Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 3 1 2 3
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093
Beware of stupid people in large crowds! I very rarely even go to concerts anymore because people get so stupid.

When I was a bartender we had to count heads and then start a line outside where the doorman counted heads leaving and let that exact amount in. Fire safety and all that stuff. We also had to be very careful about who we served and how much they already had, lest they leave in their car and kill themselves, or god forbid, someone else.

Why shouldn't stores have to watch out for their customers?

What's the difference?

For that matter, why shouldn't Kid Rock be responsible for fights that start at his concerts because his security lets the crowd get out of hand.

But then what about soccer games?

I don't know what the answer is.

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
I think the answer is a little thing called personal accountability.

If a person possesses the mental faculties to get a job, earn an income, have enough money after expenses for Christmas shopping, and get themselves to a retailer, is it too much to ask that they not trample the store employees to death?

I disgree with bars and clubs being liable if a patron drinks and drives, and I disagree with retailers being liable in a situation like the one in the original post on this thread.

WalMart is not at fault at all IMO.

The blame should be placed....get this....on the people who CHOSE to stomp an innocent man to death.

I would expect a bunch of BSs to excel in placing blame where it truly belongs.


Divorced
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093
W
Member
Offline
Member
W
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 7,093
 Quote:
Member



Posts: 1410 I think the answer is a little thing called personal accountability.


Agreed.

It works both ways though. As a bartender I felt a responsibility to my customers. I felt a responsibility to the waitresses and everyone else I worked with, that I would do my best to maintain a atmosphere where people were not blitzed out of their minds. But the patrons should hold themselves just as accountable. As should the bar owners. And if we didn't hold ourselves accountable the law surely would.

Accountability works as long as everyone is held accountable or feels like they are accountable for others. The store owners are accountable for what happens in their store, just like the politicians, the bankers, etc should be held accountable for the sorry state they leave in their wakes.

I don't know, but I think it's about caring about other people and what influence you do have, or responsibility. That is not meant to sound cute.

And yeah Krazy, people should care enough not to trample another human being, but people get really stupid.

I personally avoid Walmart and crowds like the plague, because people in large crowds get even stupider.

If I had to fight a crowd just to save 10 bucks on a Christmas present, we'd all be making home made gifts at my house. And it looks like it just may come to that by next year.

How freaking sad to go to work and get killed over a freaking TV. But it happens all the time. Kids get killed over their tennis shoes, or a candy bar.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
The question of liability really isn't a matter of opinion. A jury made up of impartial men and woman, after hearing ALL the facts...will determine legal liability.

Personal accountability doesn't address preventing this from happening again. Who is in the best position to guarantee that??

Next time it could be one of your children....maybe they don't die, they just become disabled for life....wouldn't you want to hold Walmart responsible then????

Even if you answer "no", that is your choice. Lawyers don't bring lawsuits by themselves...they do so on behalf of injured persons. This young man's parents will get their day in court and "liability"/blame will be adjudicated. The workman's compensation laws may insulate Walmart and/or the issue will be convoluted to such an extent by the workman's comp laws that Walmart will be able to settle quickly, secretively and cheaply.

Hopefully, enough punishment is in the bad press Walmart has received and the fear of unionization for Walmart to change it's Black Friday procedures everywhere, no matter the outcome of litigation on this particular case. They got LUCKY this time that it was employee that died and not a customer that became merely disabled (requiring lifelong expensive medical care).

Mr. Wondering


FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
 Quote:
This is how the legal system is supposed to work...to protect employees and patrons from profit driven Companies that ignore risk for the sake of the almighty dollar


Worth repeating....IN BOLD TOO!

 Quote:
On another note...I don't have any idea why Walmart employees have failed to unionize yet.



The SEIU has tried and tried to no avail. Walmart is really quick to get a whiff of the union interests when it happens to hit their store...and they shut it down really quick. They threaten to close the store and leave the area if the Union makes it in there. People will find themselves out of a job, the community will find itself without a store...since they gobble up everything else.

If management is doing their job, unions aren't even needed.

I had to do a strategic analysis on Walmart. I had to dig into some of their 'stuff' and I can tell you it isn't a pretty picture. I actually found some early words of Sam Walton, and how he managed to make such a profit. He was talking about the employees and he said 'we pay them as little as we can get away with'. Doesn't sound like someone who considers his "associates" very important.

