TLDR: You know those big, red, spherical bollards they have outside Target for… whatever reason? A driver drove up against one of those and dislodged it. Not unlike that scene in Indiana Jones, the two-ton ball o’ death rolled through the parking lot, terrorizing everyone in its path. Not really. But it did crash into the door of a woman’s car, to the tune of $3,500 in damage. She filed a claim with Target’s insurance, and was denied. Target’s insurance company told her to go after the driver of the vehicle that dislodged the ball, but security camera footage couldn’t identify the vehicle satisfactorily.
Personally, I think her own insurance company should aggressively go after Target’s insurance. That, or the woman should file a claim in court. From where I sit, she has a case.
The question is foreseeability. If you put something near the area where cars are driving, you should expect that sooner or later one will get hit. You need to design those things so they can withstand a hit or at least not roll into the lane of traffic somehow. Same idea of guardrails. If everyone stayed on the street, you wouldn’t need them. But everyone knows shit happens, so the roadways have to be designed with that in mind. (Or seat belts, or “crash-worthy” cars with non exploding gas tanks.)
On the other hand, Target will say this is a superseding intervening event (the negligence of the pickup driver) and they didn’t do anything wrong.
In my view (as a plaintiff lawyer) Target is responsible. Like most cases, arguments can be made on both sides.
Yes, Target should pay. Nobody made them put giant red balls in their parking lots. They’re being stupid about it too. Look at all the “free” negative publicity they’re getting when $3500 would have just made it go away.
I guarantee her insurance is already making phone calls to Target’s insurance. If you have insurance, that’s what they do. If she doesn’t have insurance though, she’s out of luck, unless she has money for some serious high powered lawyers.
Really dumb move on Target’s part. Even if they could make a good case why they shouldn’t pay, they should still just pay it. $3500 is a small price to pay to avoid bad PR. And heck, if they paid it with out question, there’s a good chance that 3500 could have been turned into GOOD PR for them.
As for “…whatever reason”. I noticed that in my area, the spheres appeared after I read about someone elsewhere having a falling problem at the change in grade (slope) of the sidewalk at the entrance which makes the transition down to the sides of the disability-accessible ramp. The transition area is typically a triangular area that slopes down in two directions and can be disconcerting if a person walking onto it doesn’t visually notice the change in slope. Many of the triangular areas were painted yellow to increase awareness of their presence. The spheres were added later and they physically prevent persons from walking on the sloped triangle or non-triangular slopes in sidewalks.
Did Target exercise due diligence when installing the balls? … I’m guessing some marketing suit came up with the idea, Target bought the balls and had some stockers chisel out a divot in the sidewalk and rolled the fool thing in place … instead of having an engineer design the placement and have licensed and bonded contractors come out and do the work …
Was this kind of incident foreseeable? … Yes, in every way … what kind of moron leaves a 2 ton concrete ball loose on their graded parking lot … my God, that could have been a 2-year-old child …
That was a really brave dog … stupid … but very brave …
Never mind the dog- the guy who ran out in front of it and caught it was even more stupid! I have to wonder if “two tons” is an exaggeration- he didn’t seem to have a problem stopping it.
Indeed, the whole purpose of bollards is to take hits.
I agree. Since the purpose of bollards is to be things that withstand the impact of a motor vehicle, it is incumbent upon the bollard owner to ensure that they withstand the impact of a motor vehicle. If the bollard is not anchored correctly, due to faulty installation or faulty design, the owner is, at least, at partial fault.
I’m sure there’s some reason Target won’t pay, like if it pays, it admits the balls are a hazard, and it will have to remove or anchor all or them at every Target in the country at a cost of several million. I’m sure telling the woman “No” didn’t happen on a whim-- someone consulted with lawyers, maybe at a pretty high level.
I’ve always thought (and could very well be wrong) that those aren’t really bollards but just store design pieces; part of the physical branding of the stores. I don’t really have anything helpful to add, other than every time I see those big red balls, I can’t help but imagine rolling them away for fun. I’m kind of tickled about this story, although I feel bad for the woman’s car damage.
Yeah, I wondered about that, too. A Target ball is about, what 2 and a half feet in diameter, so that’s about 8 or so cubic feet of cement, if I did my calculations correctly. Looking online, I’m getting something like 150 pounds per cubic foot, so we’re getting something like 1200 lbs or so, not even one ton.
It seems to me that while Target might share some liability, the driver of the other car is more at fault. The big red ball, absent an out-of-control driver, posed no threat, but the out-of-control driver, absent the big red ball, does still pose a threat, and nearly as large of one as with the ball. In fact, they might even be able to argue that the threat of out-of-control drivers is actually lessened by the presence of the balls: There is a range of speeds which are sufficient to cause injury but which are not sufficient to dislodge the balls, and within that range of speeds, the ball would prevent injury to anyone behind it.