintiff’s engineer testifies that Plaintiff’s position precluded him from seeing the debris while exiting his vehicle the general contractor disagrees and further claims that it is not responsible for the conditions under which Plaintiff fell as the demolition company was performing that type of work. The jury disagrees and finds the general contractor 90% at fault, with the Plaintiff only 10% comparatively negligent. (Note: this case happened in a Target; the jury found the general contractor liable.)
- 2012, Florida: Jury Verdict of $386,522. The plaintiff is shopping at Target in Deerfield Beach, Florida. She slips and falls in a puddle of bleach and sustained a C5-6 disc injury. She gets surgery, a diskectomy (no fusion) She sues Target. The jury awards $386,522 and finds Target 87% at fault and her 13% at fault. The adjusted verdict was $336,274.
- 2011, Florida: Jury Verdict of $230,802. A 48-year-old man slips on a liquid soap in a Target near St. Petersburg. He claimed a torn meniscus in both of his knees. At trial, the plaintiff argues that one of Target’s employees spilled liquid soap on the floor and failed to clean it up or warn of the potential risk of fall. (Again, these “Target employees created the risk” are the best kind of slip and fall cases.) Target argues what stores always argue: the plaintiff should have seen the spill. Target also argues, through its orthopedic expert, that the plaintiff’s damages were not as he claims because while that kind of fall can lead to a crush injury, it should not cause that type of harm to the knees’ meniscus. The jury disagrees, awarding the plaintiff $230,801.92. The jury also finds the plaintiff 10% responsible, reducing the award under Florida’s comparative negligence law to 10% to $207,721.73.
- 2011, Pennsylvania: Jury Verdict of $150,000. The plaintiff, a 25-year-old female, is walking through an aisle carrying a large box when she steps sideways to allow an older lady to pass. The edge of her box catches on a display shelf, and she trips over a bean bag chair that was left in the aisle. The plaintiff is diagnosed with chondromalacia of both knees with a recommendation for future surgery. The defendant claims she should have seen the chair when she went to pick up the box and also that they had no way of knowing who placed the chair or how long it had been there. The Jury finds the Defendant 90% at fault and the Plaintiff 10% comparatively negligent. Plaintiff is awarded $150,000 which is reduced accordingly.
Other Types of Claims Against Target
In addition to slip-and-fall lawsuits, Target faces a variety of other legal claims across its numerous stores. These claims often arise from incidents involving inadequate safety measures or employee misconduct, demonstrating the broad spectrum of liability issues the company faces.
One common type of lawsuit is excessive force by employees or security personnel. Shoppers have alleged that Target’s security staff or employees have used unreasonable or unnecessary force when detaining individuals suspected of shoplifting or other misconduct. These cases often involve claims of physical injury, emotional distress, or even false imprisonment, and can lead to significant settlements if the plaintiff can demonstrate that excessive force was used.
Negligent security is another frequent claim, typically arising when customers are injured due to a lack of proper safety measures in Target’s parking lots or store premises. This could include assaults, robberies, or other criminal acts that happen because of insufficient lighting, lack of security personnel, or failure to maintain a safe environment. If it can be shown that Target knew about potential risks but failed to act, plaintiffs can claim damages for their injuries and losses.
Injuries involving Target’s cart lifts (vermaports) also account for a portion of the claims against the company. Vermaports are motorized cart lifts that transport shopping carts from one floor to another in multi-level Target stores. When these machines malfunction or are not properly maintained, they can cause injuries to both employees and customers. Lawsuits involving vermaport injuries typically allege negligence in maintaining the equipment or failing to warn customers of potential hazards.
Getting a Lawyer to Fight Target
Our law firm is handling Target injury cases. Our firm handles only serious injury claims. If you have been injured as the result of negligence at Target, call 800-553-8082 to speak to a lawyer or get a free online case evaluation.
- Premises Liability Claims (an overview)
- Example Slip and Fall Lawsuit (the language of the Complaint)
- What Is the Value of Your Target Case?
- Looking at How Other Large Defendants Handle Claims