Customers injured in the black friday event are sueing

[DivideBYZero]

Originally posted by: cubby1223
We are so spoiled in the U.S. The lefties like to talk up about how rich the rich are, how poor the poor are, and what a terrible country we have become. These stories just remind us exactly how wealthy we are. Sure the rest of the world has mobs and people racing for things, trampling over others in their way - but those in other country are fighting over things like food & water. We trample other people for big-screen plasma tvs. 😛


You can't sue people who cannot be identified by the shoddy security cameras. And you can't expect those trampled to bear the full medical costs. But suing the store could force the retail industry to rethink black friday safety.

I can understand the rational of people trampling each other to survive. That is base instinct. Doing that for a cheap TV is lower than low. It doesn't denote wealth in my eyes, it denotes depravity and moral poverty in extremis.

 

[EXman]

two words

Money Grab

 

[OutHouse]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: mugs

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Cogman
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/CR...mpling.suit/index.html

What on earth are these people thinking. "Humm, A stranger beats me up. Im walking into a walmart. Who should I blame? Clearly it is walmarts fault?"

On the bright side, maybe now walmart can legally put in electric fences and arm their employees with cattle prods.

Do you think that walmart could counter sue these people for actively participating in mass-hysteria or being an accomplice to the death of one of their employees?

Who do you *think* was responsible for providing crowd management for safety?

Your analogy to a mugging is ridiculous. Crowd management != mugger crime.

You seem to have no clue about how crowd problems like this happen, where there's no 'intent' to stomp people to death, there's simply danger if the crowd isn't spread out.

The crowd isn't in charge of crowd control, to bring their own bullhorns and set up the system. Each person may play some tiny role by being there, but it's mainly Wal-Mart.

What exactly could they do to prevent people from rushing the door? They can have everyone line up, and they can try to let them in one by one, but as soon as the doors open the assholes in the back are going to rush the door.

There are many methods that work. The fact that 99% of the stores on black friday had no problem like this shows that it can be done. There are lottery system, there is how the people are spaced out, there is having a fire marshall present, there is giving a speech to the crowd and not opening the doors until they're calm and spaced, all kinds of ways.

99% of walmarts didn't have a problem.... so maybe it's not about the store, but rather the customers?

the walmart in my town of brighton CO had a fight breakout in electronics. i wasn't there so i dont know the details. I was a Khols when the doors opened at 4am and did not see any craziness. everybody shopping at Khols that early were polite and orderly.

i did score the 85 piece Onida flatware set that is the only reason i got my ass up that early it was marked down 75%.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

99% of walmarts didn't have a problem.... so maybe it's not about the store, but rather the customers?

Exactly. Well, 99.9% of Waldomarts didn't have a problem, but close enough.

So I guess that statement makes you a racist too, brother. 😉

No, it makes me a realist. I don't care who the people were or what color they were because it doesn't matter in this case against Walmart. Whether white, black, brown, or purple - the people involved were at fault here - not Walmart.

Well the issue is all about if Walmart had a reasonable expectation that someone was going to be hurt when I gigantic mob of people piled through their doors as they have a duty to provide (within reason) for the safety of their customers. It's hard to imagine that they didn't see the potential for mayhem with this same scene being played out all over the country.

The rest is all details, and I'm not calling for anyone's head over this, but to say that Walmart has no fault in this is awfully silly.

 

[sportage]

Yeah...
You run to electronics for that $99 BluRay DVD player special.
They only have one left.
Some lady starts to grab the box.
You butt kicker her out of the way.
Her hubby grabs you around the neck.
You struggle, kick, then punch.
Her hubby is out cold in front of the DVD display.
You don?t care he looks like he?s in his late 70?s.
(the display with only one bluray player left)
You grab the last bluray player.
You run to checkout.
Wait in line 45 minutes, looking over your shoulder.
Finally you're out of the store, in the car and speeding away.
You hit and kill a small dog as you exit the lot.
You start driving faster.
You get home.
You do a happy dance.
Open the box and "WHA THE SHET"...
"This one doesn?t have the illumined remote control!!! I'm taking this crap back!"
Happy Black Friday :laugh:

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

99% of walmarts didn't have a problem.... so maybe it's not about the store, but rather the customers?

