No, and that's not what I think. If Wal-Mart were actively doing something that resulted in someone's injury, that'd be one thing. Mopping the floor while open for business, not putting a "wet floor" sign there and then having someone slip and fall, for example. They can't control the neanderthal behavior of a large mob in front of their store. They did have security folks there and my guess is it wasn't some random number of security guards, but rather based on some expert's estimate of manpower needed per number of shoppers expected at that time.

I am positive that there is nothing in the world Wal-Mart could have done that would not result in a lawsuit for an incident like this. If police had been there and it still happened - sue Wal-Mart. If they hired double the number of security guards as recommended by some security firm and this still happened - sue Wal-Mart.

How do they select an individual to press charges against in this situation?

A lot of you sound like it was a stampede of cattle, but it was a pressing crowd. If you stepped on the guy it was because there were 300 people pushing on you. You might as well go down to the beach and try to stop the ocean.

Reminds me of when I got hit by a car on a bike ride - my fault. Some moron says "oh if it was me I would have laid that bike down to stop" as if he had any concept of what occurred in the situation. Some (blissful) people just don't understand reality.

Good comment about Who concerts...

btw I believe the "kid" was 34 years old, 270 lbs and was trying to protect a pregnant woman.

Sorry Rick, but I've got to side with the lawyers (*shudder*) on this one...

Wal-Mart clearly sought to whip up a crowd of shoppers into a frenzy in order to milk it for (1) marketing (undoubtedly) and (2) to maximize profits. If a crowd is in a feeding frenzy, they're less likely to show restraint in their purchases, right? So go whip 'em up. That's the mentality at work here. Very deliberate, undoubtedly very calculated and very intentional. But if you're going to do that, you better be damn sure things don't get out of hand. You can't have a direct and deliberate hand in creating a mob mentality, then wash your hands of the actions of the mob when it goes sideways.

Yes, the primary culprits are the asshats that tromped on this guy in order to get their cheaper made-in-China crap (and frankly I hope every last one of them is IDd and ends up getting hard time in the slammer for it) but Wal-Mart is absolutely, positively culpable to some extent too. I'd say negligence - probably gross negligence (a much higher standard, with higher consequences in court) applies here at a MINIMUM. If I were the D.A. I'd seriously be looking at hauling the store manager and district manager (possibly others) in on manslaughter charges - never mind the civil stuff. The other customers for SURE, the Wal-Mart management team very likely.

The size of the stick you whack the guilty with has to be proportional. It has to sting enough to make sure they get the message. You wouldn't whack an elephant with the same size twig you would a small dog in order to discipline them, would you? Because of this, I think a large-ish (although not absurd) payout is in order.

Ford Pinto.

Face it people. If this was your brother killed you would be wanting his widow to be suing for every nickel they could get.

People like to say they wouldn't sue, but wait until it happens to them. Everyone is looking to cash in.

+1

Walmart did not kill the kid, the crowd of effing animals did. Stories like these make me very happy to live in a rural area where people have not yet become so sue happy. This country is going down the sewer fast as evidenced by how many here think that sueing the big company is normal and the righteous thing to do.

It happens every year. Wal-mart knows this and they know it will happen again. There are things that WalMart could do to prevent it. They do nothing meaningful. Therefore, they are responsible.

Some idiot attorney was just on Fox News and said this would not have happened if the store had been unionized, what a crock of SHLT!

Somebody slug that dope.

Hahahaah, unions..yeeeah.

Just saw a news story focusing on Wal Mart's heinous business practices.

They are accused of launching a marketing campaign aimed at attracting the most shoppers possible!

The family does have a case, but I think maybe they should pursue a different angle.

+1 absolutely

+2

Bottom line is, if the plaintiffs prevail against Wal-Mart, then everybody who shops there is going to pay a little share for this case. Justice would be better served if the store's upper management and the actual perps were prosecuted for manslaughter or what ever similar crimes are in the state where this occurred.

Let me give you a lawyer's view of Walmart...from first hand experience.

