Walmart truck runs over Limo, Walmart blames occupants for getting hurt

[dmcowen674]

9-29-2014

https://tv.yahoo.com/news/walmart-faults-tracy-morgan-not-wearing-seatbelt-during-183608445.html

Walmart Faults Tracy Morgan for Not Wearing Seatbelt During Car Accident


On Monday, Walmart delivered its answer in a New Jersey federal court to 30 Rock actor Tracy Morgan's lawsuit arising from a six-car accident on the New Jersey Turnpike. Among nine affirmative defenses, Walmart says that injuries "were caused, in whole or in part, by plaintiffs' failure to properly wear an appropriate available seatbelt restraint device."

In particular, their lawsuit filed in July questions whether Walmart driver Kevin Roper was fatigued at the time of the crash. According to the suit, Roper had commuted 700 miles from his home in Jonesboro, Ga., to a Walmart facility in Smyrna, Del., before beginning his shift.

"Walmart knew or should have known" that Roper had been "awake for more than 24 consecutive hours" ahead of the crash.

Nevertheless, Walmart outlines its affirmative defenses to claims brought by Morgan, as well as Morgan's assistant, Jeffrey Millea, his wife, Krista Millea, and comedian Ardie Fuqua.
Failure to wear seat belts is one.


"By failing to exercise ordinary care in making use of available seatbelts, upon information and belief, plaintiffs acted unreasonably and in disregard of plaintiffs' own best interests," states Walmart's answer.

The defendant also asserts that plaintiffs are barred from recovering damages because they failed to mitigate their losses. Further, Walmart says its due process rights will be violated because the company "did not engage in any wanton or willful conduct that would warrant an award of punitive damages."

 

[dmcowen674]

Can't wait to see the Corporate Thug supporters comments in here.

 

[Fern]

Can't wait to see the Corporate Thug supporters comments in here.

Dave, it's a civil lawsuit case, what do you expect lawyers defending Walmart to do? Lawyers will try anything, often up to and including lying to defend their clients. What would you expect these lawyers to do - ruin their careers because Walmart is evil?

Edit: This is (much) less about corporations and more about lawyers and lawsuits anyway.

Fern

 

[dmcowen674]

Dave, it's a civil lawsuit case, what do you expect lawyers defending Walmart to do?

How bout the right thing and not make up shit like saying it's the occupants fault?

 

[Pulsar]

How bout the right thing and not make up shit like saying it's the occupants fault?

How about a little personal responsibility, and go after just the driver of the truck?

Does your employer ask you how long you've been awake before you start work each day?

Yet they should have known how long he should have been awake. Shame on Walmart!

God you're a loser Dave.

Oh, and the severity of their injuries probably would have been mitigated if they'd worn seat belts. That would have drastically lowered their medical bills. Bill that they are likely going to ask Walmart to pay.

 

[waggy]

How bout the right thing and not make up shit like saying it's the occupants fault?

how about they sue the driver who was responsible instead of the company that has the money?

oh wait i forgot who posted. some idiot who is jealous of anyone that makes more then min wage.

 

[JimKiler]

I live in MN and the victim of auto accidents is 10% at fault automatically for using the road. So in a way Walmart is right. I don't know the specifics but it is possible the victims in this case could be alive or better off if they had used their seat belts. But in the end Walmart will lose this case.

 

[Smoblikat]

How bout the right thing and not make up shit like saying it's the occupants fault?

Its ALL wal marts fault, and ONLY theirs. There, now what happens? Oh wait, nothing changes because this is an issue with the mentality of lawyers and not actually an issu with wal mart. Should they have taken proper precautions to ensure drivers arent being over worked? Sure, they are at least partly to blame for not having policies in effect requiring drivers to check in and get rest. But who knows, maybe the driver was going against policy? At some point, someone should take responsibility for their actions. Had the occupants been wearing the appropriate safety belts, injuries could have been significantly mitigated.

There are 2 sides to every story dude, you always seem to pick the most emotionally charged one.

 

[waggy]

There are 2 sides to every story dude, you always seem to pick the most emotionally charged one.

no. he pics always pics the side against the rich. that is all he post about something the rich has done. no matter what it is.

 

[dawheat]

How about a little personal responsibility, and go after just the driver of the truck?

Does your employer ask you how long you've been awake before you start work each day?

Yet they should have known how long he should have been awake. Shame on Walmart!

God you're a loser Dave.

Oh, and the severity of their injuries probably would have been mitigated if they'd worn seat belts. That would have drastically lowered their medical bills. Bill that they are likely going to ask Walmart to pay.

I strongly disagree with the whole 'personal responsibility' argument if the employee was driving in the performance of his duties for Walmart at the time of the accident. For actual damages, it should be a closed book that Walmart is liable.

Otherwise per the logic in your response, if a fund manager illegally steals from his clients, only he should be personally liable and not the company to make the victims whole? A nurse who has to work back to back shifts and in fatigue delivers a lethal dose should only be personally liable and not the healthcare system who employs the nurse?

The question of whether Walmart should have known the driver was fatigued I assume is only for punitive damages. And whether Walmart willfully was responsible is not as open and closed and both sides deserve the opportunity to argue their case.

 

[cubby1223]

no. he pics always pics the side against the rich. that is all he post about something the rich has done. no matter what it is.

But Tracy Morgan is rich.

Not as rich as the Walmart corporation.

But very rich none-the-less.


To the subject matter, the courts will make their decision, and Walmart I have no reason to believe they will refuse to obey the legal decisions made. And if they do, then I'll fill myself with anger and outrage and be miserable inside until Walmart understands the errors in their ways. But until then I really don't care

 

[DrPizza]

I strongly disagree with the whole 'personal responsibility' argument if the employee was driving in the performance of his duties for Walmart at the time of the accident. For actual damages, it should be a closed book that Walmart is liable.

Otherwise per the logic in your response, if a fund manager illegally steals from his clients, only he should be personally liable and not the company to make the victims whole? A nurse who has to work back to back shifts and in fatigue delivers a lethal dose should only be personally liable and not the healthcare system who employs the nurse?

The question of whether Walmart should have known the driver was fatigued I assume is only for punitive damages. And whether Walmart willfully was responsible is not as open and closed and both sides deserve the opportunity to argue their case.

Your nurse analogy doesn't quite work. It would be more accurate if you said, "a nurse stayed up all night playing games at a casino, then delivered a fatal dose while working her shift the next day." Because, in your analogy, it's quite clear that the hospital would have known the nurse may have been fatigued. But, well, at least in my lifetime of working, I've never had an employer ask me "what time did you go to bed last night?"


Further, if accident experts can show that the occupants would likely not have been injured, or if their injuries would have been significantly less had they been wearing the mandatory safety equipment, I don't have a problem at all with the court finding them partially at fault for the extent of their injuries. I understand that this varies from state to state.

 

[sactoking]

If Wal-Mart's claim is that the injured parties are at fault because they weren't wearing their seatbelts then Wal-Mart is full of it.

If Wal-Mart's claim is that the injured parties contributed to the severity of their injuries because they weren't wearing their seatbelts then Wal-Mart may have a perfectly legitimate srgument.

 

[Aspendancer]

Yeah Wal-Mart says Tracey Morgan did not take "due care" and is responsible for his injuries. Nevermind the 18 wheeler that ran over his arse.

 

[OverVolt]

Walmart should have settled to avoid exactly these types of headlines.

Walmart should have just apologized which was my first thought, but I suppose in a lawsuit that would indicate guilt, so they have to do this lawyer stuff.

Should have settled no matter the cost. This kind of PR will cost them way more than whatever it would have taken to make Tracy Morgan drop the case. I was like "what jerks why can't they just apologize!?"

 

[Meghan54]

Does your employer ask you how long you've been awake before you start work each day?

Yet they should have known how long he should have been awake. Shame on Walmart!

Yes, it's true most employers have little need to know how long you've been up and/or driving before beginning your work shift.

On the other hand, very few jobs have such restrictions like professional commercial drivers have placed on them as to number of hours they can drive per day/week. Walmart was quite aware the driver had just driven 700 miles from GA to get to the dist. center in Delaware.

And, no, I don't expect any trucking company to ask each and every driver to submit questionnaires about awake time/driving time before they begin every shift, although if doing more than local driving, drivers essentially are doing just that with their log books.

What I would expect is a company to at least be cognizant of the fact someone who is going to take a semi out on the road just not have driven 700 miles to get to you, a drive that would take well over 14 hours to complete on a good day. (You have to remember refueling stops, bathroom breaks, traffic, etc. Rare that you can average 70 mph over 700 miles on the east coast....maybe in the desert you can.) And that 14 hours would put him into the position that he'd have to take 10 hours off immediately. I'd expect someone to ask where he'd slept before taking the truck out.....they do have the right and some responsibility in this.