Exactly. Well, 99.9% of Waldomarts didn't have a problem, but close enough.

So I guess that statement makes you a racist too, brother. 😉

No, it makes me a realist. I don't care who the people were or what color they were because it doesn't matter in this case against Walmart. Whether white, black, brown, or purple - the people involved were at fault here - not Walmart.

Well the issue is all about if Walmart had a reasonable expectation that someone was going to be hurt when I gigantic mob of people piled through their doors as they have a duty to provide (within reason) for the safety of their customers. It's hard to imagine that they didn't see the potential for mayhem with this same scene being played out all over the country.

The rest is all details, and I'm not calling for anyone's head over this, but to say that Walmart has no fault in this is awfully silly.

Again, walmart did not cause any of this - the people did. You can whine about a subjective "reasonable expectation" if you wish but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of their stores didn't have this problem. Why did it happen in this case? Did the store have something else that the others didn't? Or did it not have something the others did? From what we know - the only difference is the customers...

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

99% of walmarts didn't have a problem.... so maybe it's not about the store, but rather the customers?

Exactly. Well, 99.9% of Waldomarts didn't have a problem, but close enough.

So I guess that statement makes you a racist too, brother. 😉

No, it makes me a realist. I don't care who the people were or what color they were because it doesn't matter in this case against Walmart. Whether white, black, brown, or purple - the people involved were at fault here - not Walmart.

Well the issue is all about if Walmart had a reasonable expectation that someone was going to be hurt when I gigantic mob of people piled through their doors as they have a duty to provide (within reason) for the safety of their customers. It's hard to imagine that they didn't see the potential for mayhem with this same scene being played out all over the country.

The rest is all details, and I'm not calling for anyone's head over this, but to say that Walmart has no fault in this is awfully silly.

Again, walmart did not cause any of this - the people did. You can whine about a subjective "reasonable expectation" if you wish but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of their stores didn't have this problem. Why did it happen in this case? Did the store have something else that the others didn't? Or did it not have something the others did? From what we know - the only difference is the customers...

Walmart had the sale to begin with, so ya walmart did cause this. if not for the sale, it would not have happened. It was the store's management responsibility to ensure the safety of both workers and costumers. Simple prevention was to hire more security for the event. This remind me of the Who concert years ago that several people were trampled to death when the doors opened. I believe that happened in Cincinnati.

 

[Vic]

It's indisputable that Wal-Mart acted negligently here with regards to the employee that was killed. Here's an excellent editorial on the subject:

http://www.oregonlive.com/edit...17752677600.xml&coll=7

A preventable death at Wal-Mart
The retail giant polished its corporate image in response to criticism but continues to cut corners
Tuesday, December 02, 2008
The Oregonian

Wal-Mart hasn't yet taken any responsibility for the trampling death of a 34-year-old worker in a New York store last week. That's smart from a liability standpoint, but let's be clear about who killed Jdimytai "Jimbo" Damour.

The mob that crushed him, yes.

But also the retail giant that laid the man at the mob's feet.

Damour, a subcontracted Wal-Mart employee, was assigned to work on Black Friday, a shopping day known for doorbuster deals and heavy crowds. Many big-box stores use crowd-control tactics, such as giving vouchers to people in line or maxing out their security.

But security costs money, and Wal-Mart's juggernaut retail strategy relies upon cutting all non-essential costs. Damour's store had minimal extra security on Black Friday, and no apparent plan to handle the crowd of 2,000 people clamoring outside in the pre-dawn darkness for 50-inch flat-screen TVs ($798) or 10.2 megapixel digital cameras ($69).

When the crowd strained to break down the locked doors, Damour and a handful of other employees tried to protect Wal-Mart by pushing back. Their makeshift human shield didn't hold.

