Can my fiance sue Target?

What is the name of your state? FL

Ok, I really didn't know where to place this message but "other crimes".

My fiance was making a trip to Target 2 days ago, by herself. When she was walking from her car to the store, a car swirved and almost hit her. She gave a "hand signal" to the driver and told him to watch where he was going. The driver began yelling dirogatory statements to her the entire time she was walking to the store... she kept walking away to the store trying to ignore him. Once in the store about 5 minutes later, she was in the women's department. The man ran up to her and started yelling at her, spit on her, and grabbed her by the arm (leaving multiple scratches/bruises). She kept yelling for him to get off, pushing him away, and started crying but he continued.

Well here's the kicker, Target didn't do anything. The women's department employee went on the radio and told security that there was a fight going on. It continued for about 5 minutes leading to the point when he said that he was going to pull out a knife and stab her. An undercover police officer along with 5 other women pulled him off until security arrived.

There was a police report made and the man was charged with assault and battery, along with tresspassing. Target pulled up video of the entire conflict, along with the man RUNNING into the store in a fit looking for my fiance. All of this was burned onto a DVD and given to the local police, along with the police report.

At this time, my fiance was informed that the man (at the time) is an employee of the store and was showing up to work at the same time this happened. Of course he has been fired.

The proper course of action will be taken to press charges against the man, but I would like to know if anyone knows if my fiance can... 1) Sue Target for employing a man who is in a mental state such as this, and 2) Not doing ANYTHING during this conflict?

Thank you in advance.

You have no case on Target. You donot know this mans mental state or illness if any! Target acted properly to ensure your wife's safety and others. PD was called and Target provided video evidence. Target also fired this person. There is no case!

So your saying that Target is not responsible for their employees actions while AT their stores? They would not be responsible if one of their own employees abused a customer and threatened their life?

Just doesn't make sense.

No Target is not responsibile if you use that theory than your wife's employer should fire her for flipping the bird that started matter. Don't take my word for it contact some local Attorneys see if they will take your case

whoisdaman said:

So your saying that Target is not responsible for their employees actions while AT their stores? They would not be responsible if one of their own employees abused a customer and threatened their life?

Just doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

maybe not to you but to the attorney who will have to argue your case it makes perfectly good sense. No where in your post did you say that the man was actually WORKING. Only that he was at the store.

whoisdaman said:

So your saying that Target is not responsible for their employees actions while AT their stores? They would not be responsible if one of their own employees abused a customer and threatened their life?

Just doesn't make sense.

Click to expand...

Your gf probably has no case against Target for employing the lunatic (i.e. negligent hiring). She'd have to prove that the man was unfit for employment, that Target knew or should have known that he was unfit for employment, and that because of Target's oversight, your gf was injured. A good example: If a day care center did not conduct a background check of its employees, and such a check would have revealed that an employee was a sex-offender, and that employee molested a child while working, then the parents can probably win a suit against the day care center for negligent hiring.

Your gf probably has no case against Target if the man was "on the clock" at the time of the attack (i.e. respondeat superior). She'd have to prove that the attack was within the lunatic's scope of employment. Intentional torts are almost never found to be within an employee's scope of employment. A good example: If a furniture store's delivery man negligently caused a car crash while on his way to make a delivery to a customer, the injured party can probably win a suit against the furniture store for the employee's negligence.

Your gf probably has no case against Target for not getting to the scene quicker (i.e. negligence). She'd have to prove that Target owed her a duty, that it breached that duty by not responding fast enough, and that she sustained injury because of Target's slow response. A good example: Can't even think of one.

BelizeBreeze said:

maybe not to you but to the attorney who will have to argue your case it makes perfectly good sense. No where in your post did you say that the man was actually WORKING. Only that he was at the store.

Click to expand...

Actually -

whoisdaman said:

At this time, my fiance was informed that the man (at the time) is an employee of the store and was showing up to work at the same time this happened. Of course he has been fired.

Click to expand...

I mean an employee assaulted a customer IN his place of work. Are you telling me that doesn't mean anything for the employers liability? Is an employer only liable who their employees conduct on the premises while they are clocked in? What if he was a salaried manager? Suppose he was on break and not 'working' but was punched in ( ) Would the determininant be if it was a paid break or not?

I think everyone, eps the original poster would like an explanation of how or why not the employer is liable. If 'working' or not makes a difference, when would he have been working? Or is it another factor?

An employer in Florida is vicariously liable for any tortious acts committed by an employee acting within the scope of his employment.

It could be argued that since this employee had been driving to work and was now at work, that Target could be held liable. I'd at least look into it.

Mister Darcy said:

An employer in Florida is vicariously liable for any tortious acts committed by an employee acting within the scope of his employment.

It could be argued that since this employee had been driving to work and was now at work, that Target could be held liable. I'd at least look into it.

Click to expand...

Scope of Employment n. actions of an employee which further the business of the employer and are not personal business, which becomes the test as to whether an employer is liable for damages due to such actions under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior (make the master answer).

I doubt attacking the OP's gf furthered Target's business.

seems to me a case like this would come down to "who has the better lawyer"

Even tho it's not the the company's fault, the resulting injuries, trauma, etc. while on their property could make them LOOK liable ... but the problem is, could you get a jury to believe that.

Even if the company were to settle out of court, that wouldn't mean they are accepting guilt, it just means that it'll cost them less to pay you off than it would to fight it in court.

You can always sue whomever you want - but whether or not your case has merit is a totally different issue all together.

--Dave.

ForFun said:

Scope of Employment n. actions of an employee which further the business of the employer and are not personal business, which becomes the test as to whether an employer is liable for damages due to such actions under the doctrine of Respondeat Superior (make the master answer).

I doubt attacking the OP's gf furthered Target's business.

Click to expand...

I don't know that anybody here knows what his scope of employment was. Personal greeter maybe?? The only facts we know are that he was employed at Target and was at his place of employment and was scheduled to work at that time. Certainly wouldn't hurt to look into it. (sorry, Mary).

Mister Darcy said:

I don't know that anybody here knows what his scope of employment was. Personal greeter maybe?? The only facts we know are that he was employed at Target and was at his place of employment and was scheduled to work at that time. Certainly wouldn't hurt to look into it. (sorry, Mary).

Click to expand...

Does it really matter what his position was? Is it within any Target employee's scope of employment to become violent with people?

ForFun said:

Does it really matter what his position was? Is it within any Target employee's scope of employment to become violent with people?

Click to expand...

Yet people make respondeat superior arguments for intentional torts all the time and win. (Forseeability being a question of fact and all).

Or at least survive SJ, which is all you really need to do to coerce a settlement

Just how many of us can honestly say we would not react to being flipped off!? Then if arguement continued with yelling and what not whose to say any of us might not have turned violent? I am not condoneing the action taken just saying that the party in question may not have anger issues or mental problems he may just been pissed! That alone takes burden off Target

You Are Guilty said:

Yet people make respondeat superior arguments for intentional torts all the time and win. (Forseeability being a question of fact and all).

Or at least survive SJ, which is all you really need to do to coerce a settlement

Click to expand...

Coercing a settlement may be possible. Barring the existance of special circumstances not shared here, I can't see a plaintiff winning a suit like this.

The employee was pissed at being flipped off and attacked the "flipper." I can't really think of a way to realistically argue that the attack was motivated to further Target's business. If the plaintiff claims the attack was in the scope of employment in the Complaint, I can see the case surviving SJ, but once it gets to trial and the plaintiff has no argument, I would hope the judge would dismiss the case.