Pages: 1 2 3 4

 

2008-12-05 08:24:17
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

Reciprocity wrote:

It's walmart's job to ensure the safety of its employees.  They appear to have failed in that task.  If it takes a big, painful lawsuit for walmart to improve its policies and proceedures, so be it.
This is true if the guy was killed because WalMart did not follow established, OSHA requirements. This guy was safe at WalMart, he was not safe with the 2000 people at WalMart.

Would you sue WalMart if this guy was returning shopping carts from the the parking lot to the store and was killed by a speeding drunk driver in the parking lot? Nope, oh wait, I forgot where I was. Of course you would.
2008-12-05 09:14:10
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7040|Salt Lake City

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Wal-Mart is partially responsible for this.

1. They invited and encouraged these people to come to their store.

2. BF is a well known shopping day where people are known to line up outside waiting for the doors to open.

3. This is not the first time this has happened.  As such, Wal-Mart had reasonable history to believe that this would be the same.

4. Wal-Mart is responsible for crowd control on their premises.

It then stands that Wal-Mart should have know that something like this was more than plausible and taken appropriate action ahead of time to restrict flow into the store in a manner that would not create this situation.
1. They had a sale!.......SUE THEM

2.  BF is a well known shopping day where people are known to line up outside waiting for the doors to open, it is not well know for ripping doors off of hinges and killing store employees.

3. Nope this is not the first time this has happened, so sue Walmart for the personal responsiblity of everyone at the store. Do they then, get to decide who gets in and who does not not? I doubt you will sign off on this. you will the nsue walmart for discrimination.

4. Walmart does have crowd control. A controlled entry and exit point. Now who is responsible for the 2000 people that refuse to follow the rules of this control point and basic civility, respect and responsibility?
I didn't say that Wal-Mart was wholy responsible, nor that there is no responsibility to those that actually trampled the employee.  However, Wal-Mart knew what BF shopping was like, and this is not the first time some one has been trampled to death on BF shopping furor.  Simply opening the doors to allow a mass flood of people in is not handling crowd control.  They should have taken measure that would control the flow of shoppers entering the store.
2008-12-05 09:17:06
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7000|NJ
Lowing if you were at wall mart with your family and a light fixtured fell and killed your wife and/or kid would you number 1 Sue? and if you did sue would you sue the Maintance guy or Wall mart?
2008-12-05 16:20:05
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6709|North Carolina

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Lowing if you were at wall mart with your family and a light fixtured fell and killed your wife and/or kid would you number 1 Sue? and if you did sue would you sue the Maintance guy or Wall mart?
I see what you're saying, but logically, this would actually be more of the fault of the maintenance person than of Walmart as a company.

Greed is a lot of the reason why people sue a company for the actions of an individual.
2008-12-05 17:46:59
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6884|the dank(super) side of Oregon

lowing wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

It's walmart's job to ensure the safety of its employees.  They appear to have failed in that task.  If it takes a big, painful lawsuit for walmart to improve its policies and proceedures, so be it.
This is true if the guy was killed because WalMart did not follow established, OSHA requirements. This guy was safe at WalMart, he was not safe with the 2000 people at WalMart.

Would you sue WalMart if this guy was returning shopping carts from the the parking lot to the store and was killed by a speeding drunk driver in the parking lot? Nope, oh wait, I forgot where I was. Of course you would.
oh, I forgot, walmart didn't invite 2000 people to stand in front of their store and then not employ proper crowd control and security.
2008-12-05 17:56:37
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Reciprocity wrote:

oh, I forgot, walmart didn't invite 2000 people to stand in front of their store and then not employ proper crowd control and security.
since when is it the duty of walmart to control the actions of people?
2008-12-05 18:01:48
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6884|the dank(super) side of Oregon

usmarine wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

oh, I forgot, walmart didn't invite 2000 people to stand in front of their store and then not employ proper crowd control and security.
since when is it the duty of walmart to control the actions of people?
when those people are in walmart's parking lot.  Crowds need control and order or they become mobs.
2008-12-05 18:12:27
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Reciprocity wrote:

when those people are in walmart's parking lot.  Crowds need control and order or they become mobs.
walmart is not responsible for crowd control.  thats stupid.  that is the job of the police.
2008-12-05 18:33:05
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

lowing wrote:

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

Wal-Mart is partially responsible for this.

1. They invited and encouraged these people to come to their store.

2. BF is a well known shopping day where people are known to line up outside waiting for the doors to open.

3. This is not the first time this has happened.  As such, Wal-Mart had reasonable history to believe that this would be the same.

4. Wal-Mart is responsible for crowd control on their premises.

It then stands that Wal-Mart should have know that something like this was more than plausible and taken appropriate action ahead of time to restrict flow into the store in a manner that would not create this situation.
1. They had a sale!.......SUE THEM

2.  BF is a well known shopping day where people are known to line up outside waiting for the doors to open, it is not well know for ripping doors off of hinges and killing store employees.

3. Nope this is not the first time this has happened, so sue Walmart for the personal responsiblity of everyone at the store. Do they then, get to decide who gets in and who does not not? I doubt you will sign off on this. you will the nsue walmart for discrimination.

4. Walmart does have crowd control. A controlled entry and exit point. Now who is responsible for the 2000 people that refuse to follow the rules of this control point and basic civility, respect and responsibility?
I didn't say that Wal-Mart was wholy responsible, nor that there is no responsibility to those that actually trampled the employee.  However, Wal-Mart knew what BF shopping was like, and this is not the first time some one has been trampled to death on BF shopping furor.  Simply opening the doors to allow a mass flood of people in is not handling crowd control.  They should have taken measure that would control the flow of shoppers entering the store.
No changes,

You don't hold them completely responsible, but enough to sue the shit outta them, whats the difference? Of course they know what BF is like, it is the first day of retail year that makes or breaks profits. Hence the sales. What is a retailer supposed to do? Clearly, this crowd wasn't going to maintain self control under any conditions. There is no stopping a mob by anyone other than police and law enforcement, not retail sales.

They had doors, do you expect Walmart to now, out up concrete barriers throughtout their parkinglots? Also for the 3rd time, if you will hold Walmart responsible for individual behavior among its custoners, will you all them the right to choose who gets in and who is kept out?
2008-12-05 18:37:06
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

Reciprocity wrote:

lowing wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

It's walmart's job to ensure the safety of its employees.  They appear to have failed in that task.  If it takes a big, painful lawsuit for walmart to improve its policies and proceedures, so be it.
This is true if the guy was killed because WalMart did not follow established, OSHA requirements. This guy was safe at WalMart, he was not safe with the 2000 people at WalMart.

Would you sue WalMart if this guy was returning shopping carts from the the parking lot to the store and was killed by a speeding drunk driver in the parking lot? Nope, oh wait, I forgot where I was. Of course you would.
oh, I forgot, walmart didn't invite 2000 people to stand in front of their store and then not employ proper crowd control and security.
Ok so we are back to SUE THEM! They had a sale whic hthey knew would bring a lot of people in the store. Kinda the point of a sale dontcha think?
2008-12-05 18:42:14
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Lowing if you were at wall mart with your family and a light fixtured fell and killed your wife and/or kid would you number 1 Sue? and if you did sue would you sue the Maintance guy or Wall mart?
Different situation, my family obviously was not safe in the store. OSHA and maintenance pratices were not followed. having a sale is not a crime, opening a door is not a crime, crowds of people is not a crime. What crime did Walmart commit? What crime did the mob commit?

and no, I would not sue for the sake of getting rich off of my kids death.
2008-12-05 19:05:01
Reciprocity
Member
+721|6884|the dank(super) side of Oregon

lowing wrote:

having a sale is not a crime, opening a door is not a crime, crowds of people is not a crime. What crime did Walmart commit? What crime did the mob commit?
why do you continue to confuse civil and criminal law?
2008-12-06 00:36:19
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

Reciprocity wrote:

lowing wrote:

having a sale is not a crime, opening a door is not a crime, crowds of people is not a crime. What crime did Walmart commit? What crime did the mob commit?
why do you continue to confuse civil and criminal law?
I am not confused at all, I see clearly what happened, and what is now happening and who is trying to profit from it.
2008-12-08 07:19:29
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7000|NJ