"Fists banged and shoulders pressed on the sliding-glass double doors, which bowed in with the weight of the assault," The New York Times reported. ". . . (Suddenly), the doors shattered, and the shrieking mob surged through in a blind rush for holiday bargains. (Damour) was thrown back onto the black linoleum tiles and trampled in the stampede that streamed over and around him."

It's hard to imagine a more terrifying or lonely way to die.

There's no excuse for the unfathomable heartlessness of the mob itself. The people in the crowd, drunk on greed and perceived anonymity, are to blame for Damour's death. However, Wal-Mart also must face the music. It failed to adequately address a foreseeable risk, and by doing so, it failed a basic test of corporate responsibility.

This is hardly the first time Wal-Mart put workers last to save a few bucks. The company has faced numerous sanctions for worker-related violations, including prohibiting workers from taking breaks and compelling them to work off the clock.

The company has improved its image by going greener and working more closely with local communities. Here in Oregon, the Wal-Mart Foundation just donated $275,000 to the Oregon Food Bank. Wal-Mart also teamed with Portland-based Mercy Corps to help Guatemalan farmers.

Yet the retailer still seems to get it wrong with its own workers. Its rock-bottom prices are subsidized too heavily by marginal labor practices. That's unacceptable for the nation's largest private employer -- or for any company, in any economy.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

99% of walmarts didn't have a problem.... so maybe it's not about the store, but rather the customers?

Exactly. Well, 99.9% of Waldomarts didn't have a problem, but close enough.

So I guess that statement makes you a racist too, brother. 😉

No, it makes me a realist. I don't care who the people were or what color they were because it doesn't matter in this case against Walmart. Whether white, black, brown, or purple - the people involved were at fault here - not Walmart.

Well the issue is all about if Walmart had a reasonable expectation that someone was going to be hurt when I gigantic mob of people piled through their doors as they have a duty to provide (within reason) for the safety of their customers. It's hard to imagine that they didn't see the potential for mayhem with this same scene being played out all over the country.

The rest is all details, and I'm not calling for anyone's head over this, but to say that Walmart has no fault in this is awfully silly.

Again, walmart did not cause any of this - the people did. You can whine about a subjective "reasonable expectation" if you wish but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of their stores didn't have this problem. Why did it happen in this case? Did the store have something else that the others didn't? Or did it not have something the others did? From what we know - the only difference is the customers...

Walmart had the sale to begin with, so ya walmart did cause this. if not for the sale, it would not have happened. It was the store's management responsibility to ensure the safety of both workers and costumers. Simple prevention was to hire more security for the event. This remind me of the Who concert years ago that several people were trampled to death when the doors opened. I believe that happened in Cincinnati.

:roll: Again, their other 99% of stores had the same F'n sales and it didn't happen there. The only thing truly different is the customers.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY




:roll: Again, their other 99% of stores had the same F'n sales and it didn't happen there. The only thing truly different is the customers.

Each store is managed locally, not from corporate hq. It's upto the general manager how he/she runs the store, not HQ. at least that how it was when I worked there. it was the manager's decisions that ultimately caused this.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

99% of walmarts didn't have a problem.... so maybe it's not about the store, but rather the customers?

Exactly. Well, 99.9% of Waldomarts didn't have a problem, but close enough.

So I guess that statement makes you a racist too, brother. 😉

No, it makes me a realist. I don't care who the people were or what color they were because it doesn't matter in this case against Walmart. Whether white, black, brown, or purple - the people involved were at fault here - not Walmart.

Well the issue is all about if Walmart had a reasonable expectation that someone was going to be hurt when I gigantic mob of people piled through their doors as they have a duty to provide (within reason) for the safety of their customers. It's hard to imagine that they didn't see the potential for mayhem with this same scene being played out all over the country.

The rest is all details, and I'm not calling for anyone's head over this, but to say that Walmart has no fault in this is awfully silly.

