Page 1
Page 1
Started By
Message

Kmart settles suit with paralyzed good samaritan

Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:47 am
Posted by ChuckM
Lafayette
Member since Dec 2006
1645 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:47 am
LINK

To the OT libs/lawyers, tell me why Kmart is responsible for her medical bills? It seems to me, although well intended, she injected herself into the situation, got hurt and now wants the store (most obvious target, because of course you can't sue the criminal) to pay because she got hurt?

Posted by FalseProphet
Mecca
Member since Dec 2011
11706 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:51 am to
Kmart made the decision to be responsible for her medical bills. They settled the case when they could hae gone to trial and be absolved of liability - but they also ran the risk of having a jury say they did bear responsibility.

It's a shitty lawyer who doesn't sue everyone that MAY bear some potential liability. This isnt a lib thing at all.
This post was edited on 1/26/14 at 11:52 am
Posted by h0bnail
Member since Sep 2009
7381 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:52 am to
Stupid. Sorry she got hurt, but it's not Kmart's fault.
Posted by detmut
Jesuit 81 Metairie
Member since Sep 2011
2304 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:52 am to
i don't agree with it, but here is what gave her the cause of action:

"Kmart had long claimed that it was not responsible for Williams’ injuries because they took place in the parking lot outside the store. Williams argued that the parking lot injuries were an extension of events that started inside Kmart — events that could have been prevented with the proper store security."
Posted by Teddy Ruxpin
Member since Oct 2006
39547 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:53 am to
Ya, the key fact that a jury could have focused on was the store employee calling for security twice with no response.

Why the victim thought leaning into a vehicle to turn off the ignition over a stolen purse was a good idea is just terrible decision making in a tense situation.
This post was edited on 1/26/14 at 11:54 am
Posted by ChuckM
Lafayette
Member since Dec 2006
1645 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:54 am to
quote:

terrible decision


This is my thought. I see it (right or wrong) as the fact that Kmart is the target. Its equally easy to say that if she'd not involved herself in the issue in the first place, she'd be fine. Likewise, since she decided to do so, she enters that decision with a thought of risk. Why should Kmart be held liable for that decision?

Posted by Teddy Ruxpin
Member since Oct 2006
39547 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:57 am to
quote:

Why should Kmart be held liable for that decision?



It was a potential jury trial. It isn't that they should be or shouldn't be liable, it's that there was an existing fact (security was called TWICE and did not respond) that a jury could have found, "if not for the failure of kmart's security, this woman would never had been involved in the first place."

Kmart didn't want to take that risk at trial.
This post was edited on 1/26/14 at 11:59 am
Posted by greystreettoker
work, most likely
Member since Apr 2011
3460 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:57 am to
Typical mindset in this country is to place blame on others instead of ourselves.
Posted by detmut
Jesuit 81 Metairie
Member since Sep 2011
2304 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:59 am to
quote:

quote:
terrible decision


This is my thought. I see it (right or wrong) as the fact that Kmart is the target. Its equally easy to say that if she'd not involved herself in the issue in the first place, she'd be fine. Likewise, since she decided to do so, she enters that decision with a thought of risk. Why should Kmart be held liable for that decision?


i agree. it seems only the robbery victim would have a possible case due to poor security.

"Williams was one of the store’s first customers that morning and went toward the layaway department. Dennison said she saw a younger woman — later identified as 31-year-old Katherine Johnson — try to grab an older woman’s purse as the older woman talked on a pay phone in the store.

Dennison called security twice — over the store’s loudspeaker and by telephone — but got no answer. Johnson finally gave up trying to take the woman’s purse at the pay phone and walked to the women’s clothing department, according to a deposition."
Posted by ChuckM
Lafayette
Member since Dec 2006
1645 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 11:59 am to
quote:

Kmart didn't want to take that risk at trial.


This is where the problem begins.

ETA: It would be safe to assume that Kmart settled for less than their estimate for a losing verdict and all subsequent appeals.

This post was edited on 1/26/14 at 12:02 pm
Posted by detmut
Jesuit 81 Metairie
Member since Sep 2011
2304 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 12:00 pm to
yep. there was sympathetic plaintiff.
Posted by Teddy Ruxpin
Member since Oct 2006
39547 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 12:02 pm to
quote:

yep. there was sympathetic plaintiff.


Not to mention we don't know the history of this court.

It's why no defendant attorney wants an injury trial at New Orleans CDC.

You will lose

But really, there are lots of factors at play when determining risk of the outcome.
This post was edited on 1/26/14 at 12:04 pm
Posted by Bestbank Tiger
Premium Member
Member since Jan 2005
70782 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 12:04 pm to
Kmart sucks.
Posted by BayouBandit24
Member since Aug 2010
16542 posts
Posted on 1/26/14 at 12:06 pm to
Kmart is not necessarily responsible for her medical bills. They assumed that responsibility. If they did not want to pay they could have continued to trial.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram