Wal-Mart.....REALLY....???? WTF......

pro1driver

I don't wanna go fishing, even though i got stuff
Credits
52
When someone is being sued for injuries caused by their driver, one of the first things they do is look for other contributing factors in the accident that may have played a part in the injuries. If Morgan is suing Walmart for extensive injuries but failed to take actions himself that could have reduced or prevented those injuries, then Walmart isn't fully liable. It's really not that difficult to figure out.

I have a sneaking suspicion you've had a serious bias against Walmart long before their driver hit Morgan's vehicle. Try to separate that from this case and you may see it a little more clearly.
 
I am anti-helmet law, I am anti-seat belt for adults law. However, I choose to wear both.

I believe we should have the freedom of choice with one caveat: When we are involved in a collision which causes injury or death to ourselves while choosing to ride without a helmet or in a car without a seatbelt we waive all of our rights to hold the other parties responsible regardless of fault or the other parties' negligence.
 
I have a sneaking suspicion you've had a serious bias against Walmart long before their driver hit Morgan's vehicle. Try to separate that from this case and you may see it a little more clearly.

why would you accuse me of bias against wally-world..??

i go shopping there many times..

the nearest D/C center is several states away, so i have never applied to them for a driving job.

so why would i be "biased"...?????

that made no sense.

it's the idiot behind the wheel (of the wally-world truck) that caused the wreck, doesn't matter if Morgan was belted in, or just got up to go to the bathroom, or coming from it, or briefly standing up to "adjust his pants", then sit back down again. Wally-world had better find a sign in that wreckage that states.."occupants must be seated at all times"...then "maybe' wally-world has a chance of placing blame on someone else.

the callous action(s) of one of thier drivers smashed into the rear of the vehicle, causing death, injuries and massive destruction.


so, if DOT Foods were to be in an accident, nearly identical in every way as the wally-world driver did, and i have no d/c center near me, nor have ever applied to them (and i haven't), and i bash THAT DOT Foods driver...i'd still be "biased"....???

you need to "separate" something.....i don't.

any accident that a dumbass trucker hurts, kills, maims, destroys, all because he is careless, negligent, etc,etc, deserves the treatment i give it.
 
I am anti-helmet law, I am anti-seat belt for adults law. However, I choose to wear both.

I believe we should have the freedom of choice with one caveat: When we are involved in a collision which causes injury or death to ourselves while choosing to ride without a helmet or in a car without a seatbelt we waive all of our rights to hold the other parties responsible regardless of fault or the other parties' negligence.

i can agree on "anti-helmet/seatbelt laws", but do not agree on "waiving my rights if i get hurt"..

and i do wear both as well..or i did..when i had my bike(s).
 
The waiving my rights thing comes into play for me because I believe in "your freedom to do whatever you wish UNTIL it effects me".

There is a big difference between me making an unsafe lane change, for example where I would be faulted in the collision, and the result of my error being a few bumps and bruises versus death or permanent vegetative state.

Same thing with my taxes and insurance rates paying someones' medical bills because they chose not to wear a helmet or seat belt. Make your choices and deal with the consequences.

As long as you are going to hold me criminally and/or civilly responsible because of a choice you made, then I have to take that choice away from you and support some stupid law saying I know what's good for you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It's all legal wrangling...the fact that he wasn't wearing a seatbelt, will probably save Walmart a couple million in the settlement...that's how "slip and fall" law works.
I've been in jury duty 3 times, every time, there was a Walmart lawsuit for something, wet floor slip, dark parking lot collision...you name it, people will sue Walmart over it.
 
It usually isn't the people,it is the lawyers that get a 1/3 of the settlements.,that talk people into going after the deep pockets.
 
It usually isn't the people,it is the lawyers that get a 1/3 of the settlements.,that talk people into going after the deep pockets.


that can be a double edge sword (of sorts).

if you do not have a lawyer (ambulance chaser) they "other side" may make an offer that is well below what you deserve for your injuries. suppose for instance a settlement of $25,000 is offered (without a lawyer) and you take it, but you are unable to work for an extended period of time, where is the money going to come from for your bills, rent or mortgage..??

yes, the lawyers take a third (or percentage), but they also go for the highest possible settlement as well, as we all know all insurance companies have a tier system for payouts, like (say) $100,000 per person, $300,000 per accident..

so if they have (say) a $100,000 per person coverage, but only offer or say, "this is the best we can do"...screw them.....i'd want the maximum possible.

so yeah, i can see what you a re saying, but the insurance companies have the money, this is why they are rich....and have incredibly tall office buildings, and can sponsor all types of sports venues......

if they got the money to advertise during the Super Bowl, they got money to pay us MORE money.
 
why would you accuse me of bias against wally-world..??

i go shopping there many times..

the nearest D/C center is several states away, so i have never applied to them for a driving job.