Again, walmart did not cause any of this - the people did. You can whine about a subjective "reasonable expectation" if you wish but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of their stores didn't have this problem. Why did it happen in this case? Did the store have something else that the others didn't? Or did it not have something the others did? From what we know - the only difference is the customers...

Walmart had the sale to begin with, so ya walmart did cause this. if not for the sale, it would not have happened. It was the store's management responsibility to ensure the safety of both workers and costumers. Simple prevention was to hire more security for the event. This remind me of the Who concert years ago that several people were trampled to death when the doors opened. I believe that happened in Cincinnati.

:roll: Again, their other 99% of stores had the same F'n sales and it didn't happen there. The only thing truly different is the customers.

Each store is managed locally, not from corporate hq. It's upto the general manager how he/she runs the store, not HQ. at least that how it was when I worked there. it was the manager's decisions that ultimately caused this.

Eh? The claim was that the sale caused this...or rather that walmart caused this because of the sale. It's utter BS.
Now it's the local manager's fault? how the hell do you move the goal posts to that point?

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[
Eh? The claim was that the sale caused this...or rather that walmart caused this because of the sale. It's utter BS.
Now it's the local manager's fault? how the hell do you move the goal posts to that point?

What's so hard to understand? the store is run locally, they had a sale and wasn't prepared for the outcome. It's not that tough.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[
Eh? The claim was that the sale caused this...or rather that walmart caused this because of the sale. It's utter BS.
Now it's the local manager's fault? how the hell do you move the goal posts to that point?

What's so hard to understand? the store is run locally, they had a sale and wasn't prepared for the outcome. It's not that tough.

Do you not understand how corporate retail works?
It wasn't the local store that had the sale - it was the corporation who had the BF sale. The local store had zero to say about the sale.
But lets run with your "logic" for a bit... So what you are saying is that 99% of Walmarts around the country were prepared and had good management - thus they didn't have injured customers? PUHFUGGINLEEZE. The Management has no control over customers stampeding. If customers want to stampede - they'll stampede - regardless of management.

 

[dawp]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: dawp

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
[
Eh? The claim was that the sale caused this...or rather that walmart caused this because of the sale. It's utter BS.
Now it's the local manager's fault? how the hell do you move the goal posts to that point?

What's so hard to understand? the store is run locally, they had a sale and wasn't prepared for the outcome. It's not that tough.

Do you not understand how corporate retail works?
It wasn't the local store that had the sale - it was the corporation who had the BF sale. The local store had zero to say about the sale.
But lets run with your "logic" for a bit... So what you are saying is that 99% of Walmarts around the country were prepared and had good management - thus they didn't have injured customers? PUHFUGGINLEEZE. The Management has no control over customers stampeding. If customers want to stampede - they'll stampede - regardless of management.

Yes, Corporate dictated the sale, but it was up to local to see it went smoothly. It didn't. Maybe this was the manager's 1st BF sale at this location, I don't know. whatever the reason, The store opening was poorly planned.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
I said it before, and I'll say it again. On Black Friday, Wal-Mart should open its doors, let everyone in, lock the doors, and gas the lot of them. There is absolutely no excuse for the horridness exhibited by these worthless human beings who are literally willing to kill to save a few bucks. Fuck 'em.

Just so we're clear, I am being facetious when I say we should just gas them all, but clearly something is horribly wrong with some of these people.

This.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
wow, I knew the hatred of walmart was pretty bad here but some of you are just out right out of your mind. At best these people could go after someone for assult but good luck proving it. I'm quite sick of these types of morans suing a store because they got hurt. I can see if if there was something in the store that caused injury but these injuries were caused by other people - not Walmart.

And this.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

99% of walmarts didn't have a problem.... so maybe it's not about the store, but rather the customers?

Exactly. Well, 99.9% of Waldomarts didn't have a problem, but close enough.

So I guess that statement makes you a racist too, brother. 😉

No, it makes me a realist. I don't care who the people were or what color they were because it doesn't matter in this case against Walmart. Whether white, black, brown, or purple - the people involved were at fault here - not Walmart.

