Target Corp. (TGT:NYSE)

Target Corp. has begun rolling out its 'p-fresh' grocery model in Texas. P-fresh, or prototype-fresh, adds grocery departments resembling that of a SuperTarget location to existing Target discount stores. The concept started in Minneapolis and more recently was rolled out in Philadelphia. A prototype p-fresh store in Dallas will serve as a model for 14 additional locations planned for North Texas.

Target Corp. reported that its net retail sales for the four weeks ended October 31, 2009 were $4,541 million, an increase of 2.8% from $4,415 million for the four weeks ended November 1, 2008. On this same basis, October comparable-store sales decreased 0.1%. Quarter-to-date, net sales were $14,789 million, an increase of 1.4%. On this same basis, October comparable-store sales decreased 1.6%. Year-to-date, net sales were $43,717 million, decreased 0.3%. On this same basis, October comparable-store sales decreased 3.9%.

Monica Pineda Files Lawsuit Against Target Corp. for the Slipping Hazard. A federal trial court held that a store customer who slipped and fell on a puddle of leaking liquid detergent might be entitled to recover damages from the storeowner because the owner had prior knowledge about the slipping hazard and failed to clean the spill or to otherwise warn customers. Monica Pineda was shopping in a store with her five-month-old daughter and a friend shortly after the store opened. While looking for detergent, the friend noticed a puddle of clear, white liquid and went to report the spill to a store employee. Pineda was shopping in the cosmetic aisle and did not know that the friend discovered or reported the spill to a store employee. Before the friend could warn Pineda about the puddle, Pineda slipped and fell to the ground. When Pineda fell, she was looking forward and not paying attention to the floor. Pineda sued the storeowner alleging that she suffered injuries as a result of the fall and that the storeowner knew about the liquid puddle but failed to protect her and other customers from harm. The premises owner filed a motion for summary judgment arguing that it was not liable to Pineda because it did not have sufficient time to send an employee to clean the spill between the time that the friend reported the spill and Pineda fell. A storeowner has the duty to its patrons to use reasonable care in order to keep the premises reasonably safe and to warn patrons about dangerous conditions about which the owner has actual knowledge or should discover after a reasonable inspection of the premises. In this case, the storeowner argued that Pineda failed to prove a store employee either knew about the spill or had sufficient time to discover and correct it prior to Pineda's accident. The district court did not agree with the premises owner's interpretation of the evidence. Instead, the court noted that at least two to three minutes passed between the time that the friend reported the spill and Pineda slipped and fell. The district court found that a jury could make a reasonable inference that the store employee had sufficient time after the notice to get to the spill before Pineda's fall but failed to do so. The court determined that the evidence created a question of fact for the jury whether, under all the circumstances, the defective puddle of liquid existed long enough so that it would have been discovered and remedied by an owner in the exercise of reasonable care and therefore denied the motion for summary judgment.