What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Watch a scene from 2012, in theaters November 13 view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - Get ready for the biggest event in history - the end of time. How will you survive? 2012- opening 11/13
243 Comments
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -10/+147I am sorry, but I think this family is in the right to sue. It was Walmart's responsibility to provide sufficient security and man power on a day that is infamous for this very thing. This man was simply doing his job, alone, when he should have had help.
I hope his family gets a huge settlement and get in a position where they never have to work again. - desqjockey, on 12/04/2008, -5/+62did they have the lawyers line up at 5am, first come first serve?
- Dgen_X, on 12/04/2008, -5/+56....other stores are able to control crowds on black Friday, the defendants in this case did nothing to prevent something like this from happening and deserve this lawsuit.
*****, if it were up to me I'd like to see every single person who walked by, over, or around Jdimytai Damour, just to get their hands on a $60 camera, or damn pair of pajamas, in court as well.
Maybe this will force Walmart to think twice about how they handle black friday, hopefully getting a plan together for crowd control at all stores. (local police, or even something as simple as a numbered certificate system for the hottest items) - DrewPeacock, on 12/04/2008, -6/+56Suprise!
- DatVillain83, on 12/04/2008, -12/+58I don't think Walmart understands the concept of workers rights.
- Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -0/+40Nor, apparently, do Wal-Mart customers understand how to be respectful of other human beings.
- AresDiggs, on 12/04/2008, -2/+41I have worked 4 black Friday's in retail - its very simple to control this kind of thing without added security - Vouchers for the door buster deals, then there is no need to run because no matter how fast they run they still wont get it w/o the voucher - its that simple.
And sure all the little ***** you wont hand out vouchers for - but that's not what people were running to get - they do that for cameras, computers, TV's, game systems.
Also IDK about wal-mart but at Circuit city and Best Buy they have gates that close with the doors - those should have been shut till the crowed calmed down.
...So my point is that they have every right to sue - something so tragic could have been prevented by 10mins in MS word making vouchers - UNDERSTAR, on 12/04/2008, -5/+43***** BLACK FRIDAY!
- tgc1, on 12/04/2008, -7/+39Yeah they're liable. It's called negligence.
- Arasaka, on 12/04/2008, -2/+30It would make sense only if they sued the stampeding customers too.
I mean seriously, who walks on somebody and doesn't stop?!? - nofx1510, on 12/04/2008, -8/+36Maybe they can get a free Sam's Club membership out of the lawsuit.
Then everybody wins! - nerdherder, on 12/04/2008, -2/+30Sometimes I wish it were possible to sue mankind as a whole.
- GoKings, on 12/04/2008, -6/+31Wal-Mart will throw them some cash and wash their hands of this. Not that I think they should pay. I wish there was a way to sue every single person that bought an item in Wal-Mart during the timeframe of his death.
- tmonsta1, on 12/04/2008, -4/+23never mind lost wages, funeral expenses, legal bills etc.
or the responsibility of an employer to provide a safe working environment
your right, that families just being greedy
trying to cash in on an accident
here's to hoping you're trampled to death at work... and your family doesn't sue - FreddieD, on 12/04/2008, -5/+24This would have been easily prevented had they handed out tickets for these items while people waited in line, before doors opened. This method works just fine for many other stores, and I hope Wal-Mart has to pay an incredible amount just to ensure that this will be handled in that way next year.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -6/+25Why are you sorry? The man died doing his job... of course his family is going to try to sue Walmart into oblivion, especially since they didn't think to hire extra security on such a big shopping day. I hope his family gets millions in damages.
- Ragone, on 12/04/2008, -7/+25Shop 'til you drop, literally.
- edwarddouglas, on 12/04/2008, -6/+22Wonder how long it will take for Walmart to throw them some change to be done with this. You know the Walton family won't be losing any sleep over this. They are too busy counting their nearly 100 Billion....
- wilf_brim, on 12/04/2008, -0/+16They can sue because he wasn't working for Wal Mart: he was a contractor. This is never going to see the inside of a courtroom: if they go to trial they are going to lose millions. I heard on the news that the police had specifically warned Wal Mart that they needed to have a good plan for crowd control. They had none. That plus the images from cell phones and security cameras are as damning as they are inflammatory.