so why would i be "biased"...?????

that made no sense.

it's the idiot behind the wheel (of the wally-world truck) that caused the wreck, doesn't matter if Morgan was belted in, or just got up to go to the bathroom, or coming from it, or briefly standing up to "adjust his pants", then sit back down again. Wally-world had better find a sign in that wreckage that states.."occupants must be seated at all times"...then "maybe' wally-world has a chance of placing blame on someone else.

the callous action(s) of one of thier drivers smashed into the rear of the vehicle, causing death, injuries and massive destruction.


so, if DOT Foods were to be in an accident, nearly identical in every way as the wally-world driver did, and i have no d/c center near me, nor have ever applied to them (and i haven't), and i bash THAT DOT Foods driver...i'd still be "biased"....???

you need to "separate" something.....i don't.

any accident that a dumbass trucker hurts, kills, maims, destroys, all because he is careless, negligent, etc,etc, deserves the treatment i give it.

Your bias was displayed for the world with this simple sentence that had absolutely nothing to do with the accident:

i hope wally-world loses so much money, that they have to resort to selling AMERICAN MADE products to survive....!!!!

That's about as obvious as it gets.


Let me put it in perspective for you. Let's say you're driving home one night. You're speeding a little (only about 10 mph over) when you hit and kill a pedestrian. The family of the pedestrian sues you even though the evidence shows that the pedestrian was drunk and wandered into the roadway wearing dark clothes. I'm willing to bet you would callously defend yourself by claiming the pedestrian's inebriated state, dark clothes, and stumble into the road was more responsible for his death than your speeding.

Get it now?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Your bias was displayed for the world with this simple sentence that had absolutely nothing to do with the accident:

i hope wally-world loses so much money, that they have to resort to selling AMERICAN MADE products to survive....!!!!

That's about as obvious as it gets.


Let me put it in perspective for you. Let's say you're driving home one night. You're speeding a little (only about 10 mph over) when you hit and kill a pedestrian. The family of the pedestrian sues you even though the evidence shows that the pedestrian was drunk and wandered into the roadway wearing dark clothes. I'm willing to bet you would callously defend yourself by claiming the pedestrian's inebriated sate, dark clothes, and stumble into the road was more responsible for his death than your speeding.

Get it now?

BS...just about EVERYONE talks about wally-world's selling of nearly 100% foreign made products in thier stores.

there is/was NO MORE bias on my part as anyone else's....

so YOU MEDIC have NEVER complained about wally-world..???

you are so "full of it, the stink comes through the internet"

as for the drunk...??? dark clothes...??? wandering all over the place...??

does everyone wear BRIGHT colors or reflective vests at night...??

the drunk in your scenario, deserves what he got from ANYONE "slightly speeding", on the road, and some dumbass "just wanders in front of a moving vehicle"...


oh yeah, like that dumbass doped up race car driver, walking across the track, and Tony hits him...

i do not care much for racing, and i said he deserved it, and frankly, so did many others.....(just maybe not worded like i did)

i guess by your definition, we are ALL biased then too...???

get a grip on yourself.


you're trying to make a mountain, out of a ant hill.....

go ahead and check 'the other" thread about this accident, and what someone else says about wally-world's "feeble attempt" to shift blame...
 
BS...just about EVERYONE talks about wally-world's selling of nearly 100% foreign made products in thier stores.

there is/was NO MORE bias on my part as anyone else's....

so YOU MEDIC have NEVER complained about wally-world..???

you are so "full of it, the stink comes through the internet"

as for the drunk...??? dark clothes...??? wandering all over the place...??

does everyone wear BRIGHT colors or reflective vests at night...??

the drunk in your scenario, deserves what he got from ANYONE "slightly speeding", on the road, and some dumbass "just wanders in front of a moving vehicle"...


oh yeah, like that dumbass doped up race car driver, walking across the track, and Tony hits him...

i do not care much for racing, and i said he deserved it, and frankly, so did many others.....(just maybe not worded like i did)

i guess by your definition, we are ALL biased then too...???

get a grip on yourself.


you're trying to make a mountain, out of a ant hill.....

go ahead and check 'the other" thread about this accident, and what someone else says about wally-world's "feeble attempt" to shift blame...


Most of the time I respect you Pro, but when you go off the deep end and post crap this stupid, I just have to wonder how you remember to breathe without being continuously reminded.
 
Let me put it in perspective for you. Let's say you're driving home one night. You're speeding a little (only about 10 mph over) when you hit and kill a pedestrian. The family of the pedestrian sues you even though the evidence shows that the pedestrian was drunk and wandered into the roadway wearing dark clothes. I'm willing to bet you would callously defend yourself by claiming the pedestrian's inebriated state, dark clothes, and stumble into the road was more responsible for his death than your speeding.
Get it now?

