Has WalMart sunk to a new low?

For the millionth time, "at fault" and "liable for damages" are two separate and distinct legal terms. NOBODY is denying the fact that the crash is 100% the Walmart driver's fault. The dispute comes in determining the liability for damages. In order for Walmart to be 100% liable for damages, the passengers in the limo would have needed to take every available precaution to minimize their risk of injury in the event of a crash. They did not do so, as evidenced by the fact they were not buckled in. That simple fact of the case also puts them in violation of NJ law which states they should have been buckled in. They were negligent in violating NJ law, and that negligence will play a role in determining the award for damages where injuries are concerned. Walmart is simply saying had they been buckled up in accordance with state law, the injuries would have been less severe and the death may not have occurred. Walmart is simply trying to avoid paying for the negligence displayed by the passengers in the limo. It really isn't all that difficult of a concept to grasp once you get over your personal hatred for all things Walmart.

 

Again I am baffled at the direction some of these threads take..it started out just quoting WalMarts defense in a civil suit--that BTW is a long way from going into(if ever)open court....and it has turned into the hows and whys of what happened? And frankly I am surprised at some of the folks who are doing the arguing. many of you who i have read posts from--that are typically succint relatively accurate and to the point...have for some reason--turned into truckstop coffee counter lawyers...I don't get it...and considering the folks involved on both sides of this litigation--and how DEEP both sets of pockets are....I doubt either side is looking for advice...
Jus sayin

 

It is amazing the wrecks a person can survive if the vehicle is allowed to do what it was designed to do and absorb the energy of the crash. A person loose in the vehicle is tossed around like a rag doll, unprotected from the impacts with door posts, windows, and other interior structures...and that is if they remain inside. The energy of their body in motion will be absorbed by their body, not by the vehicle their body should be securely strapped into. If you doubt this, just think about how amazing it is that a car can get sideways at 200+ mph going around the track at Talladega, get lifted up and sail into the fence where parts and pieces begin to break off. It lands on the track once again and goes into a barrel roll, tumbling down the back stretch, and when it comes to a stop the driver climbs out like nothing happened. The car was designed to absorb the energy of the crash instead of passing it on to the person inside. That same principal exists in cars on the street...crumple zones in the front and rear, and passenger compartments designed to absorb the energy of a crash by collapsing in a controlled manner. All that goes out the window, though, if you aren't securely held where the engineers figured you should be. For example, that air bag on the dash won't perform as designed if you aren't wearing a seat belt and wind up crumpled up on the floor under the dash. Side curtain airbags will protect you in a side impact if you are secured in your seat. If you are NOT secured, the impact may move you enough that your body misses the airbag and instead contact a hard part of the vehicle's interior. In order for the vehicle's safety features to work, you've got to be secured in the vehicle.

They failed to secure themselves in the vehicle, which meant whatever safety features the limo had to protect the occupants would not be as effective. It was also a violation of state law for them to not be secured. This showed negligence on their part, and this negligence is going to be used to try to lessen the payout.

The actual well-being of the occupants had they been strapped in will never be known, because it is all hypothetical. The fact of the matter is that more often than not, seat belts are effective in reducing injury and death to vehicle occupants who wear them.

 

What's not hypothetical is a tractor trailer slamming into the back of a vehicle. Seatbelts or no seatbelts, a Peterbilt running into the back of another vehicle leads to lots of bad things.

 

Tracy Morgan & Co will show up to court with pictures of the limo and argue about how bad it was. They'll say "Look at this horrible image! It is only by luck and the grace of God that anyone survived that horrible crash!"

Then Walmart will show 1000 pictures of 1000 wrecked vehicles in worse shape than the limo, each of which the occupants walked away relatively unscathed because they were properly restrained inside the vehicle. They will also bring up the fact that the only two people in the limo who were properly restrained (driver and front seat passenger) walked away from this very same crash with very little injury, which goes to show that the injuries would not have been as severe if only the plaintiffs had been responsible (and compliant with NJ state law) and buckled themselves in.

Walmart's attorneys are not trying to escape blame for the wreck...only having to pay out for injuries which could have likely been avoided if the plaintiffs had obeyed NJ state law and buckled up. Yes, it was a bad situation, and would have been no matter what. However, the negligence on the part of the passengers in the rear of the limo turned a bad situation into a horrific one.

 

[QUOTE="semi" retired;4272296]And for the millionth time, look at the picture of the limo. The person killed had to be in the absolute back, which was compressed 4 feet. No amount of restraint would have prevented that death.[/QUOTE]

Thank you Doctor G., or should we call you Dr Baden??

Forensic pathologist huh?? Why are you driving a truck??

That said, my husband drove his 2.5 ton tow truck in between truck driving stints (when we had our auto repair and towing business). What people survived, when seat belted would stun and amaze those who have not seen these wrecks first hand. People that get thrown out of the vehicle almost always died. If not, their injuries were very bad.

See it first hand before you pretend to know how these things play out.

 

Does it change the fact that their driver was speeding in a construction zone 20 mph over the posted limit and rear ended the other vehicle? No it does not. Especially doing it while fatigued. All three against New Jersey state law.

 

Enough said...here's the damage...like semi-retired stated...person in the back highly doubt seat belt would've done any good...

 

The only reason this is still a topic of discussion is because it involved someone famous, or so im told. I think we all know what this will come down to. Being a corporation the size of Wal Mart, it will amount to a drop in the bucket for them whatever the cost will be to make this just go away. The almighty dollar will prevail regardless of whos fault it was.