[spinestein]

[I think the Walton family is going to make this young lady very wealthy. A store employee on store grounds willfully injures a customer. I see a 7 figure judgement or settlement coming up.]


I see it, too, but I really don't think it's the store's fault. They certainly couldn't have done anything to prevent this turd from attacking the woman out in the parking lot employee or not.

Maybe they could have refused to hire the guy knowing that he had a past criminal record, but I would bet that if WalMart had a policy of refusing to hire an adult worker because he had a past record for theft as a juvenile then the s*** would hit the fan as Jesse Jackson and his bunch of fellow extortionists rode into town to protest WallyWorld's racist hiring policies, and millions of brain dead but compassionate Americans would go along with it.

[exhaustguy]

I agree that it is not Wal-Mart's fault, but it is another example when PC collides. I remember that Casey's (like 7-11 but in Iowa) got into trouble for firing a fuel delivery driver who was an alcoholic. Think about that for a minute. Talk about your Catch 22.

If the man had a violent criminal record, then Wal-Mart should be well within their rights (and in my mind their duty) to refuse to hire the person. Someone who has property crimes would not be expected to be violent so refusal to hire could be difficult (and also more of a defense for Wal-Mart). Of course it does not make sense for a thief to be hired by a store. On the other hand how can criminals ever rejoin society if no one employs them (kind of like Jean Valjean in Les Miserables).

[sk8smurf]

You may not think that walmart is liable for the actions of this one punk, but the fact of the matter is that he was an employee on the clock and on walmarts premises. Its called vicarious liability u can look it up if u like, it means that the employer is responsible for any actions of its employees, so yea shes gonna definitely make some money from this whole thing.