Visit our Popular Forums

FLYNCLD · 01-01-2011, 12:49 PM

This may bring an end to Walmart stays!

Family sues Walmart over intruder in store lot | The Salt Lake Tribune

Boondocker · 01-01-2011, 12:54 PM

Breathtaking.

Castaway · 01-01-2011, 12:59 PM

Isn't it amazing when something bad happens it is always someone else's fault. How can Walmart (or any other Big Box store) be blamed for this? Are they required to have armed guards posted in their parking lots? I would never open my door while parking any where with out first finding out who is there and why. I would bet my next paycheck they were contacted by some sleazy lawyer.

Gary

FLYNCLD · 01-01-2011, 01:06 PM

Decidedly NOT their fault. We pulled into the Walmart in Amarillo one night where we were immediately contacted by the security guard there, who instead of chasing us off, helped us find a good spot and let us know that he would be there all night "if we needed anything". Talk about above and beyond the call!

FLYNCLD

r carl · 01-01-2011, 01:14 PM

Im betting walmarts army of lawyers will squash this suit.

WineStream · 01-01-2011, 01:14 PM

FYI...this same headline has already been discussed a few months ago here: http://www.airforums.com/forums/f48/...der-67687.html

FLYNCLD · 01-01-2011, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WineStream

FYI...this same headline has already been discussed a few months ago here: http://www.airforums.com/forums/f48/...der-67687.html

Thanks for pointing this out..as usual the "search" function produced no results when I looked!

WineStream · 01-01-2011, 01:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FLYNCLD

Thanks for pointing this out..as usual the "search" function produced no results when I looked!

I had the same issue and I even used the "google search" option which is usually pretty good. I remembered having read a similar story before and I was able to find the thread still in the list of my subscribed threads.

**blmitch5** · 01-01-2011, 01:32 PM

What did they want for free? And why didn't the just call 911 when he knocked at the door. I'd never open my door EVER in a parking lit or campground unless I knew who it was. Very stupid choice on their part and now they want money for it. Geez.

drew05 · 01-01-2011, 01:50 PM

I guess I sort of understand the lawsuit, and I stress 'sort of', but what ever happened to "Common Sense" and being aware of your environment? I'm not taking sides, but like the McDonald's 'hot coffee' incident, is going after 'deep pocket' solutions right? And based on the available information, what is/was the local law enforcement's responsibility?

Just my 2 cents. Happy New Years all

walter1 · 01-01-2011, 01:55 PM

Hmm, you're traveling cross country in a motor home with a 9 and 15 year old and an easy to grab loaded shotgun, camping in free places, shopping at Walmart...what could go wrong???

Oh drat, I spilled hot coffee on my keyboard while typing this, the keyboard came from Walmart...CLASS ACTION SUIT??

Go WallyMart!

WineStream · 01-01-2011, 01:56 PM

I must admit that the article linked at the beginning of this thread gives a bit more detail than the one in the former thread. I wasn't a supporter of the plaintiffs to begin with but even more so now. The contention is that Wal-Mart knew of the person in the parking lot, then obviously so did the plaintiff. The plaintiff then had a few options, two of the most obvious being: 1) call the police themselves and report the suspicious person and/or 2) go find somewhere else to overnight at where they felt safer. They chose to do neither.

Either way, they shot and killed the guy and no one's suing them for having done so. Apparently that's not good enough though...Wal-Mart needs to pay them for their trouble.

A judge ought to be able to look at a case and just say, "No, this isn't worth the time". Or better yet, "OK, you can sue Wal-Mart, but now the state of Utah is going to try you for manslaughter." Yeah, yeah, I know it's self defense and it would never fly, but the point is that the RV'ers would get dragged through the same red tape and pain as they are trying to do to Wal-Mart and have to incur mountains of lawyer fees.

Wayne&Sam · 01-01-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WineStream

The contention is that Wal-Mart knew of the person in the parking lot, then obviously so did the plaintiff.

I'm not defending the suit, but I don't see where the plaintiff knew about the person beforehand. It more likely came up in the investigation that Walmart had previous complaints about him. The plaintiffs likely pulled in after a day on the road and didn't know the guy had been around all day.

Or maybe not.

Boondocker · 01-01-2011, 02:33 PM

Walmart should also have checked the couples blood pressure, cholesterol, and provided a full health screen (perhaps with a full body scan). They probabally should have reviewed their finical health as well. After all, it is clear to me that Walmart assumed all responsibility for the couples lives by permitting them to park overnight in their lot.

Mike Leary · 01-01-2011, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by blmitch5

What did they want for free? And why didn't the just call 911 when he knocked at the door. I'd never open my door EVER in a parking lit or campground unless I knew who it was. Very stupid choice on their part and now they want money for it. Geez.

I agree, we've stayed in a ton of parking lots overnight and camp hosted in some dark parks and I'd NEVER open the door! After turning on the suprise beam, crack the window a tad if it seems harmless, but otherwise, call 911 and bail if possible.

WineStream · 01-01-2011, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wayne&Sam

I'm not defending the suit, but I don't see where the plaintiff knew about the person beforehand. It more likely came up in the investigation that Walmart had previous complaints about him. The plaintiffs likely pulled in after a day on the road and didn't know the guy had been around all day.

Or maybe not.

I have been known to be wrong, but here's my reasoning for such a conclusion:

1) The basis of the plaintiff's suit is that WalMart knew the person was loitering all day and never called the police (based on the news article).

2) In order for the plaintiff to claim 1), the plaintiff would have had to know that the store had knowledge of the loiterer.

3) In order to be able to prove that the store had been notified of the loiterer, the plaintiff would have to prove or otherwise have a witness to testify that the notice was made. I am making a bit of an inference here, but I'm betting that one of the details left out of the news article was that the RV'ers were the people that reported the loiterer in the parking lot.

4) Provided that 3) is as I assume it to be, then the RV'ers would have significant resentment toward the store for their intrusion and thus motive for a lawsuit.

If the RV'ers had just pulled in after a day on the road, they would have not had any idea of the loiterer. After the altercation / shooting, the RV'ers would not have had any idea that a lawsuit against WalMart (and the claim of prior knowledge) was even possible. There is of course the remote chance that a 3rd party had reported the loiterer earlier in the day and after reading the article about the intrusion then came forward and stated their informing the store. From a sleazy lawyer standpoint, it would be a "good" case to be able to say, "My client informed the store of the loiterer and the store did nothing."

Just my opinion...

mojo · 01-01-2011, 03:39 PM

I don't understand why anyone would want to camp at Walmart, Home Depot or any other urban parking lot. I don't like to spend more that 5 minutes in a highway rest area.

cclarkego · 01-01-2011, 03:52 PM

So if I even type the word "Walmart" and I happen to spill coffee on me, I guess I can sue too, huh?

I second the "Go Wally Mart"

**moosetags** · 01-01-2011, 04:22 PM

The plaintiff was stupid for opening the door. They deserve nothing. I hope they get nothing.

Brian

jdthor · 01-02-2011, 04:00 AM

My deputies provide security for our Wal-Mart during high risk hours. The Corporation takes an aggressive stance on civil suits since the stores are prime spots for phony "slip and fall" suits. Win or lose I would not be surprised to see the Corporation set a "no overnight stay" policy which is what the original poster was suggesting.