It would have to be a completely egregious extremely high dollar case for me to sue them...and then I'd better be ready for a protracted and very expensive case to fund. Walmart has taken a pervasive, company wide position that they will settle NO lawsuit...no matter how culpable, negligent, responsible they may be. Their policy is to litigate everything no matter what the cost. This is true whether it is one of their customers or their employees. Last time I had any dealings with them on a work comp case (they were self insured at that time) they used every trick to starve out WC claimants...constatntly challenging doctors (even their own), delaying payments, controverting every issue, etc. Didn't matter if their in house lawyers or hired guns ran the bill up 10 or 20 times what they could pay to resolve a case. Remember recent press on the lady was injured by a third party and she recieved received a settlement for her injuries and they sued her for back medical benefits they had paid because of the settlement? She was a friggin' vegetable requiring 24 hour NH care. AND they cancelled her health insurance. Ruthless I tell ya. But after a tremendous amount of bad press, they backed down but.....

Accordingly trial lawyers are hesitant to take on any but the most clear cut cases and then only when there are huge potential damages. Clear case of simple negligence and a slip and fall where a person wants a few thousand just to cover their medical bills? No way...Walmart will spend $20K to defend a $3000 claim.

I made the mistake of suing Wallyworld when I was a baby lawyer. A rack in one of their super stores collapsed and a bunch of tires fell on my guy. He had a broken arm and nose. Recovered completely...only missed about 3 weeks at work ($1800) and had about $9K in medicals. No emotional injuries claimed. He just wanted to be made whole. Willing to settle for his out of pocket expenses. After three years of depositions, and exams by their doctors, and private investigators following him, he finally just gave up and said "fuch it." The other lawyer actually apologized to me for putting him through it...off the record and after the voluntary dismissal.

So I guess they've accomplish their goals. I did a little research and found some company documents complaining they are sued something like 800 times per year...about 15-16 lawsuits a week. But that includes contract disputes with vendors as well as customer injuries. Sounds outrageous until you consider they have around 5,000 stores and nearly 20,000,000 customers pass through their doors EACH WEEK. Do the math. Figure the odds.

Don't cry for Walmart...they are ruthless when it comes to litigation.

+1 to what Dueller said.

And while I'm on a rant, let me tell you how they will defend the wrongful death suit. They guy was an employee. Under most state's laws, workers compensation is the exclusive remedy for a worker acting in the course and scope of his employment. The idea behind WC is the worker trades off having the onerous burden of proving liability of the employer in exchange for limiting the employer's exposure for damages. All the worker (or his survivors) has to prove is the injury (or death in this case) occurred while he was at work.

In my state, the employer's liability in a death case is a max of c. $100K. That's it.

But I bet a dollar to a donut, Walmart's defense will be that dead worker strayed from his duties as an employee and was on a personal mission outside the course and scope of his employment...they'll say he was taunting the crowd when he should have been in ladies apparel straightening the display rack of plus sized panties. SOOOOOOOOO....since he was outside the scope of his employment, EVEN WC DOES NOT APPLY. And of course, it was not reasonably foreseeable that a crowd would stampede him. So that's an intervening, superceding event so remote that it was completely unforseeable that caused his death. SO WALLY SHOULD PAY NOTHING.

That's it in a nutshell. Case closed.

Pretty sure WM is gonna end up paying something in this case. While I can certainly understand the fight-them-all mentality of a lawsuit magnet as big and rich as WM, of course, some of those cases are egregious and I feel sorry for folks not made whole. But if WM rolled over easily (like a lot of car insurance companies do) they'd just be inviting more lawsuits.

I seldom post, but Dueller is absolutely correct. I'm a lawyer. The kind you don't want to need. Criminal defense. Divorce. Injury. Nobody likes lawyers like me until they need me. Wally World set the table on this one, and they should have to eat what they served up. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict that if you light a match next to the keg of dynamite that you might just get an explosion. That's what Wally does every Black Friday with its super special discounts for limited hours. I hope the poor guy's family gets some justice.