Most of the time I respect you Pro, but when you go off the deep end and post crap this stupid, I just have to wonder how you remember to breathe without being continuously reminded.

you say that i posted "stupid crap", yet here you are comparing apples to oranges..

you are "trying but getting no where", in comparing a person INSIDE a vehicle, to a person OUTSIDE a vehicle.....

getting hurt or killed

please compare properly....as there IS a huge difference in circumstances.....
 
Walmart is doing what any company would and has to do in this instance. They have a fiduciary responsibility to defend themselves to the upmost degree because they are a publicly held company. If they did not, they would risk being sued by their shareholders.

Stop letting your hatred and emotion get in the way of common sense.

BTW, Walmart is working hard to bring more manufacturing back to the US. They one of the few that is big enough to do it. The TV we will buy our son for Xmas is assembled in the US. It is assembled here because Walmart made that happen. No, it is not completely manufactured here, but it is a start.
Walmart U.S. Manufacturing Commitment
 
Y'know...I used to haul milk to 5 Krogers in Houston and it was that was on top of a 635 round trip at times. 700 miles is just not that much. But think of this every time you walk to your truck and have to wade through those empty Monsters and 5 Hour energy drink containers. We ALL know there are a huge amount of drivers who use them to make up for the lack of sleep. Hell, I ran two log books most of my career in trucking and it was expected of me to do it.

I ain't perfect. People make mistakes. The Fatigue accusation? It might be true but I doubt we could pin it on Wal-Mart policy. One of our own members got an over axle ticket the other day and it was one driver that I trained. I told him to weigh every load and that is why AWG has a scale on the yard. But he saw other drivers drive out the gate without weighing it so he followed them instead of me. Too bad he didn't follow the rules and the Union can't do a thing about it because this driver handed them the violation himself.

It is just a pity that another high profile case has to be put on display for the public to continue their hatred of all truckers. The one up in Oklahoma close to Ardmore where the truck crossed the median and killed a bunch of softball players? That is my former Company who hauls milk for Highland out of Chandler OK. That was the old Farm Fresh Dairy. Those poor souls on the softball bus were just as important as Morgan, but they were not celebrities and Quickway is far from Wal-Mart. But Quickway in Fort Worth is of the opinion that drivers are a dime a dozen. And that is why they lost about 13 good drivers in the span of about 4 months and they replaced them with rejects from other companies.

Be careful who you hire: you may have to go to court with them one day.
 
Walmart is doing what any company would and has to do in this instance. They have a fiduciary responsibility to defend themselves to the upmost degree because they are a publicly held company. If they did not, they would risk being sued by their shareholders.

Stop letting your hatred and emotion get in the way of common sense.


where the hell is the hatred and emotions here..??

someone rear ends another person...that "rear-ender" is at fault....no matter what the hell the person, or persons, or people were doing inside the front vehicle..

the "better alternative" to placing blame on the VICTIMS, would be to say something like, "we are sorry this happened, and we WILL make it right for all people injured, and to the surviving family members of those that lost thier life on that tragic day".....

YOU try and USE COMMON SENSE.......

to me, it's the A-Typical, "we accept no responsibility for our actions" scenario...tryin to place blame on someone else, minding thier own business.

please refer to posting #122 here....

http://www.truckingboards.com/forum...crash-injured-tracy-morgan-4.html#post1438364


as you can plainly see, i ain't the only one.
 
Nowhere did they say they are not responsible. You are reading into things too much.

They are doing what every company would do when faced with a civil lawsuit................ remembering that civil lawsuits are far different than criminal ones.

TM was offered a settlement. He decided that this was a perfect opportunity for publicity, and decided to attack, which is just fine. Walmart will not just roll over and play dead. The occupants of that van would not be injured as badly, and may not have died if they had just buckled up. It really is that simple. If that fact lowers Walmarts payout by 1% it is worth it.

You would do the exact same thing in that situation.
 
Nowhere did they say they are not responsible. You are reading into things too much.

They are doing what every company would do when faced with a civil lawsuit................ remembering that civil lawsuits are far different than criminal ones.

TM was offered a settlement. He decided that this was a perfect opportunity for publicity, and decided to attack, which is just fine. Walmart will not just roll over and play dead. The occupants of that van would not be injured as badly, and may not have died if they had just buckled up. It really is that simple. If that fact lowers Walmarts payout by 1% it is worth it.

You would do the exact same thing in that situation.

you do not know what i would do..

are you talking as if i owned the company..??

or

are you asking if i was the injured..??
 
If TM and all the others were buckled up they may have not been injured or killed.

If the truck driver didn't hit them it wouldn't have mattered if they were wearing their seatbelts or not.

In my opinion there is some culpability on the part of the wal-mart driver as well as Tracy Morgan and the other occupants. However, it is important to note that New Jersey does not require those in an RV to wear seat belts unless they are in the front seat(s).
 
Top