Customers injured in crush suing Wal-Mart

[Doughboy71]

Source: CNN

Two customers are suing Wal-Mart for negligence after being injured in a mad rush for post-Thanksgiving bargains that left one store employee dead, the men's attorney said Tuesday. A temporary worker at this Wal-Mart was crushed to death when shoppers rushed into the store last week.

Temporary Wal-Mart worker Jdimytai Damour, 34, was crushed to death as he and other employees attempted to unlock the doors of a store on Long Island at 5 a.m. Friday Attorney Kenneth Mollins said Fritz Mesadieu and Jonathan Mesadieu were "literally carried from their position outside the store" and are now "suffering from pain in their neck and their back from being caught in that surge of people" that rushed into the Wal-Mart.



Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2008/CRIME/12/02/walmart.trampling.suit/index.html

---

Why do I think the only people who should be suing are the family members of the person who died?

[hlthe2b]

1. My first thought, exactly

[BeFree]

34. Well

The idea that you can sue someone when you are harmed on their property is a good one.

To think otherwise is to allow anyone at anytime to do what they wanted with impunity. To think otherwise is to almost want to throw our judicial system under the bus.

If wally-world can be found to have played a hand in creating the panic in which folks got injured, then they need to be taught a lesson so that it doesn't happen again.

[hlthe2b]

38. Yes... of course...

But, I certainly would hope this would not open the doors for fraudulent claims. I would also think any injured customers might remain private about discussing their lawsuits, given the circumstances-- until the poor trampled man has been memorialized and his own suit, perhaps, filed by his family members.

[Lucian]

2. They should probably sue the people who crushed them instead.

[Deja Q]

7. Quite. Here's another analogy:

If this were "King Kong" and the monkey took a dump, those who got hit would sue the Empire State Building.

The monkey dropped it on the people, not the building.

Therefore those who ran indiscriminately and banging into each other* should be the ones tacked with suits.



* At least nobody got pregnant during that fateful morning.

[Ian David]

12. It's more like these were the people who used flash photography and enraged King Kong. n/t

[Deja Q]

14. Oooh, good point. The big stinkie came later on as the King had to lighten his load, somehow...

Faye Raye didn't weigh nearly as much...

Though these days, if they remade the film, Faye would have a gut larger than mine despite being half my age...

[amdezurik]

16. geez what BS

if that strained analogy were to occour the one to be sued would be the dickhead who ripped him away from his island and tried to make money by "exibiting" him. The idea that the conditions created by Wal-mart and their lack of any kind of security on a night that has always had this effect just to save a couple bucks should not be considered and to try to blame the people trying to do exactly what they were invited to that store to do is simply asinine.

[Deja Q]

23. Well, if the lawsuit against the store is asinine...

Everybody should pony up, in that case. Walmart didn't do its personal responsibility and neither did the shoppers.

Make 'em all pay.

[Tempest]

24. "Simply asinine"

That pretty much sums up most of hynotoad's arguments.

[Deja Q]

26. Why thank you! You're a shining example of humanity* too.

:*


* the polyp on humanity's anus, but whatever...

[jpertello]

72. Some good questions

Did that man get a temp job as a bodyguard? No. A doorman? No. Bouncer? No. Security gurard? Crowd Control? No. Did he sign on the line where it stated he'd be personally responsible for opening a door to 2000 people on Black Friday morning at 5 am? I am sure he DID NOT. In other words, he did not seek the job of Black Friday Blitz Doorbuster Greeter. And WHY was he placed in that unenviable position that morning? Because HE WAS 6'5" AND 370 LBS. Exploited by Walmart for his hulking frame! That is why they must pay out and pay out dearly. He was originally hired to do something relativily safe and completely different from the job they assigned him that morning, which tragically cost him his life. And why didn't he refuse outright to stand there with 2000 crazed lunatics ready to storm the doors at 5 am? Simple. He must've really needed the money.

[JeanGrey]

93. There wasn't a "lack of any kind of security" They had

security and barriers and consulted the cops from what I read. This will be a tough case to win.

