Quote:The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the family of Mary Ann Verdugo, 49, who suffered a fatal heart attack in 2008 while shopping at a Target store in Pico Rivera. Paramedics were summoned, but by the time they reached Verdugo, she could not be revived.


Verdugo’s family argued that Target should have had a defibrillator, an electronic device that gives an electrical shock to the heart.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html

No word on if the Verdugo family's next move is to go after Krispy Kreme.

(06-23-2014 01:31 PM)Smaug Wrote:  

Quote:The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by the family of Mary Ann Verdugo, 49, who suffered a fatal heart attack in 2008 while shopping at a Target store in Pico Rivera. Paramedics were summoned, but by the time they reached Verdugo, she could not be revived.


Verdugo’s family argued that Target should have had a defibrillator, an electronic device that gives an electrical shock to the heart.

http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me...story.html

No word on if the Verdugo family's next move is to go after Krispy Kreme.

It's kinda sad it even made it to the Supreme Court.

I think they got it wrong. The Court has the common law duty to push for improvements. There are cities and states which require large stores and such to keep AEDs on hand because they are so big and there are so many people that an AED has a decently high chance of saving a person's life.

I don't think that every store and gas stations from coast to coast ought to have an AED; I'm not saying that. I do believe that when your store is sufficiently large that your duty to protect the people within in increases along with it. And, there is precedent for that.

Nobody "suddenly" dies of a heart attack.

Her trouble was brewing long before she walked into Target.

Target is not the reason this woman died.

(06-23-2014 02:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Nobody "suddenly" dies of a heart attack.

Her trouble was brewing long before she walked into Target.

Target is not the reason this woman died.

What I am saying is that there should be a level of care related to size at which point strict liability would be implemented. I agree that I do not think Target was negligent.

(06-23-2014 02:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Nobody "suddenly" dies of a heart attack.

Her trouble was brewing long before she walked into Target.

Target is not the reason this woman died.

How dare you say that. She was in perfect health before she stepped into that store.

(06-23-2014 02:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Nobody "suddenly" dies of a heart attack.

Her trouble was brewing long before she walked into Target.

Target is not the reason this woman died.

What I am saying is that there should be a level of care related to size at which point strict liability would be implemented. I agree that I do not think Target was negligent.

If their argument was that Target should have had a defibrillator, then to agree with that would make Target liable for the lady's death. If there isn't a law in that area that Target had to have one, I don't know how you rule otherwise. If there is such a law, then Target should be liable.

If it is felt that stores like Target need to have defibrillators on hand, then they need to pass the law for that. Which most on this board would probably disagree with as being excessive regulation brought on by liberals. Not only would they need the defibrillator but they'd need to train people on every shift on how to use it. And, they'd probably need to check it regularly to make sure it still works, to avoid lawsuits later if it doesn't work.

(06-23-2014 03:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Nobody "suddenly" dies of a heart attack.

Her trouble was brewing long before she walked into Target.

Target is not the reason this woman died.

What I am saying is that there should be a level of care related to size at which point strict liability would be implemented. I agree that I do not think Target was negligent.

If their argument was that Target should have had a defibrillator, then to agree with that would make Target liable for the lady's death. If there isn't a law in that area that Target had to have one, I don't know how you rule otherwise. If there is such a law, then Target should be liable.

If it is felt that stores like Target need to have defibrillators on hand, then they need to pass the law for that. Which most on this board would probably disagree with as being excessive regulation brought on by liberals. Not only would they need the defibrillator but they'd need to train people on every shift on how to use it. And, they'd probably need to check it regularly to make sure it still works, to avoid lawsuits later if it doesn't work.

If it's a big store, they probably need at least 1, but probably 4 to cover all corners. Again you need to ensure several employees are trained and it's not readily accessible. I've worked in a store like that, you got more "kids" playing with **** than working.

She was just overwhelmed with Target's great selection, clean stores, and low prices. They're definitely at fault.

(06-23-2014 03:16 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:49 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:47 PM)Smaug Wrote:  Nobody "suddenly" dies of a heart attack.

Her trouble was brewing long before she walked into Target.

Target is not the reason this woman died.

What I am saying is that there should be a level of care related to size at which point strict liability would be implemented. I agree that I do not think Target was negligent.

If their argument was that Target should have had a defibrillator, then to agree with that would make Target liable for the lady's death. If there isn't a law in that area that Target had to have one, I don't know how you rule otherwise. If there is such a law, then Target should be liable.