Well the issue is all about if Walmart had a reasonable expectation that someone was going to be hurt when I gigantic mob of people piled through their doors as they have a duty to provide (within reason) for the safety of their customers. It's hard to imagine that they didn't see the potential for mayhem with this same scene being played out all over the country.

The rest is all details, and I'm not calling for anyone's head over this, but to say that Walmart has no fault in this is awfully silly.

Again, walmart did not cause any of this - the people did. You can whine about a subjective "reasonable expectation" if you wish but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of their stores didn't have this problem. Why did it happen in this case? Did the store have something else that the others didn't? Or did it not have something the others did? From what we know - the only difference is the customers...

You realize that whining about that 'reasonable expectation' is pretty much the basis for the entire law on this subject, right? Simple fact: businesses have a duty to provide their customers with a safe environment while they are on their property. This is not arguable. The argument that the other 99.9% of stores didn't have a problem is irrelevant. The question is if THIS store, still the property of Walmart, property discharged this duty in the situation it was in. The behavior of the customers in your store is a part of the environment that the business must take into account, and so even if the problem were 100% customer caused, Walmart could still be at fault for allowing them in to begin with. (if you have a chainsaw maniac customer running around the store, despite the fact that the problem is 100% customer caused, if you allow further customers into the store prepare for lawsuits when they get chainsawed)

So anyways, stop trying to argue that it's not Walmart's fault because the other stores didn't have problems. That might mean it's not an overarching corporate policy problem, but it doesn't mean they aren't liable. Maybe they aren't, but to just blow it off as not their fault is simply one of your favorite terms... apologism.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: SlickSnake

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

99% of walmarts didn't have a problem.... so maybe it's not about the store, but rather the customers?

Exactly. Well, 99.9% of Waldomarts didn't have a problem, but close enough.

So I guess that statement makes you a racist too, brother. 😉

No, it makes me a realist. I don't care who the people were or what color they were because it doesn't matter in this case against Walmart. Whether white, black, brown, or purple - the people involved were at fault here - not Walmart.

Well the issue is all about if Walmart had a reasonable expectation that someone was going to be hurt when I gigantic mob of people piled through their doors as they have a duty to provide (within reason) for the safety of their customers. It's hard to imagine that they didn't see the potential for mayhem with this same scene being played out all over the country.

The rest is all details, and I'm not calling for anyone's head over this, but to say that Walmart has no fault in this is awfully silly.

Again, walmart did not cause any of this - the people did. You can whine about a subjective "reasonable expectation" if you wish but it doesn't change the fact that 99% of their stores didn't have this problem. Why did it happen in this case? Did the store have something else that the others didn't? Or did it not have something the others did? From what we know - the only difference is the customers...

You realize that whining about that 'reasonable expectation' is pretty much the basis for the entire law on this subject, right? Simple fact: businesses have a duty to provide their customers with a safe environment while they are on their property. This is not arguable. The argument that the other 99.9% of stores didn't have a problem is irrelevant. The question is if THIS store, still the property of Walmart, property discharged this duty in the situation it was in. The behavior of the customers in your store is a part of the environment that the business must take into account, and so even if the problem were 100% customer caused, Walmart could still be at fault for allowing them in to begin with. (if you have a chainsaw maniac customer running around the store, despite the fact that the problem is 100% customer caused, if you allow further customers into the store prepare for lawsuits when they get chainsawed)

So anyways, stop trying to argue that it's not Walmart's fault because the other stores didn't have problems. That might mean it's not an overarching corporate policy problem, but it doesn't mean they aren't liable. Maybe they aren't, but to just blow it off as not their fault is simply one of your favorite terms... apologism.