I think that's about the gist of what they're bitching about. The driver was also going 20mph over the posted speed limit and didn't recognize the traffic was slow ahead in a construction zone, a zone that had been clearly marked as coming up for two miles prior to the accident. Fatigue?

 

[Grey_Beard]

Unfortunately, there is some responsibility for the non use of the seatbelt, happens everyday for a lot less dollars than in this case. The personal responsibility of driver argument is interesting, as many here would throw Walmart under the proverbial bus if they were the driver. When acting in the role of employee, the employer is sued when there are errors or liability. This concept is called "deep pockets". Who ever is going after the claim goes after the party with the most amount to pay. The driver has limited ability to pay a claim or even the amount of damages for just the injuries.

Decisions have proven over the years that employers are responsible for the actions of their employees even when they have been "at a casino gambling all night before their shift." Medical malpractice is different, as the professional licensure of the individual has some liability for their actions even when deprived of sleep.

In this case the driver is not performing a task that is unique, requires special licensure, or requires special education along with mandated continuing education. When acting in the role of employee, the corporation has little room. Although there can be personal liability for the driver, such as they can go to jail for their actions if they violated the law, but their supervisor can too even though they did not willfully participate.

Settling this could have been better, but a corporation like Walmart rarely does "the right thing" for customers or the community if they perceive profits or investment returns could be enhanced, as all corporation do. There are very few socially responsible companies in today's world.

The corporate organism will act a certain way, regardless. The publicity of this will impact them, but given the defense they are using, they had to figure this would happen. The public has a short memory. They could just do a new "rollback" and recover this from the uninformed public that only cares about saving $0.01 on soap or aspirin, which what they built their reputation on.

What ever happen to their slogan, "Made in America"? Today you can find little not made in China of cheap materials and lacking in overall quality.

 

[The Merg]

The seatbelt claim is also flawed as since they were in a limo, the use of the seatbelt is not required.

I could just see WalMart making this same claim if their truck had crashed into a school bus and they blamed the kids for contributing to their injuries since they were not wearing seat belts (for which most buses do not have).

- Merg

 

[Londo_Jowo]

The seatbelt claim is also flawed as since they were in a limo, the use of the seatbelt is not required.

The Mercedes Benz Sprinter Limo Bus he was in was equipped with seat belts per federal law. New Jersey law requires all passengers to wear seat belts so the claim is not flawed.

 

[allisolm]

This is what Walmart said after the crash:

“If it’s determined that our truck caused the accident, Walmart will take full responsibility."

So much for "full responsibility."

 

[The Merg]

The Mercedes Benz Sprinter Limo Bus he was in was equipped with seat belts per federal law. New Jersey law requires all passengers to wear seat belts so the claim is not flawed.

Gotcha. Here in VA, livery vehicles are exempt from the seat belt laws.

- Merg

 

[NetGuySC]

The seatbelt claim is also flawed as since they were in a limo, the use of the seatbelt is not required.

I could just see WalMart making this same claim if their truck had crashed into a school bus and they blamed the kids for contributing to their injuries since they were not wearing seat belts (for which most buses do not have).

- Merg

I'm agreeing with WalMart on this one. If there were seat belts available and the passengers chose not to wear them, then they are partly responsible for their injuries.

 

[PokerGuy]

Apparently OP is ignorant of the concept of "comparative negligence". I could have just stopped after "ignorant"

 

[Newell Steamer]

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

how about they sue the driver who was responsible instead of the company that has the money?

oh wait i forgot who posted. some idiot who is jealous of anyone that makes more then min wage.

I don't know if you understand the nature of the job of driving. You are tasked to get somewhere in X number of hours or you are done. Whether it is rational does not matter. You get from A to B in X time or you're fired. In this day that means the chance of losing everything because you don't walk into another job. With work or ruin being the choices the former wins. Whether this applies in this specific case I can't say, but I do know it happens, often. So the the driver may have made the decision to eat and have a roof over his family's head, but ultimately those who blackmail people have responsibility in the matter. There is no such thing as a free choice when a gun is put to your head.

Edit- I see commuted 700 miles. That needs more examination. If the driver did so because of work (such as he was returning after a trip on business) then WM should have known the dangers. If he just decided to drive that distance then show up then it's on him.