If it is felt that stores like Target need to have defibrillators on hand, then they need to pass the law for that. Which most on this board would probably disagree with as being excessive regulation brought on by liberals. Not only would they need the defibrillator but they'd need to train people on every shift on how to use it. And, they'd probably need to check it regularly to make sure it still works, to avoid lawsuits later if it doesn't work.

I am saying I think that there needs to be strict liability for companies who make their money on serving massive numbers of people by inviting them into their store like this. I'm talking the huge stores, Wal-Mart, Target, Costco, etc. An AED can cost as little as $1,000 and that isn't an unreasonable burden to place on stores of that size who encourage massive numbers of people to come in and buy all manner of ****. When you bring in millions of low income people in order to make money off of them it is not unreasonable to think that somebody may suffer a heart attack, a somewhat common thing, in your store at some point. Your duty to protect your customer ought to go up with the number of customer you bring in.

What I am saying should happen is that the Courts need to implement a sort of Escola and T.J. Hooper type theory that would impose strict liability on these stores based on their massive impact on people in general. Regardless of who you are I don't think anybody would argue that an AED on hand may have helped this woman in some way, but that's a separate issue. We would all agree that an AED would help certain people under certain circumstances.

Stores don't kill people, heart attacks do.

(06-23-2014 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Stores don't kill people, heart attacks do.

That isn't the point of what I am saying. It's irrelevant to it.

(06-23-2014 03:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Stores don't kill people, heart attacks do.

That isn't the point of what I am saying. It's irrelevant to it.

Just throwing that out there, as we're talking about saving a few lives probably at additional expense for every store. Sounds like the gun argument.

I understand what you're saying though. Where would the limit be, based on square footage of the store?

(06-23-2014 03:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 03:38 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 03:37 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Stores don't kill people, heart attacks do.

That isn't the point of what I am saying. It's irrelevant to it.

Just throwing that out there, as we're talking about saving a few lives probably at additional expense for every store. Sounds like the gun argument.

I understand what you're saying though. Where would the limit be, based on square footage of the store?

You don't need a hard and fast limit per se. This type of liability would only be applied in instances where a store's business model was based on serving truly massive numbers of people and did so by pulling in the right type of people, stores or entities analogous to Wal-Mart.

The real point is that Wal-Mart, Target, and others, make billions of dollars by bringing in poor people, who are often obese, and selling them the cookies and butter they make themselves fat with. This $1,000 per store to have an AED is reasonable in that light, especially when you consider that a single Wal-Mart etc can serve several million people in a year. It isn't tough to foresee a hear attack. It's that foreseeability that I think should impart a greater duty to protect your customer.

That's all I'm saying.

For the record, I feel the same way about requiring these stores to have security cameras outside to help protect folks. Whenever you bring that many people together, to sell them ****, all sorts of **** can happen.

Some people encountered death suddenly. She may have died even with the AED. It's uncomfortable to discuss, but there's often nothing that can be done to stop a death.

Life expectancy can be extended with good decisions, but every human on this earth will have one day where our heart stops beating. I'm unsure how Target is responsible for that reality.

(06-23-2014 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think they got it wrong. The Court has the common law duty to push for improvements. There are cities and states which require large stores and such to keep AEDs on hand because they are so big and there are so many people that an AED has a decently high chance of saving a person's life.

I don't think that every store and gas stations from coast to coast ought to have an AED; I'm not saying that. I do believe that when your store is sufficiently large that your duty to protect the people within in increases along with it. And, there is precedent for that.

If a company wants to provide a debibrillator for its customers then so be it, but to require such a device be provided is kind of goofy. I mean, Target is a retailer, not a hospital. If that type of equipment is mandated, why stop there? Why not Epipens for folks with allergies? How about flu shots for someone that comes in with the sniffles? Point being, no company, other than maybe hopsitals, dr's offices, etc should be required to provide such devices. To even think of making a store liable for NOT having such a device is dumb, IMO, and apparently the California Supreme Court agrees.

(06-23-2014 04:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think they got it wrong. The Court has the common law duty to push for improvements. There are cities and states which require large stores and such to keep AEDs on hand because they are so big and there are so many people that an AED has a decently high chance of saving a person's life.

I don't think that every store and gas stations from coast to coast ought to have an AED; I'm not saying that. I do believe that when your store is sufficiently large that your duty to protect the people within in increases along with it. And, there is precedent for that.

