Has WalMart sunk to a new low?

No, they truly believe they are above the law. That's been their deal.

 

Good grief...Walmart is 100% at fault I this accident...your comments should be on comedy central...again Walmart REARENDED a bus/limo...there driver was speeding at time of rear end. Collision...so Walmart is at fault...

 

Joseph--While i completely agree with you on Malwarts...ethics--biz practices etc....as I have stated many times before in terms of accidents etc....and lawyers in terms of drivers ALWAYS covering their ###...what malwarts legal dept is doing is NOTHING any other major corporation(or insurance co. etc)wouldn't do....It's how our present legal system works on the civil side...remember this case has nothing to do w/any criminal charges their driver may/may not face...this is strictly a civil lawsuit..which is a circus all of it's own...its why all the ###### limo riding lawyers stand on the hood of a truck on a billboard etc....

 

your comment shows you ignorance and lack of intelligence, I never said they where not at fault can you not read ? they are just trying to determine what the injuries may or may not of been had they been buckled up.

and really the only person at fault is the driver not the company , if you rear end someone its your fault not the company you work for. However they are the ones left with the payout.... which the injured deserve.

read before making yourself look so foolish

 

It's going to come down to more than that. Rest assured they'll see how much the company (dispatchers, planners, etc.) knew about his whereabouts and his plans to return to work. There will be a substantial investigation into his previous actions to establish patterns of behavior and an attempt to show that Wal Mart was aware that the driver was operating while fatigued. While I do agree that the driver is responsible for the accident, the company is responsible for the driver. What they knew and when they knew it are going to play a factor in this case. It should get interesting.

 

Not sure how the Trayvon/Zimmerman thing has ANYTHING to do with Walmart's defense, but since you brought it up...If Trayvon hadn't been pummeling somebody with a CWP who happened to be carrying at the time, he wouldn't have been shot. If Zimmerman had NOT been armed, he'd likely be 6' in the ground and Trayvon would've been the one on trial for murder. Now I don't know about you, but if somebody is going to die and I have any say in the matter, it sure as hell ain't going to be me...and apparently Mr. Zimmerman felt the same way on that fateful night because as Trayvon was bashing his head into the cement, Mr. Zimmerman had the right to use whatever force he had available to stop the attack. Unluckily for Trayvon, that available force turned out to be a lawfully carried gun.

 

"At fault" for the wreck and "liability" for injuries are two separate and distinct things. NOBODY is saying that the Walmart driver wasn't 100% responsible for the wreck. All the defense is saying is that the plaintiffs share some of the negligence where liability for the injuries are concerned, because they had the ability to take a simple action (follow NJ state law and buckle up) and they failed to do so. Had the passengers in the limo been in compliance with state law and been wearing their seat belts, their injuries likely would not have been AS severe, which means medical bills would be lower, the death may not have occurred, and the "pain and suffering" on the plaintiffs part would be less than what it is as a result of their negligence in failing to buckle up.

 

[QUOTE="semi" retired;4270723]The issue, I think, is the severity of the crash. If you look at the pictures, the back of the limo was compressed for 4 feet. It wouldn't have mattered if the person sitting in the back was buckled in. However, I can understand your your point, Walmart isn't doing anything any company wouldn't do. I'm just saying, in this case, seatbelts wouldn't have made any difference.[/QUOTE]

A seat belt might have made things worse, in this instance. Not able to be thrown away from the impact....

 

Maybe it would have made things worse, maybe it would have helped. Either way is besides the point. The law says seat belts are to be used. They are considered a safety device, and studies have shown in a majority of instances, the seat belt is going to do more to help you than it will to harm you. That being the case, all Walmart is doing is claiming the plaintiffs were negligent by not buckling up, and therefore Walmart is not 100% liable for the injuries. Even if they are only successful in shifting 1% of the negligence onto the passengers in the limo, it'll be a hefty sum of money saved.