Jackson v. Target Corporation

Background

Bryon U. Jackson sued Target Corporation after an incident at a Starbucks located inside a Target store. Jackson alleged that a Target employee, Kimara Smith, deliberately hit him with a shopping cart on July 7, 2021, injuring his right kidney. He reported the incident and said he continued to experience pain. Target’s surveillance video showed the cart moving into the camera’s view and apparently hitting Jackson, although the court described the relevant events as distant but discernible.

Jackson testified that the cart appeared to accelerate before contact and that Smith later told him to “get out of here” while using a racial slur. Target moved for summary judgment, which is a decision entered when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact important to the claims and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Target argued that Jackson could not prove the required intent for assault or battery, that Target was not legally responsible for Smith’s intentional conduct, and that punitive damages were unavailable.

Assault and Battery

The court concluded that the evidence could support a factual dispute about whether Smith acted intentionally. Jackson’s testimony about the cart accelerating and Smith’s alleged statement after the contact could support an inference that Smith intended the contact. The court also said the video was not necessarily decisive because it did not rule out the possibility that Smith recognized the impending collision and intentionally struck Jackson.

The court nevertheless granted Target summary judgment on the assault and battery claims. Under California’s employer-responsibility law, an employer can be responsible for an employee’s intentional tort when the conduct is connected to the employee’s work. But an employer is not responsible when the intentional act results from personal malice unrelated to the employment. The court held that the alleged racial comment indicated that Smith’s intent arose from personal malice or racism rather than from her work duties. Target therefore was not legally responsible for Smith’s alleged conduct.

Punitive Damages

The court also granted Target summary judgment on punitive damages. It noted that Jackson’s punitive-damages claim had previously been dismissed with permission to amend, but Jackson did not amend it. Independently, the court found no facts suggesting that Target had advance knowledge that Smith was unfit or that a corporate officer authorized, ratified, or participated in the alleged conduct.

Negligence

Although Jackson had pleaded assault and battery rather than negligence, the court found that his allegations plausibly described a negligence claim. Negligence generally requires a duty to use reasonable care, a breach of that duty, causation, and damage. The court said the case involved a collision between Jackson and a shopping cart pushed by a Target employee, and Jackson had referred to negligence in his opposition to summary judgment.

Because Jackson was representing himself, the court construed his complaint liberally. The court said that, if Jackson wanted to proceed on negligence, he could file a one-page notice by July 13. The court would treat that notice as a supplement to the existing complaint and would not require another amendment. The order directed the court to consider the next steps, including possible appointment of counsel, at the July 20 case-management conference.

Disposition

The court granted Target summary judgment on the assault and battery claims and granted Target summary judgment on the punitive-damages claim. It identified a plausible negligence claim but did not enter judgment on that claim; instead, it required Jackson to notify the court whether he wished to proceed with it. The order resolved Target’s summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 64.