They are making money hand over fist at the expense of the workers. They could spread that wealth back to their employees...they wouldn't miss a million here or there considering that total net sales for 2008 is 374.5 BILLION!!! \:o

Anyways...I am glad that another person has piped in with some valuable information.

committed

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
So, should the customers who stomped the life out of the employee bear any responsibility at all, or is it all big, bad WalMart's fault?

Sure, they are money-grubbing, penny-pinching, employee-devaluing scum, but that has no bearing here IMO.

Some people have it in for WalMart for a multitude of reasons, but that's another topic entirely.

Maybe I should follow OM into a WalMart, shoot him in the head, and let WalMart take the blame due to their poor security.


Divorced
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
 Quote:
Maybe I should follow OM into a WalMart, shoot him in the head, and let WalMart take the blame due to their poor security.


Comparing apples and oranges isn't...pardon the pun...fruitful.

committed

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
 Originally Posted By: committedandlovi
 Quote:
Maybe I should follow OM into a WalMart, shoot him in the head, and let WalMart take the blame due to their poor security.


Comparing apples and oranges isn't...pardon the pun...fruitful.

committed


The only difference between what actually happened and the situation I proposed is premeditation.

That employee was murdered by that mob, plain and simple. The fact that it happened to occur on the property of the most hated (yet wealthiest) retailer on the planet is, or should be, inconsequential.


Divorced
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
You throw a party at YOUR house.

You invite hundreds (if not thousands of people).

You promise them a big, good, time.

Someone gets hurt at YOUR party...at YOUR house...by another party goer.

YOUR homeowner's is gonna pay.

That's the way it works.

YOU are responsible for the actions of YOUR guests...in YOUR home.

At least...that's how I see it.

committed

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 1,880
 Originally Posted By: committedandlovi
YOU are responsible for the actions of YOUR guests...in YOUR home.


I agree that in a courtroom, that's the case.

I also think that's it's a ridiculous load of BS.

If one of those "adults" makes a stinky, am I expected to provide diapers and wipes, too?


Divorced
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
medc Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
 Quote:
Someone gets hurt at YOUR party...at YOUR house...by another party goer.

YOUR homeowner's is gonna pay.


Not true.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
 Originally Posted By: Krazy71
 Originally Posted By: committedandlovi
 Quote:
Maybe I should follow OM into a WalMart, shoot him in the head, and let WalMart take the blame due to their poor security.


Comparing apples and oranges isn't...pardon the pun...fruitful.

committed


The only difference between what actually happened and the situation I proposed is premeditation.

That employee was murdered by that mob, plain and simple. The fact that it happened to occur on the property of the most hated (yet wealthiest) retailer on the planet is, or should be, inconsequential.



It still comes back to foreseeability.

If this specific event happened at their tenth annual Black Friday sale and they had never experienced anything like this mob mentality before, perhaps, they could argue that the things they did were adequate.

Since this ISN'T the case and they've had tons of injuries and "mishaps" at previous Black Friday sales before they should have known better and addressed it.

Either way...it's a question of fact for the jury whom will have the benefit of ALL the information regarding this event and the history of these events to determine whether Walmart was derelict in it's duty to protect it's guests.

Mr. Wondering

p.s. - The homeowner's insurance will pay IF it's foreseeable risk. If a party goer is served alcohol and hurts someone else at the party playing some drunk practical joke then that MAY BE a foreseeable risk. If the same party goer pulls out a gun or knife and injures another guest...THAT is not a forseeable risk which the homeowner owes a duty to protect his guests from (unless it's a hunting party on his property or a party of drunken gun enthusiasts showing off their weaponry).


FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,956
 Quote:
p.s. - The homeowner's insurance will pay IF it's foreseeable risk. If a party goer is served alcohol and hurts someone else at the party playing some drunk practical joke then that MAY BE a foreseeable risk. If the same party goer pulls out a gun or knife and injures another guest...THAT is not a forseeable risk which the homeowner owes a duty to protect his guests from (unless it's a hunting party on his property or a party of drunken gun enthusiasts showing off their weaponry).


Gotcha.

I was thinking along the lines of rowdy raucous behavior...in which alcohol is a factor.

