Replies

[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...]

Okay, I looked it up. WalMart is NOT responsible for this one punk's actions. From Wikipedia: {{{Employers are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine, for negligent acts or omissions by their employees in the course of employment. For an act to be considered within the course of employment it must either be authorised or be so connected with an authorised act that it can be considered a mode, though an improper mode, of performing it. Courts sometime distinguish between an employee's "detour" or "frolic:" an employer will be held liable if it is shown that the employee had gone on a mere detour in carrying out their duties, whereas an employee acting in his or her own right rather than on the employer's business is undertaking a "frolic" and will not subject the employer to liability. Neither, generally, will an employer be held liable for assault or battery committed by employees, unless the use of force was part of their employment (e.g. police officers, nightclub bouncers), or they were in a field likely to create friction with persons they encountered (e.g. car re-possessors).}}}