Quote Originally Posted by Bruno View Post
But why on earth sue for a total of 3 million $???
I mean, it's not like that baby wouldn't have come out everntually.
Babys are expensive these days. I suppose she has to find a way to pay for bringing up her son somehow and who better to do that than WalMart?

Fair enough if she slipped when there were no signs and it was the fault of WalMart then they are liable. But $3m? She's having a laugh there.

I told my wife and she simply said 'It wouldnt even get to court here (UK)'. She's probably right.

You have to wonder though, why has she waited til the boy was 3 before sueing? Is she only now realizing that kids cost alot of money? It said the incident took place in 2005. She is only now taking WalMart to court....

EDIT: It should also be noted that according to the article Wal-Mart have not yet been served with any lawsuit....