[roguevalley]

29. to further your analogy, if the empire state building had done due

diligence and kept the monkey away, there would have been no poo. WalMart set up the circumstances, they are liable for the easily predictable outcomes.

[Deja Q]

31. At least some of these responses do more than name-call.

Which is a good thing, I should think...

:)

[roguevalley]

100. truly, sweetie. :-D

[northernlights]

39. well according to the police at the scene...

the security and barricades provided by Walmarts were grossly inadequate. Furthermore, the employees that were expected to manage this mob were not professionals trained in crowd control.

Walmarts is legally liable and morally responsible. They invited the crowd. They provided inadequate controls for the size of the crowd.

Certainly the crowd is responsible for their behavior in choosing to even go to the event and choosing to be part of the crowd. But how do you identify the responsible individuals? Do you blame the people at the front of the crowd that were probably being pushed forward by hundreds of people behind them? Or the people behind them who couldn't see what was happening up front?

Finally, you sue the ones you can identify with deep pockets. Given a choice between Walmarts and an anonymous crowd, Walmarts wins. As they say in the finance world, pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered.

[awoke_in_2003]

43. A few simple steps...

could have avoided this. Like stronger barricades with multiple turns in them to eliminate the forward crush. A few more uniformed, off duty cops controlling the crowd. Of course, this has never happened at a Walmart before. I am sure they will be considering this next year.

[hendo]

53. I love how everyone keeps bringing up off duty cops

How many off duty cops do you know who moonlight as a retail security guard?

Of the 40 cops that i know not one has a second job. They all work thier butts off while they are on shift and spend time with thier families or friends when they are not.

[Debi]

61. Many.

The off duty police officers and sheriff deputies perform security for our hospitals and our malls as well as events at our county owned facilities.

[hendo]

67. Often

working events is part of thier job description. I doubt the ones that you see at your county owned facilities are really off duty.

But here's a quick check, do they have thier uniforms on? If so, they are on duty.

[LostinVA]

71. No, they wear their uniforms during off-duty jobs

And, that was for all kinds of jobs: retail security, movie sets security, frat party crowd control, etc.

[Debi]

97. The are allowed to wear their uniforms for off-duty work

The hospitals pay them directly, as do the County owned facilities, not their departments.

You don't have to believe me if it helps you believe the point you are trying to make.

[awoke_in_2003]

62. Maybe they pay your cops up there

a decent wage. A cop with 5 years experience might get 36K a year, not much when you think about what they face. My sister is a county deputy and her girlfriend is a cop in one of our larger suburbs. I know quite a few cops who work jobs off duty, and off duty work usually pays more per hour than their day job (at least here).

[hendo]

66. Yup

all the cops I know make 50k+.

[awoke_in_2003]

79. Texas don't pay them much...

but they do get a good pension if they survive 20 years.

[hendo]

81. Thats too bad

Cops like teachers, deserve far more than they get paid.

[awoke_in_2003]

83. We don't pay teachers shit either...

and you can tell by our standing in the country.

[hendo]

87. Yup

Teachers deserve far more than they get paid. Its no wonder Americans are so uneducated.

[Debi]

98. $50,000 is not much money any more

Not if an officer is married with children and owns a home and vehicles.


That's just a couple of thousand over the median income in Iowa, the mid $40s is the average income for a peace officer in Iowa. Many take a second job as a private security officer to supplement their income.

[LostinVA]

70. I dated a cop for three years -- cops do all kinds of stuff like that when they are off-duty

Probably 90% of the cops I knew worked off-duty gigs -- officers FOUGHT over the jobs (it was generally seniority got first dibs).

[hendo]

85. We must know a radically different cop population then

nt.

[Warpy]

3. What they need to do is petition for a law

preventing sucker bait sales, where items on sale are ridiculously understocked to the point that it's a sprint to "win" one of two or three items and a crush for everybody else.