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Lowing if you were at wall mart with your family and a light fixtured fell and killed your wife and/or kid would you number 1 Sue? and if you did sue would you sue the Maintains guy or Wall mart?
Different situation, my family obviously was not safe in the store. OSHA and maintenance prat ices were not followed. having a sale is not a crime, opening a door is not a crime, crowds of people is not a crime. What crime did Walmart commit? What crime did the mob commit?

and no, I would not sue for the sake of getting rich off of my kids death.
Well my compression is an equal evaluation of the situation just at a smaller scale.. Lets say you don't know what matance guy did the light fixture? Lets say it happened cause wallmart paid 50cents less for a light fixture to say millions over all? It's the stores responsibility to protect the people in the store and in the parking lot. So it is there responsible to make sure that there is proper crowd control.. It's pretty cut and dry that Wall Mart does have some blame.
2008-12-08 07:27:09
Agent_Dung_Bomb
Member
+302|7040|Salt Lake City

usmarine wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

when those people are in walmart's parking lot.  Crowds need control and order or they become mobs.
walmart is not responsible for crowd control.  thats stupid.  that is the job of the police.
Bzzzzt, wrong answer.  Wal-Mart is responsible for crowd control.  The police have no authority to be there for crowd control unless Wal-Mart contracts with them to handle that function.
2008-12-09 04:03:33
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

Lowing if you were at wall mart with your family and a light fixtured fell and killed your wife and/or kid would you number 1 Sue? and if you did sue would you sue the Maintains guy or Wall mart?
Different situation, my family obviously was not safe in the store. OSHA and maintenance prat ices were not followed. having a sale is not a crime, opening a door is not a crime, crowds of people is not a crime. What crime did Walmart commit? What crime did the mob commit?

and no, I would not sue for the sake of getting rich off of my kids death.
Well my compression is an equal evaluation of the situation just at a smaller scale.. Lets say you don't know what matance guy did the light fixture? Lets say it happened cause wallmart paid 50cents less for a light fixture to say millions over all? It's the stores responsibility to protect the people in the store and in the parking lot. So it is there responsible to make sure that there is proper crowd control.. It's pretty cut and dry that Wall Mart does have some blame.
I don't think so, what is cut and dry is this family is going after anyone that seems to have a bank book for this.

again I will ask for the 5 th time. If Walmart is responsible for the actions of everyone at their stores, can they not have the right to choose who is allowed in their stores? You will not buy off on that, you want htem to take blanlet responsibility for people yet not allow them to do what they think is best to protect its customers. You want them to do what YOU think is best and hold them responsibile if YOUR plan fails, and someone gets hurt.
2008-12-09 04:25:50
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut
I have stayed out of this one because my opinion is bias. We were up around the clock looking into what happened in anticipation that litigation would be brought against them and this is where we stand. Not Guilty. Walmart is private property as well as public domain which means they are responsible for actions commited on their property within reason. That particular store hired Police officers that day, something they are NOT obligated to do so it proves that they reasonibly tried to maintain a safe environment for employees and patrons alike. Also, I am not sure if any of you are aware of this but, the patrons outside were actually smashing the glass to gain entry as well as using makeshift tools to dismantle the doors. That being said, who ever is responsible for those actions should be held responsible. Their actions infuriated a crowd and caused them to panic, resulting in a stampede. The only thing we can come up with thus far that hinders Walmarts arguement is this: Why is an hourly paid employee opening the door? The only policy that was broken is  that a salaried manager gave his building keys to someone to open a door. I am sure they will be found guilty because that is just how it works, however, that mans death is not their fault as a corporation. The mob of monkeys who trampled him should be found one by one and made to stand trial.
Malloy must go
2008-12-09 06:32:44
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7000|NJ

lowing wrote:

cpt.fass1 wrote:

lowing wrote:


Different situation, my family obviously was not safe in the store. OSHA and maintenance prat ices were not followed. having a sale is not a crime, opening a door is not a crime, crowds of people is not a crime. What crime did Walmart commit? What crime did the mob commit?

