Walmart Faults Tracy Morgan for Not Wearing Seatbelt During Car Accident

It really isn't Walmarts fault. It's the driver and there's no way to verify anyone is rested enough to drive. Morgan is just looking for money since he's only a B rated actor. Don't get me wrong. I like the guy!

 

Just because I drive a friends car and kill someone does not get my friend in trouble.

 

I'm not certain that's accurate. Obviously, they acknowledged their vehicle was involved, but beyond that I seem to remember a news article claiming they acknowledged some responsibility and said they would do everything possible to make appropriate restitution to the victims. That doesn't mean giving away the farm, and what is appropriate is open to debate, and that is the subject of the litigation --- how much fault lies where and how much they will ultimately end up paying. I also remember them saying their driver was operating within the current HOS rules, which from what I've read, they were. Personally, I believe part of the blame should rest with the Fed's, the ELD and the driver feeling pressed to make it to his destination without going even a minute over... compliance with the rules at the expense of actual safety. The old rules had provisions for adverse conditions, including construction, whereas the "new and improved" (facetious) rules do not. I'm certain that particular run is one that happens at least weekly, probably more, and has repeatedly been done safely and within the rules, including the speed limits.

 

edit; see post below

 

This is the edit, you don't wanna know what I did with that deer on my sofa

 

Yep.
And let's not forget, they'd have used the same defense if it weren't Tracy Morgan.
They're merely pointing out that the plaintiff most likely contributed to his own injuries by not being properly restrained by the onboard safety equipment.

 

I see it like this.....Walmart has stepped into a yard with a bad dog.....he's gonna get bit, that's in stone so why not mitigate the damage and direct the bite to a less painful area ? AKA shift some of the responsibility to other parties. It's an excellent move AND it's practiced by carriers everyday AKA blame the driver........

Good move that helps close the wallet....simple defense......

JMO

 

Lawyers will always go after the deep pockets, regardless of fault. In reality, I am not sure what Walmart could have done to prevent this accident. They had an Eobr in their truck and the driver showed that he was driving legally. But, when it comes to money and litigation, a good lawyer will usually try to find the deepest pockets and try to establish a connection or some liability in order to bring in the money. The driver most likely has little for them to go after. The insurance will help, but they will attempt to find a way to attach liability against Walmart. My guess is that they will find a way to settle out of court. If not, the case is likely to go on for many years. When it comes to personal injury, lawyers will try to use emotion to get jurors to identify with the plaintiff to gain sympathy. By getting sympathy for their client, they can often get a judgment, even when there should not be any responsibility of the one being sued. I can see a number of ways in which a good legal team could do that with Walmart.

 

And why is mom and pop stores out of business? Because their business model wasn't better than Wal-Mart's. Blame Wal-Mart all you like, but they're hated so much because they're the biggest out there. Same goes with any huge company. Yet, they still turn BILLIONS in profit every year. Wal-Mart wasn't always the big man on campus, but they seem to be the better company than any of its predecessors.

And before you call me a defender of Wal-Mart, I have no dog in this fight. They don't pay me in any way, shape or form. It's just I can admire a successful business model without getting all pissy about it.