Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: FoxInSocks
Wal-Mart likely has legal liability

Why?

2 posted on 12/03/2008 9:33:20 PM PST by krb (Obama is a miserable failure.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: krb

The Family should be suing the animals that trampled the guy to death... place blame where it belongs. oh wait... those animals don’t have deep pockets.


5 posted on 12/03/2008 9:36:01 PM PST by Ancient Drive (will)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: krb

I pass a billboard every day that advertises “who do I sue”. com.

In my mind, the fault lies with the humans turned animals that caused this. But do you prosecute the animals at the back of the herd..or the ones at the front?

the fact that mankind has come to this point is scary..very scary.


10 posted on 12/03/2008 9:41:23 PM PST by berdie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: krb
Why?

Well, WalMart does have to provide a safe workplace for employees. Most states have basic labor laws on the books to that effect.

At the very least they should have setup a lottery system or a queue outside the store to ensure an orderly influx of customers, and not 200 people beating down a door trying to all get in at once.

I'm not one to promote Gov't to tell them how to run their business, but there are some basic measures they could have taken to ensure a safe environment for both worker and customer. There is liability there.

I also think the suit's stance that the bargains create a utter riot situation is probably a lawyer gimmick to use the generally anti-capitalist / WalMart media as an ally to their advantage.
12 posted on 12/03/2008 9:42:40 PM PST by bamahead (Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master. -- Sallust)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: krb
Why?

Speaking from a legal standpoint, mainly because it happened inside their doors.

I wouldn't necessarily agree, from a moral point of view, but I won't be surprised if that's the jury's determination and they decide to teach Wal-Mart a lesson. Fat chance of getting that far, though -- a jury would probably award $10 gazillion.

13 posted on 12/03/2008 9:42:45 PM PST by FoxInSocks (B. Hussein Obama: The Paucity of Hope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: krb

In this case, I’d say that Walmart does share the blame. They fostered the whole crazed shopper atmosphere including using the terminology ‘blitz’ on their line-up sign outside the store. They made it worse by using the poor man as impromptu security; actually worse than that, as part of a human chain in an attempt to hold an unruly crowd back. The fact that they had them form a human chain means that they knew they were about to have problems.

They put their store above the health and safety of their employees.


14 posted on 12/03/2008 9:43:25 PM PST by kenth (It's now spend and tax. How's that for change?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: krb

I think it is probably a workers compensation case, with little or nor possible damages. It certainly would be in our state.


30 posted on 12/03/2008 10:15:39 PM PST by lady lawyer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson