Attn: Wal Mart shoppers

widgeon13 · 12-04-2008, 03:22 AM

This didn't take long! The law firms must have been beating down their door. I suppose someone has to take the blame.

http://news.aol.com/article/trampled-mans-family-sues-wal-mart/266921

THURSDAY 12/04/08

GARDEN CITY, N.Y. (Dec. 3) - The family of a worker trampled to death in a "Black Friday" crush of bargain hunters at a Long Island Wal-Mart store filed a wrongful-death lawsuit on Wednesday, claiming store ads offering deep discounts "created an atmosphere of competition and anxiety" that led to "crowd craze."
The lawsuit claims that besides failing to provide adequate security for a pre-dawn crowd estimated at 2,000, Wal-Mart "engaged in specific marketing and advertising techniques to specifically attract a large crowd and create an environment of frenzy and mayhem and was otherwise careless, reckless and negligent."

Jim Richards · 12-04-2008, 04:02 AM

If this was my kid that was trampled, I'd go for the jugular in dealing with Wal-Mart.

legion · 12-04-2008, 04:37 AM

New Jersey is one of the most litigious states in the country. It is VERY expensive to do business there because of this.

Jim Richards · 12-04-2008, 04:40 AM

You guys can focus on the lawyer-hating if you want, but the fact is, someone's family member, employed by the store, wrongly died as a result of the operation of that store. If this was one of my family members, I would be out for blood.

onewhippedpuppy · 12-04-2008, 04:43 AM

I really can't argue with this one. Wal Mart threw blood in the water, and somebody got bit by a shark. Hard to argue that they are to blame. When I saw the news report, "that's a lawsuit" was my first thought.

Neilk · 12-04-2008, 04:45 AM

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but this one is 100% justified.

Porsche-O-Phile · Porsche-O-Phile's Garage

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neilk

I hate frivolous lawsuits, but this one is 100% justified.

+1

I'd agree almost 100% with the word-for-word description in the original post.

URY914 · 12-04-2008, 04:51 AM

Were any of the greeters injured?

legion · 12-04-2008, 05:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

I really can't argue with this one. Wal Mart threw blood in the water, and somebody got bit by a shark. Hard to argue that they are to blame. When I saw the news report, "that's a lawsuit" was my first thought.

See, and I blame the people that physically trampled this guy, not the store.

drew1 · 12-04-2008, 05:18 AM

Legion - I agree

Jim Richards · 12-04-2008, 05:29 AM

Me too, but negligence on the store's part set this up. BTW, the Wal-Mart we stopped in at on Black Friday (wifey had to make a return

) had many police officers in and outside the store to make sure the folks didn't act stupid. An ounce of prevention...

widgeon13 · 12-04-2008, 05:32 AM

It's just unfortunate that this even had to happen. Perhaps I'm an idiot but I fail to see how someone would not make an effort to help him or divert the crowd around him. I don't blame the lawyers and don't even think they will have to work at getting a settlement.

It is a senseless death. I wonder if any in the crowd who stepped on him will have sleepless nights about their behavior? Too bad they didn't lock down the entire store once they realized what had happened and at least tried to question those that came through the doors at that time.

Not going to be a merry Christmas for that family for many years to come.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

I see some justification here. But why do people think they deserve millions of dollars? The money is negligible to Wal-Mart, so the payout is not going to change the company's policies if they don't feel like changing them. And the money is not going to bring this kid back. Why does the kid's death mean the parents get a jackpot payout? I know that sounds harsh, but only because Americans are so used to expecting huge lawsuits for anything that happens to them. It's not like this kid was making millions on his own and was taking care of his folks. If there were some real justice in this world, the shoppers whose footprints or handprints ended up on the dead guy should be forced to spend Xmas day helping out his family and paying for his funeral. That might take their minds off herd-mentality shopping for a while. Oh, and ban them from Wal-Mart for life.

Jim Richards · 05:39 AM

Rick, what would you do if Sandy's employer somehow endangered her, and she was either severly injured or died? If this happened to one of my loved ones, there would be hell to pay. Since one can't just go and kill those responsible, or put them in jail forever, you need to make them suffer the only way you have at your disposal.

This isn't about expecting a "huge payday." It has to do with making the company suffer the consequences of their actions. If the company doesn't suffer enough, then the plaintiffs' lawyers aren't good enough.

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

But the company, especially Wal-Mart, will not suffer, no matter the amount sought in a lawsuit. Anyone who loses a loved one is devastated. But that loss is not made up by more zeros at the end of the number in the lawsuit. It doesn't bring anyone back. And in the case of the largest retailer in the U.S., even a nine-figure payout isn't gonna make a dent in their plans. So what good does it do? It only feeds the lawsuit mentality here and drives up prices for everyone else.

Honestly, I'd probably end up in jail if my wife got killed, as I'd not be able to restrain myself from shooting the first ambulance chaser who approached me.

SLO-BOB · 12-04-2008, 05:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Richards

This isn't about expecting a "huge payday." It has to do with making the company suffer the consequences of their actions. If the company doesn't suffer enough, then the plaintiffs' lawyers aren't good enough.

It's also about setting a precedent so that hopefully, Wal-Mart and others like them, make changes to prevent this from happening every year - which it does.

I agree that the individuals are the truly responsible parties. Unfortunately, in today's society, business and govt need to work together to handle the demographic. When there is an understanding that a mentality exists (mob mentality in this case) responsible parties (Wal-Mart) must enact protocols to ensure the safety of the employess and even the dumbasses willing to kill over a cheap flat screen. Yeah, it goes against my grain too, but its those laws and rules that seperate us from less civilized countries, not, sadly, our elevated sense of propriety and love for our fellow man.

onewhippedpuppy · 12-04-2008, 05:48 AM

Obviously the blame ultimately lies with them for being greedy morons, but Wal-Mart created the situation. You have to admit, this isn't the first time this has happened.

onewhippedpuppy · 12-04-2008, 05:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rick Lee

But the company, especially Wal-Mart, will not suffer, no matter the amount sought in a lawsuit. Anyone who loses a loved one is devastated. But that loss is not made up by more zeros at the end of the number in the lawsuit. It doesn't bring anyone back. And in the case of the largest retailer in the U.S., even a nine-figure payout isn't gonna make a dent in their plans. So what good does it do? It only feeds the lawsuit mentality here and drives up prices for everyone else.

Honestly, I'd probably end up in jail if my wife got killed, as I'd not be able to restrain myself from shooting the first ambulance chaser who approached me.

Guaranteed that Wal-Mart has security on site for every Black Friday "doorbuster" sale next year.

widgeon13 · 12-04-2008, 05:50 AM

And it won't be the last!

Rick Lee · Rick Lee's Garage

They had security onsite for this past black Friday too. What are a few rent-a-cops gonna do against 500-600 animals? If it were up to me, I'd issue them cattle prods. I live in an alternate universe, where I don't know anyone who would even think of camping out on Thanksgiving night or go shopping the next day. I really watch those news reports like I watch Looney Tunes, entertaining, but nothing I'm ever gonna see in real life.