SC: Husband of woman taken from Wal-Mart sues retailing giant

The Aiken Standard (subscription required) ^ | Dec 9. 2005 | Associated Press

[neal1960]

"Wal-Mart spokesman Martin Heires says the company secures its parking lots, but didn't elaborate. "


More than once, cars were broken into at the WM I worked at, while they had their security cameras turned to the back of the store to monitor storage bins.

But Wal-Mart can do no wrong.

[Publius Valerius]

It's not exactly statutory, it's the Eleventh Amendment for states and sovereign immunity for the feds.

But there's an easy way to get around it: you sue someone individually. For instance, you want to sue a prison? Sue the warden.

[bert]

Kill the lawyer. He's raising my cost of living

[dixie sass]

I guess they will need to hire a security agent for every customer that comes onto their lot now. How stupid.

The police patrol the lots here in Summerville and I imagine they do in most cities. If it had been inside the store, maybe this would make sense but because it was outside on common property, no, I don't think so.

Thanks for the ping.

[cynicom]

Follow the money, hungry LAWYER there somewhere.

[PistolPaknMama]

Greedy lawyers have learned ...

And you can't have greedy lawyers without greedy plaintiffs. These threads invevitably turn into lawyer bashing threads, but somebody *hired* the lawyer. If greedy people would quit giving lawyers just this kind of work, they would be put out of business.

[PistolPaknMama]

I don't fault the husband, I fault the lawyer

Why? Who hired the lawyer? Who made the phone call to the lawyer for the appointment to meet with him? The lawyer is most likely acting within the law and according to the law. If you want to blame somebody, blame the legislators that made the laws. Or the greedy husband who hired the lawyer. What do you think the husband wanted when he hired the lawyer....to talk about how much he missed his wife? No I'm sure he made it very plain he wanted to hurt Walmart as much as he could. The greedy lawyer could not have filed the suit without the greedy husband.

[SunTzuWu]

More than once, cars were broken into at the WM I worked at, while they had their security cameras turned to the back of the store to monitor storage bins. But Wal-Mart can do no wrong.

Well, if you know where the cameras are pointing, why don't you park your car there? Wal-Mart, Sears, Target etc. are not responsible for the security of your belongings.

But neal1960 can do no wrong.

[bulldozer]

Unbelievable. I know he must be hurting over the loss of his wife but how can he possibly hold Wal-Mart responsible?

Because there happens to be a big pot of gold in the picture.

[JoeGar]

Chris McGoey, a California security consultant, said lawsuits over the safety of store parking lots are common and about 90 percent of them are settled.

Smells like extortion, doesn't it?

[1rudeboy]

About what? Fairies? Monsters?

[JasonC]

He doesn't. He sees deep pockets and unpopularity and bleeding hearts, and figures maybe their press is bad enough a jury will just plain give me some of somebody else's money. Voters do it all the time, why wouldn't juries?

[Between the Lines]

For the past several years our church has provided a type of security service for the women shopping at our local mall from Thanksgiving to Christmas. When they leave the mall we escort them to their car, carry their packages and even provide an umbrella if it is raining, all for free. We worked all of the mall entrances but were not allowed to work the entrances of individual stores like Belks and Wal-Mart (yes there is a Wal-mart in our mall).

Last year a woman was robbed and raped after leaving Wal-Mart and is suing us because we did not provide the same security for Wal-Mart customers as we did for the rest of the mall. Even though we we were not permitted to work in front of Wal-Mart.

Needless to say, we aren't doing it again this year. This woman suing us because we did not equally protect her, has caused us to pull out, ensuring that all of the women shopping at the mall are equally unprotected.

[Peach]

This kind of lawsuit is so ridiculous; the husband just saw big bucks behind the WalMart name.

[DB]

The greedy husband would get nowhere without the flaky lawyer.

It is the lawyer who should know better.

For all we know the lawyer sought out the husband.

It is within the law for the jerk lawyer to sue you tomorrow. That doesn't make it even remotely right. You can sue for anything. It will cost you significant money to show up to court to defend yourself. No show is a guaranteed loss.

There was a time when there didn't have to be a law for everything. People could govern themselves equitably. In truth when the people can't govern themselves the law won't really help. It is the point of no return.

[DB]

Read #33.

More of the same.

Lawyers doing their "legal" work.

Lawyers destroy far more than they help.

[Diana in Wisconsin]

Why sue Wal-Mart? Oh, that's right! They have MUCH deeper pockets than his state. *Rolleyes*

[Tax Government]

The "answer" includes:
1. Settle this particular suit
2. Heavy support for laws requiring petitioners who lose a civil suit to pay the other side's court & attorney fees
3. Redesigned Wal*Mart parking lots, with fewer entrances & armed security

[DB]

No, hold the lawyer responsible for the damages he/she causes the other party when he/she loses one of these ridiculous lawsuits. Instead of only an upside by throwing crap to see if any sticks somewhere, add some major downside. Make them pay. Don't make the client pay, make the lawyer pay. That way they care a little more about the outcome before they take the case.

[bulldozer]

The "answer" includes:
1. Settle this particular suit
2. Heavy support for laws requiring petitioners who lose a civil suit to pay the other side's court & attorney fees
3. Redesigned Wal*Mart parking lots, with fewer entrances & armed security

You forgot:
4. Chain link fence with gates around parking lot.