And you realize that if 99% had no issues then likely corporate "rules" or actions could be considered "reasonable" - no? How you or others can dismiss the other stores not having this sort of problem as "irrelevant" shows you aren't looking at this rationally. The differences here are clearly one of customers and their actions. A business can not "reasonably" expect that people will trample someone to death.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You realize that whining about that 'reasonable expectation' is pretty much the basis for the entire law on this subject, right? Simple fact: businesses have a duty to provide their customers with a safe environment while they are on their property. This is not arguable. The argument that the other 99.9% of stores didn't have a problem is irrelevant. The question is if THIS store, still the property of Walmart, property discharged this duty in the situation it was in. The behavior of the customers in your store is a part of the environment that the business must take into account, and so even if the problem were 100% customer caused, Walmart could still be at fault for allowing them in to begin with. (if you have a chainsaw maniac customer running around the store, despite the fact that the problem is 100% customer caused, if you allow further customers into the store prepare for lawsuits when they get chainsawed)

So anyways, stop trying to argue that it's not Walmart's fault because the other stores didn't have problems. That might mean it's not an overarching corporate policy problem, but it doesn't mean they aren't liable. Maybe they aren't, but to just blow it off as not their fault is simply one of your favorite terms... apologism.

And you realize that if 99% had no issues then likely corporate "rules" or actions could be considered "reasonable" - no? How you or others can dismiss the other stores not having this sort of problem as "irrelevant" shows you aren't looking at this rationally. The differences here are clearly one of customers and their actions. A business can not "reasonably" expect that people will trample someone to death.

Maybe this is because you don't understand how this all works. You realize you can have zero fault with corporate policy and still have a corporation liable for something, right? Their corporate guidance might have been perfectly reasonable, but if the managers and security onsite did not correctly discharge their duty to the customer, the corporation as a whole is still 100% liable. Furthermore, there is no requirement for them to forsee customers trampling one another to death, there is only the need to see the significant possibility for injury present (which was certainly so), and fail to reasonably act to mitigate it (it is unknown if they did).

Maybe it doesn't appear that other people are looking at this rationally, but that seems to be more because you don't understand the issue. We're not talking about Walmart the board of directors being responsible, we're talking about the entire corporate entity which can be liable down to the guy swinging the mop in aisle 3.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

You realize that whining about that 'reasonable expectation' is pretty much the basis for the entire law on this subject, right? Simple fact: businesses have a duty to provide their customers with a safe environment while they are on their property. This is not arguable. The argument that the other 99.9% of stores didn't have a problem is irrelevant. The question is if THIS store, still the property of Walmart, property discharged this duty in the situation it was in. The behavior of the customers in your store is a part of the environment that the business must take into account, and so even if the problem were 100% customer caused, Walmart could still be at fault for allowing them in to begin with. (if you have a chainsaw maniac customer running around the store, despite the fact that the problem is 100% customer caused, if you allow further customers into the store prepare for lawsuits when they get chainsawed)

So anyways, stop trying to argue that it's not Walmart's fault because the other stores didn't have problems. That might mean it's not an overarching corporate policy problem, but it doesn't mean they aren't liable. Maybe they aren't, but to just blow it off as not their fault is simply one of your favorite terms... apologism.

And you realize that if 99% had no issues then likely corporate "rules" or actions could be considered "reasonable" - no? How you or others can dismiss the other stores not having this sort of problem as "irrelevant" shows you aren't looking at this rationally. The differences here are clearly one of customers and their actions. A business can not "reasonably" expect that people will trample someone to death.

Maybe this is because you don't understand how this all works. You realize you can have zero fault with corporate policy and still have a corporation liable for something, right? Their corporate guidance might have been perfectly reasonable, but if the managers and security onsite did not correctly discharge their duty to the customer, the corporation as a whole is still 100% liable. Furthermore, there is no requirement for them to forsee customers trampling one another to death, there is only the need to see the significant possibility for injury present (which was certainly so), and fail to reasonably act to mitigate it (it is unknown if they did).

Maybe it doesn't appear that other people are looking at this rationally, but that seems to be more because you don't understand the issue. We're not talking about Walmart the board of directors being responsible, we're talking about the entire corporate entity which can be liable down to the guy swinging the mop in aisle 3.

Right, and you don't understand that I'm not talking about liability - I'm talking about fault. People in here are claiming it's Walmart's fault - and it clearly isn't their fault no matter how much you morans try to claim it is. As to liability - maybe but I don't see how one can rationally make that case when 99% were incidentless and it was a stampede that caused the injuries. The liability claim seems to hinge on "reasonable expectation" or some other subjective BS but seriously - there is no reasonable expectation that people will trample someone to death either. You can't hold a company liable for the actions of their customers like this - that is why some of us think you people, the system, and these suits are loony tunes.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Citrix

the walmart in my town of brighton CO had a fight breakout in electronics.

Clearly these people should sue Walmart. Walmart had a super sale and thus Walmart is at fault for their fight. Clearly walmart should provide every one, that walks in the door during a sale, a body guard.... since there is an expectation of security...


😉

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Maybe this is because you don't understand how this all works. You realize you can have zero fault with corporate policy and still have a corporation liable for something, right? Their corporate guidance might have been perfectly reasonable, but if the managers and security onsite did not correctly discharge their duty to the customer, the corporation as a whole is still 100% liable. Furthermore, there is no requirement for them to forsee customers trampling one another to death, there is only the need to see the significant possibility for injury present (which was certainly so), and fail to reasonably act to mitigate it (it is unknown if they did).

Maybe it doesn't appear that other people are looking at this rationally, but that seems to be more because you don't understand the issue. We're not talking about Walmart the board of directors being responsible, we're talking about the entire corporate entity which can be liable down to the guy swinging the mop in aisle 3.

Right, and you don't understand that I'm not talking about liability - I'm talking about fault. People in here are claiming it's Walmart's fault - and it clearly isn't their fault no matter how much you morans try to claim it is. As to liability - maybe but I don't see how one can rationally make that case when 99% were incidentless and it was a stampede that caused the injuries. The liability claim seems to hinge on "reasonable expectation" or some other subjective BS but seriously - there is no reasonable expectation that people will trample someone to death either. You can't hold a company liable for the actions of their customers like this - that is why some of us think you people, the system, and these suits are loony tunes.

So we're all discussing 'fault' and not 'liability'. Like who should be told to sit in the corner for 15 minutes? Liability is fault for all meaningful purposes.

If you have a better standard than 'reasonable expectation' I'm sure that not only I would like to hear it, but every legal expert around the world would love to line up and hear your new system. Of course its subjective, that's what the courts are for, so a disinterested observer can determine it.

Depending on what actions the store took at the time you most certainly can - and should - hold a company responsible for the actions of people on its property. Maybe Walmart did all that could reasonably be expected of it in this situation, maybe not. Your blanket dismissal of it simply because it was customers injuring other customers is simply incorrect though.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Maybe this is because you don't understand how this all works. You realize you can have zero fault with corporate policy and still have a corporation liable for something, right? Their corporate guidance might have been perfectly reasonable, but if the managers and security onsite did not correctly discharge their duty to the customer, the corporation as a whole is still 100% liable. Furthermore, there is no requirement for them to forsee customers trampling one another to death, there is only the need to see the significant possibility for injury present (which was certainly so), and fail to reasonably act to mitigate it (it is unknown if they did).

Maybe it doesn't appear that other people are looking at this rationally, but that seems to be more because you don't understand the issue. We're not talking about Walmart the board of directors being responsible, we're talking about the entire corporate entity which can be liable down to the guy swinging the mop in aisle 3.

Right, and you don't understand that I'm not talking about liability - I'm talking about fault. People in here are claiming it's Walmart's fault - and it clearly isn't their fault no matter how much you morans try to claim it is. As to liability - maybe but I don't see how one can rationally make that case when 99% were incidentless and it was a stampede that caused the injuries. The liability claim seems to hinge on "reasonable expectation" or some other subjective BS but seriously - there is no reasonable expectation that people will trample someone to death either. You can't hold a company liable for the actions of their customers like this - that is why some of us think you people, the system, and these suits are loony tunes.