- aftern9ne, on 12/04/2008, -9/+25The family shouldn't have to pay for funeral costs, etc. as this is an untimely death that could have been prevented. But it isn't Wal-Mart who is at fault - this was a failing of personal responsibility and compassion for others.
To me, Wal-Mart has no more responsibility in this than if a customer was shot over a dispute for a product. If you're going to blame this on Black Friday, and that "precautions should be taken", it boils down to vindicating people of any guilt. - Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -0/+13@patpl22391
Good. Then they should get the tapes, find those responsible, and file murder charges. - Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -2/+14This is what happens when people can't control their greed. And anyone who thinks they shouldn't be punished are part of the problem.
- tinkafoo, on 12/04/2008, -10/+22Do it. Sue the whole ***** town, the whole ***** county. Whatever it takes.
- gemlarin, on 12/04/2008, -0/+11Q:"I mean seriously, who walks on somebody and doesn't stop?!?"
A:Walmart shoppers. - MJG2007, on 12/04/2008, -0/+11Meanwhile, over in the bizarro world of Bill O'Reilly, it's time once again for the traditional ranting and raving about the evil secularists and their supposed "war on Christmas" because they say "Happy Holidays".
The real war on Christmas is the never ending pursuit for that perfect bargain, buying this years hottest toy, black Friday, cyber Monday, the carols rewritten to sell a product, and the crowds of people fighting and trampling one another to save a few bucks.
We ought to just rename it to "Conspicuous Consumptionmas" and stop all the pretense. - Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -2/+13There are ways to control a mob that size. It just would have been all over the 6' oclock news. We seem to feel entitled to act however we want in public without repercussions, and that an attitude that needs to stop.
- Ydnar723, on 12/04/2008, -1/+11I'd prefer to see the ignorant jerks who continued to trample over the employee while efforts were being made to revive this guy and pull him from harm. This all can't be weighed on wal-mart, they are not 100% accountable for this, people who are dumb and greedy need to be held accountable too. Wal-Mart yes is responsible but so are the people who started it to begin with.
- Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -1/+11No, it won't. But the only place a company like Wal-mart feels pain is in it's wallet. If that's the only place they'll feel a kick in the balls, that's where an intelligent person will place one.
- Spartacusprime, on 12/04/2008, -0/+10Ah, a chance to put my law school knowledge to the test! This is clearly a case of negligence, and with negligence, we have to find three main things.
First, did Wal-Mart owe him a duty? As an employer, they clearly did.
Second, did they breach this duty? Did the risk of harm outweigh the burden of protecting him from harm? Most surely: Wal-Mart had the ability to prevent the ***** DOORS FROM BREAKING DOWN by having some security out there to keep the crowds back (at least until the doors were opened).
Third, did their negligence cause his death? Basically, if not for Wal-Mart's failure to protect him from harm, they allowed him to be trampled. Also, the harm that occurred was the harm Wal-Mart was negligent for failing to avoid. It was a foreseeable injury: with masses of people pushing against the door to get in, a reasonable person would presume that some kind of injury would be inevitable.
Wal-mart is liable for his death, plain and simple. - tmonsta1, on 12/04/2008, -0/+9A man died, because the company he was working for didn't take the precautions necessary to ensure his safety, and you're going to actually defend the company?
so you're saying that despite the fact that this man died, the family should just suck it up and then eat the expenses of the funeral, probate and what not.
Perhaps Americans are Pavlovian about suing because Healthcare in America is the most expensive in the world... but then, you're probably not a supporter of UHC either - rz8472, on 12/04/2008, -3/+12Wal-Mart deliberately understaffs its stores as an 'excuse' to force many of their workers to do unpaid overtime. In this particular case, it may have had deadly results, so yes - imo the family is justified in suing.
- ichbinladen, on 12/04/2008, -6/+14It must be pretty sweet to get away with murder. Oh wait they were all Wal-Mart shoppers... they know the bitter sting of failure. Stinky peasants.
- Ajajadude, on 12/04/2008, -8/+16As much as I hate Wal-Mart, it sounds as if nothing short of the city's entire police department dressed in full riot gear would have stopped that mob.
