Recommend
2 
 Thumb up
 Hide
77 Posts
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Everything Else » Religion, Sex, and Politics

Subject: For those who hate Wal-Mart... rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: For_those_who_hate_Rich [+] [View All]
Chris R.
United States
Unspecified
Missouri
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
In February 2011, a woman was loading groceries into her car in the parking lot of a Chattanooga Wal-Mart when another driver backed out without looking, "knocked her over, crushed her with a shopping cart and pinned her between the two vehicles."

That driver had just been kicked out of the Wal-Mart store because she was acting drunk and belligerent.

So the woman who was injured thinks that Wal-Mart is responsible for injuries caused by the drunk driver. What? Where will this end?

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/24/drunken-custo...

The Tennessee Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the case, so now the case is headed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Wow, how much business liability insurance do places really need? And would an insurance company really cover something crazy like this?

"There are some things that a business owner just can't control." -- Elizabeth Milito, senior executive council with the NFIB Small Business Legal Center.

Really? Where's your proof?

"Wal-Mart has a Wild West mentality that you better look out for yourself." -- attorney for the injured party

A Wild West mentality involving temperance, automobiles, and shopping carts?
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Mac Mcleod
United States
houston
Texas
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sikeospi wrote:
In February 2011, a woman was loading groceries into her car in the parking lot of a Chattanooga Wal-Mart when another driver backed out without looking, "knocked her over, crushed her with a shopping cart and pinned her between the two vehicles."

That driver had just been kicked out of the Wal-Mart store because she was acting drunk and belligerent.

So the woman who was injured thinks that Wal-Mart is responsible for injuries caused by the drunk driver. What? Where will this end?

http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2013/jul/24/drunken-custo...

The Tennessee Court of Appeals overturned a lower court's decision to dismiss the case, so now the case is headed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.

Wow, how much business liability insurance do places really need? And would an insurance company really cover something crazy like this?

"There are some things that a business owner just can't control." -- Elizabeth Milito, senior executive council with the NFIB Small Business Legal Center.

Really? Where's your proof?

"Wal-Mart has a Wild West mentality that you better look out for yourself." -- attorney for the injured party

A Wild West mentality involving temperance, automobiles, and shopping carts?


I can't see how Walmart is morally responsible or fully legally responsible.

It has to hang on Walmart asking the drunk customer to leave without seeing them completely off the premises because walmart could not control the case of an arriving drunk driver injuring a customer.

---

Closest thing I could find...

Is a mall liable for an accident that happens in the parking lot?
Answered by an accident lawyer:

Under Pennsylvania law, malls, shopping centers, grocery stores, etc. may be liable for incidents that occur in the parking lot. This includes fall down (slip/trip) accidents and criminal acts of third parties. Who the actual defendant is will depend on who conducts maintenance or management of the parking lot and/or who owns the parking lot. Malls are generally operated by companies, so that company could be liable, in addition to the actual mall owner, parking lot operators, security companies, etc. Learn about businesses and the different duties owed under Pennsylvania business accident liability law.

Generally, the theories of liability include negligent maintenance, negligent security, and/or negligent hiring. Here are two common scenarios in which a mall would probably be liable for an incident that happens in the mall parking lot:

1. Mall patron trips over a large hole in the asphalt of a parking space when exiting from a vehicle. Due to the poor lighting of the parking lot, it is difficult to see the hole at night;

2. Mall patron is mugged on their way back to their car after visiting the mall. Over a several month period prior to the incident, there were a slew of robberies and assaults of patrons in the mall parking lot; however the mall does nothing about it and does not even bother to put up warning signs in the parking lot to let patrons know about the problem.

Assessing liability requires careful analysis of the facts and legal issues in the case. It is important to contact a business liability lawyer as soon as possible.


----

It seems to me that given no prior similar incident, at the least Walmart wouldn't be responsible the first time this happens.

If it recurred, they might need to put policies in place.