I know of an incident where a person was shot and killed by someone other than the homeowner. The shooter 'knew' where the homeowner kept the guns...and used one to shoot another houseguest. Homeowner's insurance paid on that one. All they had to prove was that the homeowner had not used due diligence in protecting the other houseguest, as in locked up the guns.

committed

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
 Originally Posted By: MrWondering
What is an "invitee"?

From Wikipedia:

 Quote:
In the law of torts, an invitee is a person who is invited to land by the possessor of the land as a member of the public, or one who's invited to the land for the purpose of business dealings with the possessor of the land. The status of a visitor as an invitee (as opposed to a trespasser or a licensee) defines the legal rights of the visitor if they are injured due to the negligence of the property owner.

The property owner has a duty to make the property safe for the invitee, which includes conducting a reasonable inspection of the premises to uncover hidden dangers. The property owner also has a duty to warn the invitee of hazardous conditions that cannot be fixed. Furthermore, property owners assume a duty to rescue an invitee who falls into peril while visiting the property. If an independent contractor hired by the landowner injures an invitee (intentionally or through negligence), the owner can be held vicariously liable. This represents the broadest duty of care owed to any class of visitors to the property.

An invitee is only an invitee within the scope of permission granted by the landowner. Thus, if he is invited to the living room as a house guest and is injured snooping around in the landowner's bedroom, he does not have invitee status in that area.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invitee"



Failing to provide security to manage the crowd they invited resulted in unsafe foreseeable conditions which constitutes negligence on the part of the property owner (Walmart).

Walmart is solely responsible. As any property owner would be for creating an unsafe condition on it's property.

Were injuries and even death foreseeable. I would estimate that yes...they were.


I kind of like your assertions here, Mr.W., especially the "where injuries and even death forseeable" part and the "creating an unsafe condition on it's property" part. That has, it would seem, broad application to all sorts of "invitees" and the resulting outcome that could affect them "negatively."

It totally negates the concept of personal responsibility and shifts it to the "inviter."

So, heck yes, sue Walmart for "allowing" the mob rule to kill someone.

And while we are suing Walmart, let's toss Planned Parenthood into that mix too, because they don't even make a "pretense" of their invitations. Their invitations are DESIGNED to get an unsuspecting baby on their premises and then deliberately kill it, all, I am quite sure, without their approval of even being there, let alone their approval of being killed because they were "carried along" by someone else who wanted to be there.

They are definitely "creating an unsafe condition on it's property" for every child that enters the premises, carried against their will by their "mother."



 Quote:
Here's a link from 2005 which links to several news stories about injuries at Walmart on Black Fridays in the past. I'm certain it's not an exhaustive complete list but just a taste of what Walmart has experienced in the past and neglected to recognize as a serious problem for their guests.
Walmart history of Black Friday injuries


Oh goody, more blogs of blame shifting and ignoring personal responsibility for ones OWN actions.



 Quote:
Here's another reason Walmart is responsible...it's employee incited the crowd by doing the following:

 Quote:
Augustine, 26, said the melee began right after a WalMart employee told the crowd the store would open early. The employee then said it was a joke. This angered the crowd, leading to people trying to rush the store, Augustine said.

Newsday story


Ya, fire his butt. Then go after the city for not allowing the store to be open 24 hours. If the city had allowed that, perhaps the crowd would have entered in a more "orderly fashion."



 Quote:
Someone above mentioned that if someone, say a terrorist, had brought a bomb and detonated it at the entry point killing hundreds of said shoppers that it would be ridiculous to hold Walmart responsible and I agree as such risk wouldn't be "foreseeable" and thus, not negligence (absent specific warnings or threats).


Yippee! And I guess Walmart should have "Forseen" that the mob would break down the doors, shatter the glass, and trample on the employee, killing him. And it's equally interesting to note that not ONE person stopped their "bum rush" to try to help a "downed" person. In fact, they got angry that the Store announced that they had to close early because of the death of someone. Heaven forbid that ANYTHING should "stand in their way" of getting their shopping fix met!



 Quote:
Singling out and charging any specific customer that can be identified as an instigator of the mob mentality is OK by me too (this includes the Joking Walmart employee) but the ultimate responsibility, IMO, rests with Walmart, it's management and executives. Charge the CEO and Store Manager with negligent homicide (even if they are later acquitted or charges are dropped) and see if this event EVER happens at a major retailer again.


