Results 1 to 10 of 13
Thread: Walmart blamed again?
-
06-21-2008, 07:15 PM #1
Walmart blamed again?
Through out the ages Mankind has sought out scapegoats to blame their problems on! We still haven't learned to this day to accept responsibility, in fact it seems to get worse and worse!FOXNews.com - Mother's Lawsuit Blames Wal-Mart for Premature Birth - Local News | News Articles | National News | US News
I think this woman wasn't just looking for a scapegoat, I think she may have been looking for an opportunity!
-
06-21-2008, 09:21 PM #2
Its very possible if she was advanced and took a bad spill however the question is did they have signs up warning of a wet floor and the kind of surface on the floor and all that. We don't have the facts to really pass judgement on this one. As far as the amount asked for in all probability Walmart will settle for a fraction of the amount as a nusance claim.
No matter how many men you kill you can't kill your successor-Emperor Nero
-
06-21-2008, 09:56 PM #3
You are right, we don't know all the facts, but I base my statements on the amount that she is asking for and the amount of time this woman let pass before she even filed!
-
06-23-2008, 01:02 PM #4
America...
I could see her suing for medical costs IF indeed she fell due to negligence on the part of walmart. Fair enough.
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.
And if it is found to be health and out of danger, then what - exactly - should he get 2 million dollars for?Til shade is gone, til water is gone, Into the shadow with teeth bared, screaming defiance with the last breath.
To spit in Sightblinder’s eye on the Last Day
-
06-23-2008, 01:23 PM #5
Yeah, what is up with that?
-
06-23-2008, 01:45 PM #6
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Bute, Scotland, UK
- Posts
- 1,526
Thanked: 131Babys 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....
-
06-26-2008, 03:45 AM #7
There's typically no correlation between the amount of damages asserted in the initial lawsuit complaint and what a case may or may not be worth. Whether the woman who fell sued for $100 or $1 million dollars, a jury will ultimately decide whether she's entitled to recover any damages to begin with and, if so, how much. So don't get overly excited when you hear reports about how much so-and-so is suing for; that figure is essentially meaningless.
-
06-26-2008, 03:51 AM #8
-
06-26-2008, 04:03 AM #9
No it doesn't. Besides (and I'm not suggesting the case is in fact worth the demand figure) what do you actually know about 1) the nature and extent of the injuries to the prematurely born baby and ) the nature of the woman's injuries? Was the baby injured due to the fall? Did the premature birth cause the baby to suffer complications? Did the woman fracture her spine or herniate discs in her back or neck?
Maybe all of this is the case or maybe none of this is the case. However, you don't know a thing about which is the case, so how can you pronounce the demand excessive if you don't know what the actual facts are at this point in time?
-
06-26-2008, 04:08 AM #10
As you say, I do not know all the facts, as I have previously mentioned. But you combine the amount that this woman is asking for with the fact that she waited so long before filing the suit, and it makes the whole thing smell bad!