In any case, I imagine it could be covered by their insurance and would slightly raise the insurance rates going forward.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Liam
Scotland
flag msg tools
admin
badge
I am BGG's official honey trap
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Yeah sounds like a whole heap of nonsense. I still hate Wal-Mart, though, so I hope she wins.

This said I would be looking for security staff in these situations to be better trained, if they suspected the offender was drunk, keep an eye on whether the offender enters a vehicle and if so inform the police.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The store recognized the public intoxication and failed to even call police. You don't have to hate Wal-Mart to see that some responsibility for the consequences of failing to contact law enforcement should be discussed.

For full disclosure I do hate Wal-Mart. But that has nothing to do with the idea that ejecting a drunk person from a property without contacting police leaves that party with some responsibility over the consequences.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
R. Frazier
United States
West Sacramento
California
flag msg tools
A man learns little by little in battle. Take this battle experience and become a man who can’t be beaten
badge
This flag says we will fight until only our bones are left.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Hahahahah Wal-Mart has a reputation for paying no settlements ever so I anticipate that they will litigate this to the hilt.

I don't see a duty here, so I don't know how she wins this but this isn't in my area of greatest expertise, so maybe there's a precedent I'm unaware of.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
The store recognized the public intoxication and failed to even call police. You don't have to hate Wal-Mart to see that some responsibility for the consequences of failing to contact law enforcement should be discussed.

For full disclosure I do hate Wal-Mart. But that has nothing to do with the idea that ejecting a drunk person from a property without contacting police leaves that party with some responsibility over the consequences.


This. If a bar sends you packing for being too drunk and you run someone over on your way home, they're liable( to an extent, I know their liquor license is in jeopardy) The idea is you have a common sense obligation to realize this person is a danger. They most likely arrived in a vehicle, Your kicking them out means they're most likely to go to operate that vehicle. The proper response is to either call the police, a cab, or be sure the person has another person they know with them who can take responsibility for them.

Imagine rolling a trolley down a hill, somewhere at the bottom it ends up hitting someone and injuring them. Sure you didn't intend for it to, but you negligently set in motion a chain of events with a reasonable sense of a level of danger involved.

But wait! you say, people are responsible for themselves! No, not really when drunk. Diminished capacity is a known side effect of drunkenness. It obliterates the ability to form consent among other things. So that drink person becomes (in part) the trolley. You rolled them out of your business and they ran someone over.

3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
rylfrazier wrote:
Hahahahah Wal-Mart has a reputation for paying no settlements ever so I anticipate that they will litigate this to the hilt.

I don't see a duty here, so I don't know how she wins this but this isn't in my area of greatest expertise, so maybe there's a precedent I'm unaware of.


There is a legal responsibility to make reasonable protections to customers, which is well illustrated in the OP's article.

When Wal-Mart ejected this person they were obviously aware that she was a danger to others, yet they took absolutely no action to protect the customers in their parking area or the people on adjacent streets. That is negligent.
6 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Rich Charters
United States
Chandler
Arizona
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Shushnik wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
Hahahahah Wal-Mart has a reputation for paying no settlements ever so I anticipate that they will litigate this to the hilt.

I don't see a duty here, so I don't know how she wins this but this isn't in my area of greatest expertise, so maybe there's a precedent I'm unaware of.


There is a legal responsibility to make reasonable protections to customers, which is well illustrated in the OP's article.

When Wal-Mart ejected this person they were obviously aware that she was a danger to others, yet they took absolutely no action to protect the customers in their parking area or the people on adjacent streets. That is negligent.
I disagree. They found a drunk customer so they kicked that person out of their store. They protected their customers by kicking her out of their store. Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.

Also, what do you mean by adjacent streets? Are you suggesting that WalMart security follow her home with their hazard lights flashing??

Are people suggesting that WalMart security hould have handcuffed her to a chair in a padded room until she sobered up??

Also, do you really think citizens should call the police whenever we encounter someone drunk in public? Let's really think about what we're suggesting.

