Regarding WalMart: Liabilty and responsibility are two entirely different things--and WM is LIABLE..

[blondeatlast]

Whether they are solely responsible is quite another matter.

liability n. one of the most significant words in the field of law, liability means legal responsibility for one's acts or omissions. Failure of a person or entity to meet that responsibility leaves him/her/it open to a lawsuit for any resulting damages or a court order to perform (as in a breach of contract or violation of statute). In order to win a lawsuit the suing party (plaintiff) must prove the legal liability of the defendant if the plaintiff's allegations are shown to be true. This requires evidence of the duty to act, the failure to fulfill that duty, and the connection (proximate cause) of that failure to some injury or harm to the plaintiff. Liability also applies to alleged criminal acts in which the defendant may be responsible for his/her acts which constitute a crime, thus making him/her subject to conviction and punishment. Example: Jack Jumpstart runs a stop sign in his car and hits Sarah Stepforth as she is crossing in the cross-walk. Jack has a duty of care to Sarah (and the public) which he breaches by his negligence, and therefore has liability for Sarah's injuries, and gives her the right to bring a lawsuit against him. However, Jack's father owns the automobile and he, too, may have liability to Sarah based on a statute which makes a car owner liable for any damages caused by the vehicle he owns. The father's responsibility is based on "statutory liability" even though he personally breached no duty. A signer of promissory note has liability for money due if it is not paid, and so would a co-signer who guarantees it. A contractor who has agreed to complete a building has liability to the owner if he fails to complete on time. (See: negligence, contract, joint liability)

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/liability

Just a little more effort on WM's part; a little good natured crowd control (something that experienced loss-prevention people are good at), easily and inexpensively rented modular stanchions,--and Jdimytai Damour would be alive--and we wouldn't be discussing this. If it would have cost as much as $500 I would be astonished; more like $200--or less (I bet they had stanchions at the district warehouse if not the store).

[yardwork]

1. Thank you. The vast majority of DUers understand, but a few still don't get it.

[no_hypocrisy]

2. One word: Palsgraf (also a NYS case)

http://www.answers.com/topic/palsgraf-v-long-island-railroad-co

The risk of injury at Walmart was foreseeable and preventable. Hence a judgment finding a breach of conduct, that breach leading to the injury, and liability for that injury.

[varkam]

15. Isn't there more of a proximate cause issue here, though?

In Palsgraf, the mechanism of injury was pretty straightforward - the package exploded causing the scale to fall and injure the plaintiff. Here, though, there's the big hairy mess of a mob inflicting the injury.

[no_hypocrisy]

17. How about this?

Walmart advertised impossibly good-sounding "bargains" and as a result, crowds of thousands gathered on its property before it opened its doors. Walmart employees raised the tension by warning/yelling/taunting the crowd to "get the fuck back". A number of individuals rushed at the door and physically took it off. And as a result of frustration, greed, anger, fear of not getting their booty, as well as reacting to Walmart taunting them as well as enticing them, the crowd was unrelenting in its drive, like a herd of elephants stampeding. The poor employee in its path never had a chance. Walmart created the danger of the mob which in turn killed the "temporary employee".

[hlthe2b]

3. A seemingly knowledgable Ed Schultz caller; discussed TORT

Law restrictions in NY--recent attemnpts to defang any liability lawsuits. She seemed to indicate this might tie the hands of family memnbers trying to sue. ANY NY-licensed (knowledgable) attorneys able to weigh in on this? I'd have to think there would be some loophole, if true.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

4. Jack's father would be liable if he knew Jack was a dangerous driver.

If he had no reason to suspect Jack would run a stop sign, how would he be liable?

[rateyes]

5. The manager of that store, and any other person in charge of

crowd-control at that Wal-mart should be facing manslaughter charges, in my opinion. Someone should also be facing a wrongful death civil suit.

[kevinds13]

6. I hate Wal-Mart as much as the next guy

but I think liability laws are too subjective. I'm sure they will be sued, and believe they could have done a better job of crowd control, security, etc.

