COLUMBIA, S.C. (Legal Newsline) – Target will still be liable for injuries a little girl suffered when she picked up a hypodermic needle in one of its parking lots but a $4.5 million punitive damages award will likely be reduced.
That’s the Jan. 26 ruling by the South Carolina Supreme Court in Denise and Clint Garrison’s lawsuit against Target Corporation that said an eight-year-old girl had her palm punctured by the needle before she and her mom ever got into the store, located in Anderson.
Denise rushed her daughter into the store when a small amount of blood showed on her hand to wash it. Employees apologized, and Denise alleged the store manager told her Target would cover medical bills.
Ensuing medical treatment to prevent her from developing HIV or hepatitis caused the girl to feel dizzy, lose her balance, have an upset stomach and have night terrors, the plaintiffs claimed.
She also had to have blood taken every three months for a year. Legal action by the Garrisons sought $12,000, but the company rejected it. That move looks to have been a major error, as the jury awarded $100,000 in compensatory damages and $4.5 million in punitive damages.
Target appealed, claiming it didn’t have “constructive notice” of the needle, but the Supreme Court ruled against it. Its appeal also claimed the punitive damages award was grossly excessive, and the Supreme Court has sent the issue back to the trial court with more instructions on how to handle that argument.
South Carolina has a cap on punitive damages of three times the compensatory damages award or $500,000, whichever is lower. That cap is not to be disclosed to juries.
There are exceptions, however, if the defendant’s conduct was motivated by unreasonable financial reasons and if its managing agent knew there was a high likelihood of injury. Also, if the conduct could subject the defendant to conviction of a felony, the cap could be changed.
In cases featuring either, punitive damages are the greater of four times the amount of compensatory damages or $2 million.
Further, the cap is eliminated when the defendant had intent to harm, pled guilty or was convicted of a felony arising out of the conduct or failed to act while under the influence of alcohol or drugs.
“The plain language of the statute does not impose a burden on the defendant to prove the cap applies,” Chief Justice Donald Beatty wrote.
“Rather, the legislature only directs trial courts to determine which level of the cap must be applied in a particular case.”
A footnote acknowledges the Garrisons’ argument that if the punitive damages are reduced, they are still entitled to $2 million because Target’s conduct was motivated by unreasonable financial gain and the condition of the parking lot “was known or approved by… the person responsible for making policy decisions on behalf of the defendant.
“Indeed, the Garrisons arguably presented evidence to support this claim during direct examination of Target's property maintenance technician when they questioned him regarding Target's practice of letting employees leave work early to save payroll following a change in CEO in 2008,” Beatty wrote.
“Consequently, there is evidence in the record the trial court may consider on remand to determine whether the Garrisons qualify for this reduction. We, however, express no opinion as to the merits of this argument.”