I tend to like Walmart because so many people hate it. I'd say try to create an organization that size that runs as well as Walmart before criticizing Sam Walton.

My key learning from this incident: be alert when walking through a parking lot. If you're aware of what's going on around you it's not that difficult to avoid a car backing from a parking space.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
sikeospi wrote:

"There are some things that a business owner just can't control." -- Elizabeth Milito, senior executive council with the NFIB Small Business Legal Center.


WalMart has -who- speaking for them?
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
richcharters wrote:
Shushnik wrote:
rylfrazier wrote:
Hahahahah Wal-Mart has a reputation for paying no settlements ever so I anticipate that they will litigate this to the hilt.

I don't see a duty here, so I don't know how she wins this but this isn't in my area of greatest expertise, so maybe there's a precedent I'm unaware of.


There is a legal responsibility to make reasonable protections to customers, which is well illustrated in the OP's article.

When Wal-Mart ejected this person they were obviously aware that she was a danger to others, yet they took absolutely no action to protect the customers in their parking area or the people on adjacent streets. That is negligent.
I disagree. They found a drunk customer so they kicked that person out of their store. They protected their customers by kicking her out of their store. Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.

Also, what do you mean by adjacent streets? Are you suggesting that WalMart security follow her home with their hazard lights flashing??

Are people suggesting that WalMart security hould have handcuffed her to a chair in a padded room until she sobered up??

Also, do you really think citizens should call the police whenever we encounter someone drunk in public? Let's really think about what we're suggesting.

I tend to like Walmart because so many people hate it. I'd say try to create an organization that size that runs as well as Walmart before criticizing Sam Walton.

My key learning from this incident: be alert when walking through a parking lot. If you're aware of what's going on around you it's not that difficult to avoid a car backing from a parking space.


I mean that by failing to notify the authorities, they Wal-Mart has negligently endangered the entire community at large by ejecting a publicly intoxicated person who they should reasonably know is going to try to drive in that condition.

I didn't say anyone should follow her home. I said they are required to contact the police as a reasonable measure to attempt to protect their customers and the community. Detaining her would have also been a viable option. Large box stores often use such tactics with shoplifters so it is not unreasonable to think they could have done so with a person who is so intoxicated they felt it appropriate to disallow her presence.

Instead, they thrust her out and did not even attempt to notify the authorities so that they could do something about the obvious danger to which the store was fully aware. They had the knowledge and chose to withhold that knowledge from the public security systems that would have attempted to ensure community safety. Thereby, Wal-Mart implicitly accepted responsibility for some measure of the consequences of the actions of this danger to the public.

I will only address your final statement to note that it is incredibly insensitive to assume the unfortunate victim of this fraction of a human being's drunken driving and Wal-Mart's callous negligence should be more attentive to this danger. The concept that you blame the victim more than Wal-Mart is both shocking and depressing. Shame on you.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Josh
United States
Pennsylvania
flag msg tools
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
richcharters wrote:
I disagree. They found a drunk customer so they kicked that person out of their store. They protected their customers by kicking her out of their store. Sounds like a reasonable solution to me.


Tell that to the Walmart customer who was crushed. I'm sure she felt really 'protected' by that shopping cart.

richcharters wrote:

Also, what do you mean by adjacent streets? Are you suggesting that WalMart security follow her home with their hazard lights flashing??

Are people suggesting that WalMart security hould have handcuffed her to a chair in a padded room until she sobered up??


Unless you completely chose to ignore my post, I stated what they should have done. There is no requirement to restrain the drunken individual provided you are calling authorities. You aren't required to put yourself in harms way(by attempting restraint) you *are* required to make a stab at public safety.

richcharters wrote:

Also, do you really think citizens should call the police whenever we encounter someone drunk in public? Let's really think about what we're suggesting.


You as an individual on the street observing a person behaving drunkenly have different obligations from a place of business ejecting a drunken person from their establishment.

[/q]

richcharters wrote:

My key learning from this incident: be alert when walking through a parking lot. If you're aware of what's going on around you it's not that difficult to avoid a car backing from a parking space.


