• Walmart Faults Tracy Morgan for Not Wearing Seat Belt During Car Accident
    40 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Pepsi-cola;46110071]Seatbelt or not, him not wearing one didn't cause the accident.[/QUOTE] They're not arguing that. They're arguing that they shouldn't be held accountable for negligence on the part of the injured, which is a very legitimate defense in cases like this and has its [URL="http://arcca.com/seat-belt-defense/"]own field of investigators[/URL]. Walmart isn't denying they owe some people some money, just the amount owed and the reasons for it. Just, hypothetically speaking- remove the big evil corporation from the picture for a moment- say you were driving a bit too fast and you accidentally hit the back end of a little old lady's car. Said little old lady fractures a hip and wants you to pay for surgery, but the doctors involved readily admit that she would not have fractured her hip had she been wearing a seatbelt. Do you think you should have to pay surgical bills for her negligence, whereas your negligence should have only resulted in vehicular damage?
In civil lawsuits juries may limit damages they award based on how responsible the parties are for injuries. For instance, if they find Morgan is 30% responsible, because he didn't wear a seatbelt, then he'd only get $700k out of every million dollars they awarded. So this could save Walmart a lot of money even if they lose the lawsuit.
[QUOTE=Mio Akiyama;46110437]You realize that most trucking companies are so fucking evil that they don't care if they overwork their employees. They sometimes force the truck driver to fudge driving log books so they could keep driving despite going over the 14 hour limit driving. [url]http://abcnews.go.com/US/danger-forcing-truck-drivers-drive-sleep-deprived-exposed/story?id=25544862[/url][/QUOTE] Walmart isn't most trucking companies. Like I said earlier, Walmart follows corporate regulations like they're the law of God carved in stone. If they're caught falsifying logs, they'll be fined millions and thats no bueno for walmart. I know we all like to go "ra ra corporate evil", but walmart isn't at fault this time. Nobody forced the driver to drive 14 hours straight before going into work, and it's obvious he didn't tell his supervisor or dispatcher that he'd already driven past the limit for drivers when he started his haul. The driver is obviously at fault.
[QUOTE=Ardosos;46110130]Isn't it illegal for a trucker to be driving on the job after being awake for 24+ hours?[/QUOTE] They are. You're only allowed per US DOT rules to drive for 11 hours, and you cannot spend more than 16 hours 'on the clock' without at least an 8 hour sleep break. The driver is at fault, not WalMart.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46110433]They're blaming Tracy because Tracy is suing walmart for something they're not at fault for. Walmart's mega-team of Corporate lawyers aren't just gonna sit on their hands and throw a walmart employee under the bus, even if he's at fault. It's easier to win a court case if you make the victim look like they're at fault. Shitty move but hey, it's a shitty move to sue walmart. Sue the Driver if you just want to get money.[/QUOTE] It might be Walmart's corporate values that was the reason why this guy was driving for 24 hours straight. Why did he do so? Was he expected to? Should Walmart have known? Anyway, always wear a seat belt.
[QUOTE=GoDong-DK;46111630]It might be Walmart's corporate values that was the reason why this guy was driving for 24 hours straight.[/QUOTE] But we don't know if it is the reason. It's stupid as hell to say someone is legally responsible for the actions of another because their values MAY have had an effect on it, but you can't say for sure.
I still feel sorry for the truckie.. he must feel like shit.
if a driver hasn't slept in an unreasonable amount of time isn't it foreseeable that an accident can happen. I'm currently taking a business law course in which we are talking about proximate/factual cause. Why doesn't walmart lose this case on a count of negligence?
It's not my fault I shot you, you didn't wear kevlar.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;46110347]Neither did Walmart. It's the fault of the driver and the fault of the driver alone.[/QUOTE] But Walmart can be held liable because he was put in a position to use their property in an unsafe manner on public roads.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.