So we're all discussing 'fault' and not 'liability'. Like who should be told to sit in the corner for 15 minutes? Liability is fault for all meaningful purposes.

If you have a better standard than 'reasonable expectation' I'm sure that not only I would like to hear it, but every legal expert around the world would love to line up and hear your new system. Of course its subjective, that's what the courts are for, so a disinterested observer can determine it.

Depending on what actions the store took at the time you most certainly can - and should - hold a company responsible for the actions of people on its property. Maybe Walmart did all that could reasonably be expected of it in this situation, maybe not. Your blanket dismissal of it simply because it was customers injuring other customers is simply incorrect though.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Citrix

the walmart in my town of brighton CO had a fight breakout in electronics.

Clearly these people should sue Walmart. Walmart had a super sale and thus Walmart is at fault for their fight. Clearly walmart should provide every one, that walks in the door during a sale, a body guard.... since there is an expectation of security...


😉

:roll:

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Maybe this is because you don't understand how this all works. You realize you can have zero fault with corporate policy and still have a corporation liable for something, right? Their corporate guidance might have been perfectly reasonable, but if the managers and security onsite did not correctly discharge their duty to the customer, the corporation as a whole is still 100% liable. Furthermore, there is no requirement for them to forsee customers trampling one another to death, there is only the need to see the significant possibility for injury present (which was certainly so), and fail to reasonably act to mitigate it (it is unknown if they did).

Maybe it doesn't appear that other people are looking at this rationally, but that seems to be more because you don't understand the issue. We're not talking about Walmart the board of directors being responsible, we're talking about the entire corporate entity which can be liable down to the guy swinging the mop in aisle 3.

Right, and you don't understand that I'm not talking about liability - I'm talking about fault. People in here are claiming it's Walmart's fault - and it clearly isn't their fault no matter how much you morans try to claim it is. As to liability - maybe but I don't see how one can rationally make that case when 99% were incidentless and it was a stampede that caused the injuries. The liability claim seems to hinge on "reasonable expectation" or some other subjective BS but seriously - there is no reasonable expectation that people will trample someone to death either. You can't hold a company liable for the actions of their customers like this - that is why some of us think you people, the system, and these suits are loony tunes.

So we're all discussing 'fault' and not 'liability'. Like who should be told to sit in the corner for 15 minutes? Liability is fault for all meaningful purposes.

If you have a better standard than 'reasonable expectation' I'm sure that not only I would like to hear it, but every legal expert around the world would love to line up and hear your new system. Of course its subjective, that's what the courts are for, so a disinterested observer can determine it.

Depending on what actions the store took at the time you most certainly can - and should - hold a company responsible for the actions of people on its property. Maybe Walmart did all that could reasonably be expected of it in this situation, maybe not. Your blanket dismissal of it simply because it was customers injuring other customers is simply incorrect though.

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Citrix

the walmart in my town of brighton CO had a fight breakout in electronics.

Clearly these people should sue Walmart. Walmart had a super sale and thus Walmart is at fault for their fight. Clearly walmart should provide every one, that walks in the door during a sale, a body guard.... since there is an expectation of security...


😉

:roll:

Are you rolling your eyes at your own retarded post? That's the only thing that makes sense.

You are either ignorant of the topic or being willfully obtuse. It doesn't really matter which one, as you will fight to the death rather than admit being wrong regardless and so to me the only difference is whether to chalk it up to you being stupid, or an asshole.

 

[Rustler]

That is why I never go shopping on BF beacause of stupid people.................so greedy to save a few bucks that they would cause the death of an employee.

Clearly it is his fault for being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

There were two morons that got into an agrument here in Phoenix at a toy store at shot each other and died later at the hospital. Clearly that is not the fault of the store.

However I do think that when a store creates a possible senairo that could get out of control and has no plan to abate any stupidity of the crowd. I think that they would be somwhat responsible. These people knocked the doors down and allmost trampled the police and rescue workers trying to help this person. Sad but it is not the fault of the person who went to work expecting not to be killed by a mob.