On June 21, 2007 an elderly woman walked into a Target department store in Rosemont, Ill. – completely unaware she was going to suffer brain injuries.

As Claire Putnam walked through the main entrance to the store, the automatic swinging door hit her - knocking her on the ground. When she fell, her head hit the ground – hard.

While Putnam was still on the ground the door swung back and struck her with another blow to her head.

NBC Chicago aired the video from Target surveillance cameras on the news. It showed Putnam’s attempt to walk through the doors and she just about made it through when the doors hit her.

She then fell to the ground, hitting her head. Before she could get up again, the doors closed on her hitting her head a second time.

She was hospitalized after the incident occurred and according to her attorney, Phillip Harnett Corboy Jr., Putnam suffered from brain injuries called “diffuse brain injuries,” which occur over a wide area of the brain. She can still speak but has trouble processing her words and thoughts.

Before the incident she cared for her adult daughter with special needs. Her attorney stated, “As a result of what happened two years ago, Claire has been robbed of that ability to take care of her eldest daughter as well as enjoying the remaining years of her life as she planned.”

He argued in the injury lawsuit filed against Target that the department store failed to follow the safety guidelines provided by the door manufacturer – Besam USA – and due to their lack of safety, the incident caused personal injury to his client.

Besam USA was also a defendant in the lawsuit, as the doors allegedly did not provide a way to turn off automatic functions in case of emergency. They claim the doors were poorly designed because they do not have any built in mechanisms to alert employees of the door malfunctioning.

Putnam was awarded $7 million in the lawsuit, and will use the money to help take care of her daughter. She will also use the compensation she received to move out of the nursing home and move back with her family.

Target at this point has not released any statements about the case, NBC Chicago reported.

Behind bars in Gilroy, Calif., Vincent Cardinalli filed a lawsuit against his case witnesses for personal injuries and won a $4.5 million lawsuit – per an article in the Gilroy Post-Dispatch.

Cardinalli is accused of more than 100 felonies related to his family-owned tow truck business and currently awaiting trial.

He sued the two witnesses – Maria Shiraki and her and her mother-in -law Clara Shiraki – for emotional distress, defamation of character, personal injury and breach of contract. Maria was served with the papers for the lawsuit but did not take it seriously as she thought it had no merit.

But when the Shirakis did not appear at the court hearing, they later learned Cardinalli won $4.5 million for a default judgment in their absence. Maria Shiraki has appealed the decision in hopes to reverse the court ruling.

The Shirakis previously met Cardinalli in a small claims court room where they attempted to retrieve money back from a customer who bounced a check at their local business.

Cardinalli offered his services to help track customers who bounced checks. He assured them he could get most of their money back for a small fee.

Cardinalli was familiar with small claims court because he owned his own tow company with his family and was constantly appearing in court because of people who owed the family money.

But the family allegedly ran a scam - taking people to court to retrieve fees and liens that they did not necessarily owe. These alleged scams put Caridnalli behind bars and spurred the 157 felony counts against him, the Gilroy Post-Dispatch reported.

The Shirakis learned of the disturbing information about Cardinalli and his business dealings and then decided to end the arrangement.

Maria Shiraki’s attorney, Stephen Heller, states the “lawsuit seems to have no legal basis” and he has “no idea where the $4.5 million claimed by Mr. Cardinalli comes from.” They feel it is one last attempt to take advantage of them once again.

Cardinalli decided to represent himself in the charges brought against him.

The Shirakis continue to state they will not be intimidated by this lawsuit and are hopeful the ruling will be overturned.

From beer not following through on the ladies it promised to produce to suing Nike for making Michael Jordan too famous - the lawsuit has been filed.

Great Britain’s news source The Independent selected some “out there” lawsuits to report on. Below are five that made the list.

• Michael Jordan lookalike Allen Heckerd filed a lawsuit against Nike Corp. alleging that he suffered permanent personal injury, pain and suffering because he was so recognized by others as being Michael Jordan. The lawsuit did not hold up.
• When he found out his wife was cheating, Richard Batista wanted her to return to him the kidney he had donated almost a decade before to save her life. The lawsuit requested either the kidney or $1.5M.
• After Anheuser-Busch ran some advertisements showing women appearing in front of men who drank Budweiser, a Michigan man bought the beer, drank it and waited for his women - who never showed. He sued the company for false advertising, requesting more than $10,000. The court dismissed the case.
• A speeding driver who killed a 17-year-old cyclist tried to take the boy’s family to court for damages done to his Audi in the accident. The driver wasn’t prosecuted because the biker had been riding at night without reflectors - and the driver eventually dropped his case against the boy’s family.
• 77-year-old German playboy Rolf Eden sued 19-year-old Katharina Weiss for ageism after she refused to sleep with him. The lawsuit claimed the teenager told Eden he was too old for her.

For more frivolous lawsuits, see The Independent.

Hollywood’s Coyote Ugly is the movie that made bar dancing with beautiful young ladies famous – and a restaurant chain in Nashville, Tenn. by the same name also gained fame when the film was released back in 2000. The restaurant continues to glamorize the scene by asking young ladies if they would like to dance on the bar.

But according to an article in The Tennessean, dancing on the bar recently went a little too far when Brittany Barnes – a young college student – fell off and hit her head. She suffered brain injuries from the incident.

The night the incident occurred, Barnes was visiting her friends in Nashville. They had dinner and decided to hit the downtown bars. When they went into the Coyote Ugly, the bar staff invited them to dance on the bar, which is when she slipped and fell.

She is suing the Tennessee company for $500,000 – claiming the bar was negligent. She claimed due to the wet conditions on the bar- she fell back onto the floor and hit her head. She was taken to the hospital by ambulance and treated for her injuries. Due to the head injuries, Barnes claims she lost her sense of smell.

In the lawsuit, Barnes also states that the bar employees could have done more to prevent the accident since the bar was wet. It should have been dry if they were inviting people to dance on it.

According to the Tennessean, Barnes’ personal injury attorney Rob Shelton stated the establishment has a “duty under Tennessee law to provide a safe place for their patrons.” He continued to state that Barnes may have had a few drinks but she was not intoxicated.

Coyote Ugly claims the employees were not negligent in this case and that Barnes should have exorcised caution when climbing up on the bar to dance. The company had no further comments.

Signs are now posted at the bar that state: “Attention Ladies, dance on the bar at your own risk.” There are also signs posted at the entry way to provide fair warning to any patrons who decide to climb on the bar and dance.

Hopefully the signage will help make Coyote Ugly a safer environment, and this one incident won’t cause the bar to break its bar-dancing tradition forever.

According to a Detroit Free Press article, a member of the Highland Park School Board filed a lawsuit last Thursday because the board allegedly violated Michigan’s Open Meeting Act by using a telephone vote at a recent board meeting, and misrepresented some of the members’ votes.

The current board president has requested that the board fund her $150 cell phone bill - and via a phone vote, the board allegedly agreed to do so - and they even decided to post-date it so she received a $5,700.00 check to reimburse her for all her cell phone bills throughout her term to date.

The board member who has filed the lawsuit is a former board president whose cell phone bill was also paid by the board - however he claims he had to provide a receipt or bill for the amount he was paid every month. He alleges that the current president does not have the same requirement, and therefore should not receive the stipend for the post-dated months.