and no, I would not sue for the sake of getting rich off of my kids death.
Well my compression is an equal evaluation of the situation just at a smaller scale.. Lets say you don't know what matance guy did the light fixture? Lets say it happened cause wallmart paid 50cents less for a light fixture to say millions over all? It's the stores responsibility to protect the people in the store and in the parking lot. So it is there responsible to make sure that there is proper crowd control.. It's pretty cut and dry that Wall Mart does have some blame.
I don't think so, what is cut and dry is this family is going after anyone that seems to have a bank book for this.

again I will ask for the 5 th time. If Walmart is responsible for the actions of everyone at their stores, can they not have the right to choose who is allowed in their stores? You will not buy off on that, you want htem to take blanlet responsibility for people yet not allow them to do what they think is best to protect its customers. You want them to do what YOU think is best and hold them responsibile if YOUR plan fails, and someone gets hurt.
I do belive wallmart does reserve the right to refuse people entery in there store.. Also I would not have a problem if they did..
2008-12-09 08:40:20
deeznutz1245
Connecticut: our chimps are stealin yo' faces.
+483|6797|Connecticut

cpt.fass1 wrote:

I do belive wallmart does reserve the right to refuse people entery in there store.. Also I would not have a problem if they did..
They absolutely do. They are a corporation operating on privately owned property which enables them the right to refuse service to anyone at their discretion. Now, if their reason to refuse service is found to be discriminatory they may be sued civily and not criminaly due to their public domain status.
Malloy must go
2008-12-09 10:52:37
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA
I see, so no one on this forum would have a problem with Walmart refusing service to a person who dressed like a gangsta. Yeah right, I wonder how long that law suit would take to be filed.
2008-12-09 11:05:19
cpt.fass1
The Cap'n Can Make it Hap'n
+329|7000|NJ
No I wouldn't.. I do however think that wall mart knows the crowds that it appeals too and would shot them selves in the foot if they did so.. Let's face it the crowd was poor people, not people of money.

Side Note, ahh remember the 70-80's my mom use to dress me nice to go shopping so other people wouldn't think of us as slobs..
2008-12-09 20:01:38
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6955|USA

cpt.fass1 wrote:

No I wouldn't.. I do however think that wall mart knows the crowds that it appeals too and would shot them selves in the foot if they did so.. Let's face it the crowd was poor people, not people of money.

Side Note, ahh remember the 70-80's my mom use to dress me nice to go shopping so other people wouldn't think of us as slobs..
I know what you are saying and I don't disagree, but to play devil advocate here. Based on your post one could assume you would endorse Walmart being able to turn away poor people.

The fact is, Walmart can not turn people away based on what they think of the person or what they think a person might do. Only based on issues of offensivness.

Last edited by lowing (2008-12-10 20:20:10)

2008-12-10 15:39:02
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|7065

Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:

usmarine wrote:

Reciprocity wrote:

when those people are in walmart's parking lot.  Crowds need control and order or they become mobs.
walmart is not responsible for crowd control.  thats stupid.  that is the job of the police.
Bzzzzt, wrong answer.  Wal-Mart is responsible for crowd control.  The police have no authority to be there for crowd control unless Wal-Mart contracts with them to handle that function.
bzzzt.

so i can go piss all over the parking lot and walk around with my dick out and the cops have no authoruty because wal mart would have to request them first?  lewl
2009-01-10 05:01:28
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,060|7075|PNW

jord wrote:

lowing wrote:

jord wrote:


Unfortunately not helping people, laughing or being an asshole isn't a crime...
This is true, but they have video tapes and if they can identify the people who stomped this guy, there is your criminal suit. No blood money should be paid, unless by the criminals. WalMArt the county nor the police did anything wrong.
I disagree, Warlmart as a retailer shouldn't be letting a massive number of people through the doors like that. They should have prepared better for that day. Lets say, a row of security and if anyone so much as walks a fraction faster than anyone else they are pulled outta the queue. They're not completely responsible for this, but they are partially. It could've been avoided with good prep and common sense...
The manager should've waved his magic wand and summoned up a bunch of linebackers.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard