The crowd broke down the door and killed this guy.

He wasn't in position to deal with the crowd yet, he was still doing his pre-opening work.

How is it Wal Mart's fault that an angry mob broke down the door and trampled this guy?

By advertizing low prices Chris.

Jeez, I can't belive you didn't know that.

yup

the decedent's family will always associate Christmas with their loss
why, was the victim white and the crowd who trampled him not?
no, you are mistaken, only some. Look at the case that Dueller cited, Poor Mug Who had a bunch of steel belted radials fall on his head v Walmart. I know of many other instances where people did not try to cash in; why I was a defense expert in a case recently and straight up told counsel to pay the lady, for her medical and lost wages, which they did. She was not trying to cash in either.

Monkeys will fly out of my ass before Walmart settles a lawsuit, even this one. They fight all litigation relentlessly and have endless resources, I thought that was common knowledge.

This was tragic, and Walmart certainly bears some culpability, but I will be very surprised if they pay anything at all, aside from legal bills.

My understanding is that he was a temp working there thru an agency. WC would then be on the agency not WalMart.

I may just be me, but I have a hard time seeing how people can justify sending the management to jail for this. If the doors were really closed, then the mob broke in.

Whats really the difference in this and an employee working after hours at a jewlery store that gets killed when someone drives thru the door because they advertise all the really expensive stuff they have. Minus the stealing part.

And what does advertising low prices have anything to do with it. Isn't getting people to the store the whole point of marketing/advertising.

It's a simple matter of whoever has the deepest pockets is always the one to blame and get sued.

If that makes you sleep better at night, feel free to keep believing that. :)

If it comes to this, expect cries for pics or ban. :p

WM will blame the victim and the crowd.

Hire dumbasses and sell to dumbasses. It makes for a have a pretty good excuss.

Show me the last time a poor person was blamed and/or got sued for something that involved a rich person or corporation.

I also find it strange that there aren't many instances of rich people suing poor people.

Man, Rick...you have a skewed perspective. So acquiring wealth makes you somehow better than the little guy? More principled? Less greedy?

Let's face it...in many instances people have been injured by someone and have a valid case but suing the tortfeasor would be fruitless because they are judgment proof or insolvent. To put it in terms you will understand, its a friggin' business decision to not sue someone. And if you don't think the rich corporations don't sue insolvent folks, your sadly mistaken...happens all the time. Particularly in financial institutions they'll pursue people knowing they will not likely collect but want a judgment "just in case" that person does come into something down the road. Or as an accounting method for documenting losses. The little guy can't afford to do that.

Case in point: I had an 18 y.o. client who was working parttime as a hotel maid putting herself thru college. A crazy coworker accused her of not sharing a $3 tip and attacked her with a steak knife left on a room service tray, stabbing her in her left eye. She is now totally blind in that eye.

Since my client was acting in the course and scope of her employment work comp covered her medical bills (about $4000) and paid her 2/3's of her salary while she was recovering for a few weeks. She was only making $150/week so her comp payments were $100 X 5 or 6 weeks.

Since the loss of an eye is a "schedule member" under our WC statutes her recovery was a max of 125 weeks of comp...or about $12,500. Under another section of WC law I was able to argue she should be paid the max benefit for disfigurement....a whopping $2,000. So this money grubbing young woman received a grand total of $14,500 for a horrific injury.

Now, she also has a right to sue her co-woorker/assailant (as does the WC carrier/employer for their outlay). And she did press felony assault w/intent charges. And she was convicted and under our 3 strikes rule she's doing 20 years in the state pen.

But sue the assailant? Gimme a break. she had a 100% chance of getting a judgment. And a 0% chance of ever collecting.

As an aside, I was approved to receive a $3700 fee from the proceeeds of the WC settlement. Which I waived. Figured the young woman needed it more than me. But at christmas later that year, young woman sent me a card with a very touching thank you note and a $50 gift card to.....Walmart (ironic, huh?). Still have the card in my desk. Bought a few cases of oil with the gift card since its about the only thing not made in China at wallyworld.

Am I some altruistic barrister saint? Nah. Lawyers like me who compromise, reduce or waive their fees for needy clients are a dime a dozen. Probably second only to doctors/dentists in pro bono work. But I've never had a salesman or IT guy or any other vendor offer to waive their fee or commissions just because my business was struggling.

So bash lawyers all you want. Sing praise to the titans of the almighty corporations. Worship at the altar of low prices every day. And when you get thrown in the slammer for toting that little phallic symbol in the brief case on the front seat of your car while driving thru in a non-CCW state, don't call a lawyer. Call your Priest. Because you will be some con's beyotch and saying "Oh my God...what have I gottten myself into?"






BTW....Merry Christmas.;)

Head shot!!!

BTW...here's a synopsis of the case I referred to about walmart suing employee
 

Truck Accident Victim Receives Settlement, Loses It to Walmart


November 21, 2007
Let the following be a lesson to those who, like many of us, have employee health insurance through their employers. If you seek compensation in a personal injury case, as is your right, you may have to reimburse the insurance company if they covered any of your medical bills after the personal injury, under a common process called "subrogation."

The point of subrogation is to avoid having medical bills paid for twice, once by the insurance company, and then by a defendant who is ordered to pay for medical bills as part of a verdict or settlement of a personal injury case. However, in practice, it can seem like another way for a personal injury victim to be victimized, this time by their insurance company.

As the Wall Street Journal reports, 52-year-old Deborah Shank was involved in a semi tractor trailer accident seven years ago, which left her with permanent brain damage and confined to a wheelchair. As part of a settlement with the trucking company, she and her husband received $700,000 to pay for her medical care.

At the time of the accident, Shank was an employee of Walmart, and received their healthcare coverage for medical expenses following the accident. Whether she knew it or not, a subrogation clause was part of her Walmart health insurance, and after paying out $470,000 for medical coverage, the insurance company aimed to get back the money.

After legal fees and other expenses, the Shanks were left with $417,000, which they set up in a medical expenses fund. However, Walmart sued them for the money, and though they appealed an initial verdict in Walmart's favor, the Shanks eventually lost the case as well as the money.

What makes it particularly difficult for them is that the money left over from the settlement would not have been enough to pay her medical costs in the first place. Thus, rather than fairly paying back money for medical expenses that Walmart covered, in their case it was closer to being taken for all they had by Walmart's insurance plan.

Walmart, of course, was perfectly within its legal right, and pursued subrogation to restore funds back to its insurance coverage for the entire employee pool. However, in this case, the fine print made the Shanks feel more betrayed than compensated when they won their personal injury case.

The more I think about this, the more I think this is an accurate statement.

There is no way that a union employee would:

1) Have been visibly working.
2) Been anywhere near customers.
3) Attempted to help a customer or do anything beyond a narrowly defined job description.

It's funny what you describe when compared against their policy of virtually zero cooperation with police in prosecution of shoplifters -- and even robberies -- at their stores.

They let their merchandise "fly out the store" and never take any action, even with overwhelming evidence (video, eyewitness) for prosecution of the crimes -- and the cases I'm aware of involve thousands of dollars of merchandise.

The lawsuit has targeted the wrong party. The obvious liability lies with the electronic door manufacturers, as they could not hold back that sea of bargain-hunting humanity! If the shoppers had pushed thru the walls of the building would it still be the company's fault?

I have never understood how people can be trampled to death in a non-life threatening situation, such as a concert or sports event (or red tag sale). I have been in queues, but I can not for the life of me imagine actually laying my shoulder into the person in front of me. WTF is wrong with people??

I'm not bashing any lawyers other than ambulance chasers and my belief that Wal-Mart is not the guilty party here should not be construed as praise for them.

BTW, if you win a lot of money that an insurer has already paid out on your behalf, I think they should be reimbursed. When I had jury duty, I was paid by my company for that day and then required to hand over my jury pay to my company. Why shouldn't I have?

In Australia the family would be awarded the 'standard' rate for what a life is worth (about $400k) plus a little for pain and suffering, funeral costs, and future income to the age of 65 (retirement).

Actual damages only, not punative / exemplary damages.