WalMart isn't the only store guilty of this, most chains do it and it needs to be stopped. It's a recipe for disaster and disaster is exactly what happened on Friday.

[hendo]

54. When you have 5000 people waiting for a TV

anything less than 5000 TVs is understocked. Wal-mart is unlikely to overstock merchandise because of the risk that they would be stuck with millions left in inventory were something to not sell out.

[ColbertWatcher]

4. Sadly, Wal-Mart is not accepting responsibility for their negligence; people are forced to sue.

In addition to Damour's family, I believe everyone who was injured should sue.

[hendo]

55. If they did accept responsibility

there would be far more law suits.

That's practically common sense.

[ColbertWatcher]

75. There could be as many lawsuits as there were people at the store.

They can limit them with videotape or other records of who was there, including photographs.

[hendo]

84. there would be lawsuits from people

who ever felt pushed around in a Wal-mart store, ever.

[ColbertWatcher]

88. No, there are statute of limitations and courts can still throw out frivilous suits. n/t

[hendo]

91. they can throw out frivilous suits

yet, for everyone they throw out another gets tried.

okay, maybe it isn't a straight 1 for 1, but frivilous suits get tried in court all the time.

[Deja Q]

5. They should all be suing the following instead of Walmart:

EACH OTHER.

[closeupready]

6. Are you suggesting Walmart is blameless for injuries sustained by those in the crowd?

Have they no role to play in controlling the mobs outside their own doors?

[Deja Q]

11. Is it their job to sell goods or keep armed guards handy at all times*?

* If the latter, DU would be littered with posts about how fascist Walmart has truly become in the homeland.

Damned if ye do, damned if ye don't.

[closeupready]

21. I know what you are saying, but they do have a responsibility to

control the crowds on their property. It's not a matter of having armed guards; it could be as simple of a matter as getting people to line up. Sounds to me like they simply had a huge mob outside their doors, pressing to get in minutes before opening. That is downright irresponsible, IMO.

[Tempest]

22. It's their job to provide crowd control

And there's decades of case law to prove it.

[Deja Q]

30. Splendid! Give us some links so we may be edified.

If not, shut up and bugger off with your petulant name-calling. For one thing, it's contagious. So be better than the rest of us... or zip it.

Thank you.

[hendo]

56. GLOMP

Sometimes you make the best posts ever HypnoToad!!

[Tempest]

8. Regardless of what some others think, Walmart is to blame

They are responsible for crowd control and there was none.

It's the same for concerts and other public events.

[Deja Q]

13. So much for personal responsibility. Hey, when's the next time you'll be at a store during a sale?

:evilfrown:

[awoke_in_2003]

45. Yes, there is personal responsibility...

I am not a big advocate for the police, but 2 or 3 off duty uniformed cops "showing the flag" is enough to make people think about how they are acting. I live in an area with some of the craziest drivers in the world, and it is amazing how much more in control people become when a cop car is rolling along with them. Hell, people even remember to use their blinkers when changing lanes :)

[hendo]

57. didnt you know?

personal responsibility was thrown out a long time ago.

Especially when the alternative is to blame a big corporation.

[amdezurik]

17. it's just hypetroll

no big deal, just expect a throughly narrow and silly viewpoint to be expressed by it...

[Tempest]

20. He convienently ignores decades of case law

Where companies and promoters have been held responsible for crowd control.

That's why they have insurance against such things.

[Deja Q]

27. Well, I'm not a lawyer nor a historian so how the fuck would I know in the first place?

Seems you're being convenient too.

But that's okay.

:*

[bitchkitty]

33. Since you admit you don't know,

then why are you crapping all over the thread? You sure seem determined to defend WalMart. I guess you'd feel differently if it were your brother or mom injured in the mob that THEY created.

[Deja Q]

47. Good point. Let me know when the troll responds to my query about the scores of related cases.

:shrug:

Incidentally, I am not defending Walmart as I am saying those DIPSHITS could have had self-restraint too. They CHOSE to act like animals.

So you yourself can go take a crap too. May I suggest some prune juice to go along with it too.

[bitchkitty]

78. And Walmart created the environment in which

the savages could run wild. They failed to create a safe place for their employees to work.

That the tramplers were dipshits is beyond dispute. If this had been a concert or some such venue, the promoters would have been accountable. Why isn't Walmart?

[hendo]

58. I too

am interested in your decades of case law.

Examples please.

[Deja Q]

25. With people like you, why should I give lengthy responses?

You are not worth it.

Go drink some prune juice and get a good night's sleep. You'll feel better tomorrow.

[awoke_in_2003]

46. "Go drink some prune juice"

Hey, no reason to get nasty :)

[Ian David]

9. Well, now we can figure out which people to charge with murder. n/t

[gogoplata]

10. Any of them Patricia Vanlester?

'Trampled' Wal-Mart Shopper Has History Of Injury Claims
Report: Woman Has Filed 15 Previous Claims, 8 At Wal-Mart Stores
Tony Pipitone, WKMG-Local 6 News
http://www.local6.com/news/2683654/detail.html

POSTED: 5:20 pm EST December 4, 2003
UPDATED: 6:50 pm EST December 9, 2003

ORANGE CITY, Fla. -- A woman reported "trampled" last Friday by Wal-Mart shoppers desperate for $29.87 DVD players has a long history of claiming injuries from Wal-Marts and other businesses where she worked or shopped.

Video
'Trampled' Wal-Mart Shopper Has History Of Injury Claims

Patricia Vanlester, 41, was knocked unconscious and, her sister said, "trampled by a herd of elephants" by a stampede of shoppers reaching for DVD players that went on sale at 6 a.m. the day after Thanksgiving, according to Orange City police and the sister, Linda Ellzey.

The story was picked up by the Associated Press and carried in newspapers and other media as far away as Australia and China, an example -- some commentators have opined -- of American excess during the holiday shopping season.

An investigation by WKMG-Local 6 reveals Vanlester has filed 15 previous claims of injuries at Wal-Mart stores and other places she has shopped or worked, according to Wal-Mart, court files and state records. Her sister, who accompanied her Friday on the visit to Wal-Mart, has also filed a prior injury claim against Wal-Mart, with Vanlester as her witness, a company spokeswoman said yesterday.......

[Hassin Bin Sober]

65. Wow! Poor thing has bad luck.

[Dorian Gray]

80. Some people

really are asshats.

15 prior claims? Christ! I only know one person who ever filed a injury claim ever, and nobody who has ever done repetitive ones.

[Javaman]

15. ...

:popcorn:

[Ian David]

18. The Stampede to Tragedy

The Stampede to Tragedy
Monday, Dec. 17, 1979

It was a tough ticket. All 18,348 of them were gone 90 minutes after they went on sale in late September at Cincinnati's Riverfront Coliseum. The Who had not played the area since 1975. It was an event.

Fans converged from all over. Danny and Connie Burns left their two young children at home, got on a chartered bus in Dayton and headed for the concert.

Though the music was not billed to being until 8 p.m., the crowd started building outside the coliseum around 1 o'clock Monday afternoon. By 3, the police had arrived to keep watch. With so long to wait, the kids tried to keep a party mood going. There was some drinking, some grass.

<snip>

Lieut. Menkhaus heard that "people were down in the crowd." There was nothing he could do. The mob was still moving and could not be penetrated. When the initial press slackened, the police started to force their way through. They found the first body at 7:45. In all, there were eight injured and eleven dead—seven men and four women. Three were high school students, another was a highway worker. One was Connie Burns. According to a coroner's preliminary report, they had died of suffocation.

<snip>

Still being debated, however, was the question of responsibility. Promoter Levy denied that he or his organization had anything to do with determining the number of security officers used inside or outside the coliseum. By week's end, the coliseum management had not broken the official silence it had maintained since Monday night.

More:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,920746,00.html

[flvegan]

19. A serious injury deserves damages.

Fact is, they were injured on Wal Mart property. Despite what folks think, these people have every right to sue.

[gogoplata]

32. "A serious injury deserves damages" In general?

[flvegan]

41. If inflicted due to determined negligence, then yes.

It gets subrogated to a percentile of fault and damages are awarded. It's called liability law.

Car plows into you because a stop sign was blown down, you sue the driver and the municipality responsible for the sign. You really want to give up your right to compensation?

[MindPilot]

44. Right, and there doesn't even have to be negligence

The Pinto case IIRC was decided on strict liability. Cars should not blow up. Period. No matter haw hard you hit one. Ford's death/lawsuit ratio calculation just made the punitive damages that much worse.

[gogoplata]

68. You climb a tree, then fall out landing on your head.

You deserve compensation?

[flvegan]

86. Deserve? Maybe.

In your case that doesn't fit what I said, you could still sue the private property owner and win. My statement, which you're now trying to hopelessly twist, suggests liability via negligence. Let me twist your example. I'm drunk as hell after the Super Bowl at my buddy's house. He bought the beer and let me have as much as I want. During our post game celebration, he dares/bets/goads me into climbing the tree, even though he knows the tree is in bad shape and dying. I fall, land on my head. Suffer serious injury, then yes, I deserve partial compensation.

See the problem is, you're suggesting an event without any reasoning.

[Deja Q]

50. The employee who died is the only one with the right to sue.

And the estate should sue the shitheads who decided to act like bulls in a glass factory.

There may or may not be other valid points, but those who have been saying there are many cases where the store was found liable haven't posted their proof yet so they can zip it until they do. I'm not doing their work for them.

Indeed, if my shoelace was undone and I tripped, could I sue the store I was in? That's bullshit too and would NEVER go anywhere.

[flvegan]

82. The patrons were hurt on Wal Mart's property. End of story.

That ALONE entitles them to potential damages. Your shoelace analogy doesn't work because YOU are the negligent party. But, slip on something that was spilled, get hurt, and sue.

The store could be proven negligent in part in that tramplings resulting in injury in this same exact case have happened in the past and therefore they had hindsight to prevent it.

[Doughboy71]

90. If that is the case

If I hit someone in the WalMart parking lot and they are injured, do they get to sue WalMart too? Using your logic they would get to sue WalMart just because we were on WalMart property.

[flvegan]

92. Another post of an event with no case.

And fooling yourself into thinking that you're using my logic isn't helping.

First, I'll assume by "hit" you mean in a car and not physically. Could they sue? Sure. Anyone can sue anyone. Would they win? Don't know, is WalMart somehow negligent or responsible for your plowing into someone.

The other fantastic thing is you've now mixed automotive liability into it. Ever wonder why your homeowners insurance has absolutely no regard to your car? You know why they sell big dollar umbrella personal liability policies?

[Scooter24]

28. Can't say this is surprising given the circumstances.

[MindPilot]

35. One of the very first things taught in my very first law class

was the concept of "strict liability". It means fundamentally that if, for example, you go into your local car dealer, slip on some oil and fall, the car deal is liable for your injuries. It doesn't matter that you were a moron, ignored the sign and failed to see the puddle you stepped in. All that can be argued in court as mitigating circumstances, perhaps even reducing any financial reward to zero, but nothing will change the fact that the proprietor of the establishment is liable for the injuries sustained on their property.

WalMart is liable for injuries. Period.

[AndyA]

36. What the f*ck, people. It's WALMART, for cryin' out loud!

They sell shit. They have lots of it to sell. What is the big deal? Do these people REALLY NOT HAVE LIVES? I think it's pathetic that people camp out in the cold parking lot sometimes for more than a day in order to be first in line.

I mean...REALLY...it's not like each store only has ONE of each item to sell! :eyes:

People are really, truly pathetic. They will miss Thanksgiving with their families so they can spend it in the cold parking lot to be first in line to shop the next day.

PATHETIC.

[Deja Q]

60. Well, if they sold shit, how come people keep going there?

Besides, who knows what their family lives were. If they had families - does anybody even value families anymore, these days?

Wal-Mart is undoubtedly culpable for some of this mess. But for people to say wal-mart is the only factor -- they are wrong.

[Debi]

37. While I don't dispute that a suit may be necessary - how do these people know what all their damages

are at this point? All medical expenses? Any permanent injuries? Lost wages? How can they file a law suit based on 'pain in their neck and their back' w/out knowing how long that pain will endure and if it will cause them problems for any significant period?

[MindPilot]

40. They don't, but there are two main factors.

One, a trial is easily a year or more away; most everyone will know by then.
secondly, for victims still needing treatment or care, those costs can be projected forward to calculate damages.

[Debi]

51. I know you are an attorney

you wrote the word 'secondly' :P

Thanks. :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

42. I say Wal-mart should sue the shoppers.

For damaging their doors and lost revenue.

[Deja Q]

49. Nice.

:thumbsup:

Get your flamesuit on too.

[Debi]

52. ha!

Yer such an ass!

[gogoplata]

69. and bad PR.

[sandnsea]

48. Why? Because you don't understand the law?

And the liability businesses have when they open their doors. You have to create a safe environment for customers and employees. Why don't you understand that?

[Deja Q]

59. Well, if this were an actual society, we'd ALL do our part to act RESPONSIBLY.

The fact there's so much REASONABLE DOUBT might just get most if not all upcoming lawsuits dismissed in court.

I don't know.

What I do know is, the shoppers shouldn't have acted like animals either. And everybody else is just pissing and moaning about semantics.

[sandnsea]

64. That's what the stores promote

This is like opening a titty bar and then putting the one dancer behind a curtain and being shocked that the curtain got ripped down. It's ridiculous. Retailers are causing this and they need to change the way they do these sales.

[depakid]

95. Reasonable doubt has NOTHING to do with civil liability

and no, what people are concerned with is corporate accountability for negligent behavior (promoting such a sale and failing to institute proper crowd control) that caused foreseeable injuries to others.

If Walmart were smart about this- they pay these people's medical expenses and settle the claims promptly to get them out of the news. As a business matter, PR value in appear to care and accept responsibility probably far outwieghs what they'll end up paying out.

[chelsea0011]

63. That didn't take long...back and neck injuries.

[Belial]

73. Thats the first thing I do after I go shopping now..

Thats the first thing I do after I go shopping now.. talk to my Dr and Attorney..

[jpertello]

74. Why Walmart MUST pay!

Did that man get a temp job as a bodyguard? No. A doorman? No. Bouncer? No. Security gurard? Crowd Control? No. Did he sign on the line where it stated he'd be personally responsible for opening a door to 2000 people on Black Friday morning at 5 am? I am sure he DID NOT. In other words, he did not seek the job of Black Friday Blitz Doorbuster Greeter. And WHY was he placed in that unenviable position that morning? Because HE WAS 6'5" AND 370 LBS. Exploited by Walmart for his hulking frame! That is why they must pay out and pay out dearly. He was originally hired to do something relativily safe and completely different from the job they assigned him that morning, which tragically cost him his life. And why didn't he refuse outright to stand there with 2000 crazed lunatics ready to storm the doors at 5 am? Simple. He must've really needed the money.

[ColbertWatcher]

89. Sadly everyone in America needs money. But, not all of us workers get bailouts. n/t

[LisaL]

76. They are suffering from pain in the neck and back?

[JeanGrey]

94. I wonder how many of the people that are suing finished

their shopping?

[Dorian Gray]

77. I agree

they were a part of the problem... the people who are suing should be happy that they are alive and apologize for being a part of the group that killed another human being.

[w4rma]

96. That woman who lost her baby by getting crushed should be sueing Wal-Mart also. (nt)

[JonQ]

99. I wonder if the tramplers will sue

I'm sure some of them got blood on their shoes, or sprained an ankle while crushing the guys skull. They're the overlooked victims here.

Walmart owes them and their families big time.