However, the best option is to find the people who broke the doors and stepped on this man and charge each and every single one of them with breaking and entering and manslaughter. Wal-Mart's liability is somewhat subjective, IMO.

Would Wal-Mart still be liable had they employed security for that morning and it still happened, or would that be deemed either a tragedy or the fault of the individual's? Should every store be required to have armed guards or security details just to prevent situations from arising to prevent their own culpability in liability suits?

[KittyWampus]

8. hello? The people at the front who went through the doors were being PUSHED FROM BEHIND

this has been explained ad naseum. Maybe you missed it.

[kevinds13]

9. Haha

I've been to a Rage Against the Machine concert, I know how that shit works, but thanks for the condescension. Anyway, maybe YOU haven't noticed that there are multiple video's of the situation from the middle and back of the crowd by people in line, and there are also parking lot camera's at Wal-Mart's.

So if you think you can't find the people, you may need to rethink that.

:eyes:

[blondeatlast]

10. The crowd was estimated at 2000. The manager was in his office and there was

no external loss-prevention, security, and the police were not made aware of the situation. No attempt to create a line and the "Blitz Line Starts Here" can EASILY be seen as inciting the crowd.

Let me repeat: the STORE MANAGER WAS IN HIS OFFICE. I'm guessing you've never worked retail...

That's criminal neglect.

[Javaman]

7. I posted on just this same topic...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4568602

I referred to the Who concert back in the 70's when 11 people were crushed to death from inadequate crowd control.

[sam sarrha]

11. this wasnt unexpected.. stampeding has happened repeatedly with injuries at their stores during this

sort of sale... the crowd was rowdy and they should have called the police. BEFORE THE DOORS WERE BROKEN DOWN.

it's reported that the guard died getting a pregnant woman out of the crush

[blondeatlast]

12. That the manager was in his office and police weren't called,

coupled with NO external security, is unconscionable.

I worked retail back in the day; the manager would be REQUIRED to work on the floor at my company (a WM competitor).

[TexasObserver]

13. Indeed. Joint and several liability is a cornerstone of modern tort actions.

Walmart may be able to pass on a portion of their liability to others, but such a right will not stop the deceased plaintiff from recovering fully from Walmart. A plaintiff chooses his target defendant, and that defendant is free to attempt to avoid liability, or pass it on to others, but if the Walmart conduct is deemed to be a producing cause of the injury or death of the plaintiff, it will be held liable.

There are a multitude of actions, non actions, and failures to warn that can be a basis for the liability of Walmart. In reality, this case is shooting fish in a barrel. Lawyers call this "a liability case." That means everyone expects a finding of liability, the real dispute is how much it will cost to resolve it. How much is the case worth?

[varkam]

14. But wouldn't WM's ability to pass on their portion...

be limited by the extent to which a fact-finder apportions liability to them? For the sake of argument, let's say that it goes to trial and a fact-finder apportions 80% of the liability to WM (Assuming joint and several liability). They would then have to cough that amount up, correct?

[TexasObserver]

16. Yes.

You are positing a circumstance that sometimes occurs, where a plaintiff is deemed to be partially responsible for his injury. It varies from state to state, the rules of comparative negligence, which is the concept to which you alluded. It is a way that a plaintiff's recovery can be proportionally reduced.

Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that a jury finds the deceased was 20% negligent, and Walmart was 80% negligent. Further assume the jury assesses $5 million in damages. The deceased gets 80% of $5 million, or $4 million.

If you're talking about whether Walmart can have some judgment over against selected customers or others (subcontracted security, perhaps), that's a different matter. It is possible for Walmart to obtain judgment against others, and still be held responsible to the deceased. Suppose that it turns out Walmart subbed out the security to Wackenhut. Walmart might end up losing $5 million and recovering every dollar of it from Wackenhut. There might be a specific contractual provision in the contract between Walmart and Wackenhut which requires the latter to indemnify the former in the event of loss.