If a company wants to provide a debibrillator for its customers then so be it, but to require such a device be provided is kind of goofy. I mean, Target is a retailer, not a hospital. If that type of equipment is mandated, why stop there? Why not Epipens for folks with allergies? How about flu shots for someone that comes in with the sniffles? Point being, no company, other than maybe hopsitals, dr's offices, etc should be required to provide such devices. To even think of making a store liable for NOT having such a device is dumb, IMO, and apparently the California Supreme Court agrees.

None of that is quite analogous. The point is to make things that are more than merely foreseeable impart liability on the store. When you have millions of people come to your store a heart attack is more than merely foreseeable. The other things you mentioned aren't related to that line of thinking, with the possible exception of people who are allergic to certain things but liability in those instances has already been handled and this would not have any impact on it.

If you're a multi billion dollar company bringing in millions of people you need to protect them from things that are more than foreseeable, in fact things that arise to the level of statistically inevitable. This is a well established tort theory, Escola v Coca Cola

Like I said, I don't think Target was negligent here and that seems to be what most people think I'm saying; I'm not.

(06-23-2014 04:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think they got it wrong. The Court has the common law duty to push for improvements. There are cities and states which require large stores and such to keep AEDs on hand because they are so big and there are so many people that an AED has a decently high chance of saving a person's life.

I don't think that every store and gas stations from coast to coast ought to have an AED; I'm not saying that. I do believe that when your store is sufficiently large that your duty to protect the people within in increases along with it. And, there is precedent for that.

If a company wants to provide a debibrillator for its customers then so be it, but to require such a device be provided is kind of goofy. I mean, Target is a retailer, not a hospital. If that type of equipment is mandated, why stop there? Why not Epipens for folks with allergies? How about flu shots for someone that comes in with the sniffles? Point being, no company, other than maybe hopsitals, dr's offices, etc should be required to provide such devices. To even think of making a store liable for NOT having such a device is dumb, IMO, and apparently the California Supreme Court agrees.

None of that is quite analogous. The point is to make things that are more than merely foreseeable impart liability on the store. When you have millions of people come to your store a heart attack is more than merely foreseeable. The other things you mentioned aren't related to that line of thinking, with the possible exception of people who are allergic to certain things but liability in those instances has already been handled and this would not have any impact on it.

If you're a multi billion dollar company bringing in millions of people you need to protect them from things that are more than foreseeable, in fact things that arise to the level of statistically inevitable. This is a well established tort theory, Escola v Coca Cola

Not if those foreseeable things have nothing to do with said company. Millions of people do shop there, those people might have any number of conditions other than heart issues that are foreseeable at some point in their life. Should companies be prepared for all of them? How would a company even do that?

(06-23-2014 04:34 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:19 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 04:09 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(06-23-2014 02:43 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  I think they got it wrong. The Court has the common law duty to push for improvements. There are cities and states which require large stores and such to keep AEDs on hand because they are so big and there are so many people that an AED has a decently high chance of saving a person's life.

I don't think that every store and gas stations from coast to coast ought to have an AED; I'm not saying that. I do believe that when your store is sufficiently large that your duty to protect the people within in increases along with it. And, there is precedent for that.

If a company wants to provide a debibrillator for its customers then so be it, but to require such a device be provided is kind of goofy. I mean, Target is a retailer, not a hospital. If that type of equipment is mandated, why stop there? Why not Epipens for folks with allergies? How about flu shots for someone that comes in with the sniffles? Point being, no company, other than maybe hopsitals, dr's offices, etc should be required to provide such devices. To even think of making a store liable for NOT having such a device is dumb, IMO, and apparently the California Supreme Court agrees.

None of that is quite analogous. The point is to make things that are more than merely foreseeable impart liability on the store. When you have millions of people come to your store a heart attack is more than merely foreseeable. The other things you mentioned aren't related to that line of thinking, with the possible exception of people who are allergic to certain things but liability in those instances has already been handled and this would not have any impact on it.

If you're a multi billion dollar company bringing in millions of people you need to protect them from things that are more than foreseeable, in fact things that arise to the level of statistically inevitable. This is a well established tort theory, Escola v Coca Cola

Not if those foreseeable things have nothing to do with said company. Millions of people do shop there, those people might have any number of conditions other than heart issues that are foreseeable at some point in their life. Should companies be prepared for all of them? How would a company even do that?

If they can be prevente by something as cheap and easily used as an AED. I also said more than merely foreseeable. I'm talking about things that can be guarded against that are statistically inevitable. That is not unreasonable.