Spoken as we have come to expect from lawyers. Just SUE anyone for any reason, "toss the case against the wall and see what sticks." BUT DON'T ever think that PEOPLE are PERSONALLY responsible for THEIR choices and actions.

I think we need to be suing the local, state, and perhaps even federal governments for anything that results in the death or injury of someone....say a pedestrian crossing a street who is hit and killed by the driver of a car who DIDN'T think the "rules of the road" applied to him.

You know, like that tragic case where the elderly man was hit a couple of times by cars and left to die in middle of the street while NO ONE came to his aid.

The PROBLEM is our society, Mr.W., that has lost the ability to CARE what happens to someone else, just so long as "*I* get to do whatever it is that *I* want to do."

Now just where do you think this "coarseness" has come from? "Am I my brother's keeper?" Cain is alive and well and so is self-centered, self-focused, selfishness....after all, it's all "just relative," right?

After all, they (the governmental units) SHOULD have forseen that the open invitation to cross the road COULD have resulted in the death of an innocent person as the result of the action of some other person. Stop lights (locked doors), the appointed time to cross (Opening time for the store, Cross/Con't Cross signs), and the presence of WAY MORE cars than the government "planned for" on that street, are NO EXCUSE. DON'T "look both ways" as you are NOT RESPONSIBLE for choosing to cross the road whenever you feel like it.



 Quote:
I see that legislatures are now getting involved and considering laws to protect their citizenry. Most are considering mandating security.


Oh for crying out loud. Station a Police Officer at EVERY intersection, or at least do so during RUSH HOUR when the government KNOWS their roads are going to be overcrowed. Do so at ALL intersections to "protect the public" from their own idiocy.



 Quote:
I tend to favor a law requiring that advertised sale prices need to be made available to shoppers for at least one business day and that if they run out of an item they must offer "rain check" certificates to permit customers to return and get their item for said price at a later date.


A "workable idea." How about picking up that item in JUNE. Let's put some time between the urgency of getting it for Christmas.

But if they only have ONE DAY to get the ticket, and they don't want to WAIT until more items are received from the manufacturers and then shipped to the stores, how exactly is that supposed to help solve the problem of the "shoppers" who WANT IT NOW! and don't care to wait? "Let someone else get a ticket and wait, but I am NOT waiting for what I want!"




 Quote:
Such law won't likely be necessary if the legal system is allowed to have it's way with Walmart by imposing a stiff punitive penalty against them for their gross negligence in this case which would make the future cost of protecting their invitee/guests/customers economical in comparison. This is how the legal system is supposed to work...to protect employees and patrons from profit driven Companies that ignore risk for the sake of the almighty dollar.


Oh crap. I guess we might as well sue the Auto companies for making cars available to the public that can exceed the posted speed limit too. Ya, that's what we need, more NANNY STATE laws to control the people who can't seem to exercise their own restraint and actions.




 Quote:
On another note...I don't have any idea why Walmart employees have failed to unionize yet. This event likely wouldn't have happened if a couple of 6' 3" union guys in union jackets were standing outside directing the unruly customers. IMO...it's not coincidental that this event occurred at a Walmart...they've been abusing their workforce for years now. It was only a matter of time. This is NOT Sam Walton's company anymore.

Mr. Wondering


Mr.W., do you REALLY think a "couple of 6' 3" guys, union or otherwise, would STOP a mob intent on getting what it wanted?

And guess what, the POLICE were at the Walmart to "ensure order" and they left BEFORE opening time. Let's sue the city too for removing the officers from a "likely forseeable" event instead of remaining to "ensure order." THEY, after all, ARE in uniform and ARE ARMED, just like the 'ol sheriff standing between the door to the jail and the angry mob.

Why don't the employees unionize? Just wait for Obama to have his way and have NON-secret balloting where those same 6'3" burly guys can stand around and intimidate the voters. NO secret ballots!

And maybe they don't unionize because the company does a pretty good job at providing wages and benefits for their employess, without the need for UNION DUES and union control of their lives.

Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
You know, the more I think about Mr. W's suggestion that the company should be held liable and that suing the company would "impose" some future restrictions, why don't we also sue Toys R Us for "allowing" people who are "packing" into their store?

