Walmart - What were you THINKING (Blames Tracy Morgan)

[Sparko]

The court doc is here:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/document...-complaint.txt

also the accident occurred in New Jersey (not california, teal)

[Cow Poke]

also the accident occurred in New Jersey (not california, teal)

I was kinda wondering that.

[Teallaura]

Failing to mitigate INCREASES damages.

(but, yeah, I know what you meant )

C'mere, you!

[Teallaura]

I was kinda wondering that.

I was going by the article and didn't have time to double check.

[myth]

I mostly agree with Teal here, except the part about it being a moot point because of seat belt laws. I'm not sure about civil law in NJ specifically, but where I live this sort of thing can affect the amount of the payout. Basically, Wal-Mart's saying that Tracy Morgan's injuries would have been less severe if he was wearing a seat belt, and therefore, Wal-Mart cannot be wholly responsible for his injuries (in other words, they should have to pay less money to him because he wasn't wearing his seat belt). But with a lot of legal speak.

This is the same reason why my Department requires us to seat-belt prisoners during transport -- even though state law does not require that prisoners be seat-belted while being transported in a police vehicle (but does require other people in the rear seat to be seat-belted). The Department just wants to lessen what they'd have to pay in the event we're sued because of a crash.

On a side note, I don't think very highly of Wal-Mart as a company...and I do think their response is this case is crass. But they're just trying to limit the downside potential here (and probably not in the best way).

[Teallaura]

I mostly agree with Teal here, except the part about it being a moot point because of seat belt laws. I'm not sure about civil law in NJ specifically, but where I live this sort of thing can affect the amount of the payout. Basically, Wal-Mart's saying that Tracy Morgan's injuries would have been less severe if he was wearing a seat belt, and therefore, Wal-Mart cannot be wholly responsible for his injuries (in other words, they should have to pay less money to him because he wasn't wearing his seat belt). But with a lot of legal speak.

This is the same reason why my Department requires us to seat-belt prisoners during transport -- even though state law does not require that prisoners be seat-belted while being transported in a police vehicle (but does require other people in the rear seat to be seat-belted). The Department just wants to lessen what they'd have to pay in the event we're sued because of a crash.

On a side note, I don't think very highly of Wal-Mart as a company...and I do think their response is this case is crass. But they're just trying to limit the downside potential here (and probably not in the best way).

I mistakenly thought the accident was in California. NJ requires seat belts so the point id valid legally (dumb as heck PR wise). If they weren't required the victim would have no obligation to use them - it's presumed the victim thought it safe to forego since the law permits it. Skipping the ensuing legal wrangling, in a state with no requirement it would be a waste of time to argue that angle. In a state with a requirement, as in this case, yeah, you can argue it and might even win it but I'm dubious you can prove he'd have been significantly less injured in a crash with a truck with a lapbelt on - some studies have actually shown greater injury.