While that may sound like a bit of an exaggeration, it sucks that Wal-Mart is going to have to take the fall for a bunch of wreckless psychos who killed a man. - AresDiggs, on 12/04/2008, -1/+9Doiveo- Normally I would agree with you -- but like Dgen points out, in the case they deserve it.
- Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -1/+9*****. One 8-gauge round into the face of the first fat ***** in line tends to have a calming effect on the group as a whole. Military riot control 101.
Anyone who'd kill a defenseless employee just so his fat ass can get to a tv first doesn't deserve to see tomorrow anyway. - Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -0/+7And enforce it with flamethrowers.
- crsnglb, on 12/04/2008, -1/+8Wal-Mart was being negligent. There are methods to crowd control such as forming lines and issuing tickets, not letting everyone crowd and push against the doors waiting to burst through them.
- Jhiaxuz, on 12/04/2008, -0/+7Same thing happened when we camped out for the Wii. They had a ticket system which they gave to those waiting in line to correspond to the amount of system they had. As long as you had the ticket, you could dance your way to the Electronics department. It should be noted that this was done at Wal Mart.
- vtnerd, on 12/04/2008, -2/+9You besmirch the name of Ron Paul and the free market economy. For this, I bury you.
- inactive, on 12/04/2008, -1/+8It's kind of sad, in my job, I deal with Wal-Mart corporate and they are as smartly run a corporate HQ as you'll find. Everyone I talk to there is on the ball and knows how to get results. This is a result of paying good salaries but also a commitment to having quality people there.
Sadly, this commitment clearly ends there... Wal-Mart's actual stores really aren't trying to hire very bright people. I am sure some great people work there, but their actual strategy is to hire bodies, not brains. And so you get people, even in store management positions, who have little ability to predict problems and think of solutions ahead of time, who really just do what they're told and don't think of much on their own... and stuff like this happens. - Juaquin, on 12/04/2008, -0/+6I think every person in that store while he was dying on the ground should be brought up on criminal charges.
- Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -0/+6The same as any other human being, asshat.
- Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7Wrong. Wal-Mart has been through this before. They demand that police actions for things like this have to be requested through their local store, because it's "private property". That means security is also their fault. If someone dies on Wal-Mart property because they didn't want to take security precautions a ***** child could have told them were necessary, it's their fault. If they don't like it, too bad. Guess it's too much to ask for a company to do it's job eh?
- anarcurt, on 12/04/2008, -2/+8OK, how are they suing the county police for $2 mil? So every taxpayer in Nassau County has to pay for a bunch of out of control primates(I mean this in regards to their actions not their race) killing someone inside a store that most Long Islanders do not even shop in? Greed, pure dirty greed.
- patpl22391, on 12/04/2008, -2/+8That's not true. They set up barriers and brought in police officers to advice them. This was totally the fault of the crowd.
- Heapbasket, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7The concept of safety perhaps? Wal-mart has a responsibility to make sure they can handle large crowds of incoming customers without an incident like this occurring.
How would you feel if one of your family members was severely hurt on the job because of the owners negligence and stupidity? - Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7No, actually employees of Wal-Mart are required *not* to defend themselves in a physical altercation or they will lose their jobs, even if it was self defense. That was one of the first things they said to our group in training. Wal-mart has specific people allocated to store security ( usually 3 people for a supercenter) and anyone not belonging to that group is not allowed to intervene. (Not that that should have stopped him from defending his life, I was just answering your question "Wasn't that his job?").
- purrp, on 12/04/2008, -2/+8>it sucks that Wal-Mart is going to have to take the fall for a bunch of wreckless psychos who killed a man.
Why? Try to organize any event that involves hundreds of people, and you'll need to hire sufficient security, take basic safety precautions, etc. etc. I don't see why this should be any different. - Dauntless1, on 12/04/2008, -1/+7And on newegg.com, a 46 inch lcd was 900 flat. No-one but a ***** idiot buys electronics at walmart.
- NegativeDigg, on 12/04/2008, -0/+6899? I've seen better deals on ebay...those where only 720p btw.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 259 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is