Let's mandate metal detectors at every entrance to every store, and even include "pat downs" of everyone entering the store as a "requirement" for entry into the store?

I mean, if metal detectors are mandataory for places of public "invitation," say like Court Houses where people are invited to come by the govenments, why shouldn't we require the same "precautions" for anywhere that people might be "invited" to come?

Why not just require a "raffle ticket" type number and let people into the story ONLY when "their number" is called?

Let's see just how ridiculous we can make this elimination of Personal Responsibility for one's actions.

Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
M
medc Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 10,044
I belong to a union...a very powerful union in fact...and guess what..unions for the most part suck. Detroit would be in a better position right now to compete absent unions. Walmart unionizes and you will just see scores more people added to the unemployment lines.

FH, it should be no surprise to anyone that people wish to pass the buck...that is the nature of America these days.

It should also be no surprise that the vultures come out of the woodwork ready to hand out business cards when they see Walmarts deep pockets.

Walmart SHOULD assume some responsibility here IF there is clear evidence that they had not prepared adequately for this event. BUT, there should be an expectation of personal responsibility on the part of EVERY patron. If these criminals are identified, they will be prosecuted....then they will have some lawyer telling them to either be quiet or to "spin" the story. After-all, that is what lawyers are for isn't it??? To cloud up the waters...to make the truth less evident or keep it hidden. Show me a lawyer that always tells his client to just be honest and let the chips fall where they will. Nope...not happening.

This thread has gone way beyond my original intent. I will now ask that the thread be closed.

Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 6,025
 Quote:
And maybe they don't unionize because the company does a pretty good job at providing wages and benefits for their employess, without the need for UNION DUES and union control of their lives.


Sure they do.

Actually they systematically investigate and remove any attempts by any employees to organize. One store voted for it...that store was closed down. A meat department at one store voted for it...they eliminated butchering from all stores 3 days later. They utilize intimidation in the form of WE WILL FIRE WHOMEVER TRIES TO UNIONIZE and WE WILL SHUT DOWN ANY STORE THAT TRIES TO UNIONIZE.

It's only a matter of time now...unfortunately, some unlikely store(s) have to be the first to organize and likely take the hit. Walmart's retalitory actions would have been overlooked by the Bush Adminstration. They aren't going to be as lucky with the Obama Administration.

This employees death is only one example of what a union does. It protects it's brothern from injury AND negotiates for disability and life insurance protection for injured parties such that they aren't in the position where you think they should be...having to sue the patrons that injured them to cover their losses because the store shouldn't be responsible at all.

Bringing abortion into THIS thread is such a stretch. I hope you didn't pull a muscle. Sorry MEDC for continuing the off topic'ness but I just amazed at how this happens to fit into every thread he posts on now.

 Quote:
Walmart SHOULD assume some responsibility here IF there is clear evidence that they had not prepared adequately for this event. BUT, there should be an expectation of personal responsibility on the part of EVERY patron. If these criminals are identified, they will be prosecuted


MEDC...this is exactly what I'm saying. I'm not on the jury and neither are you. The legal system is imperfect but it still remains the best place for the public to turn to get all the facts out on the table with each side able to present their most favorable facts in their most favorable light and let the jury figure it out as best they can. In part....lawyers and lawsuits protect the public and impose consequences for behavior such that the government doesn't have to micro-manage legislate every little thing.

Prosecutions...go for it, but I think they should include the Walmart employee that joked with the crowd, the Walmart manager and maybe some executives.

Consider what you'd do if your son was that employee killed at Walmart. Would you not wish he was part of a union knowing the benefits you've been entitled to when injured on the job? Would you not want to hold Walmart responsible AS WELL AS the people that trampled your son???

Mr. Wondering


FBH(me)-51 FWW-49 (MrsWondering)
DD19 DS 22 Dday-2005-Recovered

"agree to disagree" = Used when one wants to reject the objective reality of the situation and hopefully replace it with their own.
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 346
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 346
Locking this thread at MEDC's request.

Page 3 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 44 guests, and 46 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Olivia 80, Brad344, Bobbyboy341, Steve123, kenmw
71,696 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,537
Posts2,322,679
Members71,697
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5