I am all for people being more aware, I find a lack of awareness to be the main fault with many people I come across, however this creates an extremely vague level of responsibility. Exactly how fast must a car be going before it's no longer your fault? Under what visability conditions? At what age? Certainly a spry man in his 30's can react better than an enfeebled man in his 80's, what is their personal level of culpability? These are all silly questions because using 'be more aware' as a legal standard is silly.

Euroncrowseye wrote:

And yet a person who commits a crime while drunk still feels the full weight of the law. Either you are capable of making decisions or you are not.


http://www.dfwdwi.com/intoxication-manslaughter/

2 second google. We have a whole host of different crimes and punishments for people who are intoxicated compared to those who are not. I personally don't think we should, but we do. Society recognizes the diminished capacity.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Euroncrowseye wrote:
Shadrach wrote:
But wait! you say, people are responsible for themselves! No, not really when drunk. Diminished capacity is a known side effect of drunkenness. It obliterates the ability to form consent among other things. So that drink person becomes (in part) the trolley. You rolled them out of your business and they ran someone over.


And yet a person who commits a crime while drunk still feels the full weight of the law. Either you are capable of making decisions or you are not.
That would because they might not be capable of making decision, but they are responsible for being in that state.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Sorry but once you are in the public street Walmart cannot be considered responsible for your actions, they can be held (and should be held) responsible for what happens in their car park. After all (if like in the UK) they enforce parking restrictions and levy fines, so they are the enforcement body.

If they are responsible for not informing the police about a drunk customer would any one here be happy about being responsible for not informing the police about a drunk mate?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Richard Hefferan
United States
Saint Paul
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Sorry but once you are in the public street Walmart cannot be considered responsible for your actions, they can be held (and should be held) responsible for what happens in their car park. After all (if like in the UK) they enforce parking restrictions and levy fines, so they are the enforcement body.

If they are responsible for not informing the police about a drunk customer would any one here be happy about being responsible for not informing the police about a drunk mate?


Yes. I am fine with holding individuals responsible for failing to seek help with dangerous situations and the consequences for that failure to seek help.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Crypt Keeper
United States
California
flag msg tools
None shall pass!
badge
'Tis but a scratch.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb

I like Wal-Mart. I just always feel like I need to take a shower after I shop there.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
dont necessarily hate walmart....as much as i hate the shambling masses that somehow keep the floors from ever being clean inside a walmart




im willing to drive a little further and pay a few cents more to not be corralled with the roaming dead

plus meijers mop their damn floors
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
Altair IV wrote:
dont necessarily hate walmart....as much as i hate the shambling masses that somehow keep the floors from ever being clean inside a walmart




im willing to drive a little further and pay a few cents more to not be corralled with the roaming dead

plus meijers mop their damn floors
MMM, low pay, poor staff relations , dirty floors, I wonder if there could be a connection?
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Homo Ludens
United Kingdom
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
The first law of litigation...only sue people who have money

I guess Wal-Mart is a better prospect in that regard.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bat Profile
United States
Sandworms USA
Plateau of Leng
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
slatersteven wrote:
Altair IV wrote:
dont necessarily hate walmart....as much as i hate the shambling masses that somehow keep the floors from ever being clean inside a walmart




im willing to drive a little further and pay a few cents more to not be corralled with the roaming dead

plus meijers mop their damn floors
MMM, low pay, poor staff relations , dirty floors, I wonder if there could be a connection?



yeah....ever had a good experience dealing with people that have a shit job for shit pay and shit benefits and they know it?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Steak Fairy
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BellaDonna74 wrote:
Rich is a fucking asshole who thinks he knows everything! But he doesn't he's a narcissistic pig who controls his kids and tried to controll me and my child too bad he's a fucking loser. Everyone should avoid the asshole. Who believes in polygamy and thinks his life is perfect! I hope he dies in hell like Jesus predicts since he believes in himself and no one else! Loser bitch!


Jesus predicted that? What did he predict about Wal-Mart?
15 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Boise
Idaho
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
BellaDonna74 wrote:
Rich is a fucking asshole


Describes the 90% of RSP who are assholes. The remaining 10% are cunts.

Quote:
who thinks he knows everything!


Getting pretty close to 100% of RSP in this comment.

Quote:
he's a fucking loser.


Probably.

Quote:
Who believes in polygamy and thinks his life is perfect!


Well shit, if he actually does have multiple wives that means he's getting tons of sex and the house is clean. That's pretty fucking close to perfect.


Quote:
Loser bitch!


Okay, now you're just getting personal. I'm guessing he kicked you out of the coven?
12 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Boaty McBoatface
England
County of Essex
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
DWTripp wrote:
BellaDonna74 wrote:
Rich is a fucking asshole


Describes the 90% of RSP who are assholes. The remaining 10% are cunts.

Quote:
who thinks he knows everything!


Getting pretty close to 100% of RSP in this comment.

Quote:
he's a fucking loser.


Probably.

Quote:
Who believes in polygamy and thinks his life is perfect!


Well shit, if he actually does have multiple wives that means he's getting tons of sex and the house is clean. That's pretty fucking close to perfect.


Quote:
Loser bitch!


Okay, now you're just getting personal. I'm guessing he kicked you out of the coven?
Or kicked them in the coven?
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Junior McSpiffy
United States
Riverton
Utah
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
BellaDonna74 wrote:
Rich is a fucking asshole who thinks he knows everything! But he doesn't he's a narcissistic pig who controls his kids and tried to controll me and my child too bad he's a fucking loser. Everyone should avoid the asshole. Who believes in polygamy and thinks his life is perfect! I hope he dies in hell like Jesus predicts since he believes in himself and no one else! Loser bitch!


So, since this is a WalMart-centric thread, the only conclusion I can draw is that the weekend child exchange in the WalMart parking lot went poorly because someone got hit by a drunk driver? Good thing the kid was in a car seat...
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Neon Joe, Werewolf He-yump
United States
Lincoln
NE
flag msg tools
badge
Avatar
mbmbmb
Euroncrowseye wrote:
MisterCranky wrote:
BellaDonna74 wrote:
Rich is a fucking asshole who thinks he knows everything! But he doesn't he's a narcissistic pig who controls his kids and tried to controll me and my child too bad he's a fucking loser. Everyone should avoid the asshole. Who believes in polygamy and thinks his life is perfect! I hope he dies in hell like Jesus predicts since he believes in himself and no one else! Loser bitch!


Jesus predicted that? What did he predict about Wal-Mart?


More importantly, *control.


That's easily the least interesting of the various grammatical errors in that paragraph, but since even those fall beneath Sir Cranks-A-Lot's "interesting enough to give a fuck about" threshold, I will take a crack at correcting this bolt from the blue of personal scorn

What BellaDonna 74 should have wrote:
Rich is a fucking asshole who thinks he knows everything! But he doesn't; he's a narcissistic pig who not only controls his own kids, but has also tried to control both my child and me. Too bad he's a fucking loser - everyone should avoid the asshole.

[paragraph break]

He believes in polygamy and thinks his life is perfect! I hope he dies and then goes to hell like Jesus predicted, since he believes in himself and no one else!

[paragraph break]

Loser bitch!


(edit: Moved to the Religion, Spelling and Personal attacks forum)
10 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
The Steak Fairy
United States
Columbia
South Carolina
flag msg tools
Games? People still play games??
badge
Specious arguments are not proof of trollish intent.
Avatar
mbmbmbmbmb
utoption2 wrote:


Now, take a bow, and kiss Josh's ring.


Nobody who uses a hyphen in place of an en-dash when pointlessly correcting a raving person's stream of invective is ever going to be allowed near enough to my ring to kiss it, Dennis.
7 
 Thumb up
1.00
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
1 , 2 , 3 , 4  Next »   | 
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.