Did you even READ point A?

I mean my refute of it.

If a mailman comes to your door and falls through a giant hole in your porch, it's your fault. If he's hit in the back of the head with a neighbor's baseball, then it's THE NEIGHBOR'S FAULT. Which means that Wal-mart is not responsible - the people who ran her over are.

As far as B is concerned, Is wal-mart required to polce thier sale? At the sales I was at, people acted like human beings, not cows. How are they supposed to anticipate the situation? This obviously isn't something that happens regularly - or you'd hear about it every year, every store. One article states that the siren "Rang". Sirens don't ring, unless they aren't loud. You can't say the siren made them do it, either. YOU DON'T KNOW.

Why don't you just admit you don't know!

You don't go to a bull fight and then sue Spain for not providing security when you get run over.

The only people definatly at fault are the ones who initially bowled her over, in my opinion.

quote:

---

Verily, Gydfather doth proclaim:
You are actually referring to predatory pricing, which is a Sherman Act 2 offense (and by some considered to be a myth http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html ). Wal-Mart has been sued for it in the past, and a brief Internet search did not locate for me a case in which Wal-Mart has ever lost a predatory pricing charge (and maybe won't be found, as a 2002 study that I found today suggests that they've never been found liable http://www.regent.edu/acad/schgov/researchmemos/bill458.html .

This makes sense, because in order to lose a predatory pricing charge, the plaintiff must prove that you lowered your prices below your costs (and if you think thirty bucks is below cost for a DVD player I have a bridge for sale in Brooklyn), for a period of time, with the express purpose or result of driving your regional competitors out of business. That is a nearly impossible standard to meet, and it certainly can't be met by a DVD sale or other periodic price reductions.

Dumping, while occasionally used to refer to predatory pricing, usally more generally refers to import/export practice, such as what China does to the U.S. on a regular basis. So I would suggest you modify your terminology.

In any case, I am interrupting some good baseless rambling. Please continue.

---

Oddly, that struck me as a bit of research on his part, for free. Read it a few times, seems to deal with all your questions.

And, also the fact Gikk has a gold star on her nose from Gyd seems like he might be saying she's right.

Go... read those again. It'll be okay.

Then go read them again.

And again.

You'll get it eventually.

quote:

---

This one time, at Gikk camp:
Face it - you know exactly nothing about what you are tlaking about.

Did you even READ point A?

I mean my refute of it.

If a mailman comes to your door and falls through a giant hole in your porch, it's your fault. If he's hit in the back of the head with a neighbor's baseball, then it's THE NEIGHBOR'S FAULT. Which means that Wal-mart is not responsible - the people who ran her over are.

As far as B is concerned, Is wal-mart required to polce thier sale? At the sales I was at, people acted like human beings, not cows. How are they supposed to anticipate the situation? This obviously isn't something that happens regularly - or you'd hear about it every year, every store. One article states that the siren "Rang". Sirens don't ring, unless they aren't loud. You can't say the siren made them do it, either. YOU DON'T KNOW.

Why don't you just admit you don't know!

You don't go to a bull fight and then sue Spain for not providing security when you get run over.

The only people definatly at fault are the ones who initially bowled her over, in my opinion.

---

I keep saying Wal mart shares some of the fault not the total fault. you seem to think Im saying those people who trampeled that poor woman are blameless, and im not.

A it happened in their store... shoppers at walmart have the reasonable expectation of safety. I'm saying that walmart failed here, I dont know that they did and BTW niether DO YOU.

B) they created the atmosphere that led to the incident with the 6 am siren and lack of additional personel on hand to deal with any problems

"You have absolutly no idea weather or not they had additional personell. You also did not see the situation - while a siren could be quite bad, it also could be not very bad at all; it all depends on how loud it was, and in what manner it was used. You were not there - you assume, which is never a good thing to do. "

I wasnt there NEITHER WERE YOU. I base my assumption on past experiences with Wal-mart's Florida stores ( which is where I happen to live)
Rather than use a siren which lends to a race like tempo why not jsut make a general store annoucement?

no if I had went to a bullfight while i was in Spain and i got run over by a crowd? a Bull? I would not Sue spain but depending on the circumstances that led up to my trampling i might be looking at the owner of the stadium or the promoters of the event.

quote:

---

How.... Trent.... uughhhhhh:
[QB]Oddly, that struck me as a bit of research on his part, for free. Read it a few times, seems to deal with all your questions.

QB]

---

I didnt ask him to do that it concerns the issue of perditory priceing.

the question i asked and let me restate it to better satisfy you and others...

"in your proffesional opinion, do you think there is no basis for a Lawsuit by the victim against Wal-mart Frivolous or otherwise?"

let me change that to ---in your opinion, do you think there is a basis for a Lawsuit by the victim against Wal-mart Frivolous or otherwise?

that ought to do it oh and

_________________________
reverse osmosis.... water forced through a membrane removing impurities leaving pure water.

oh let me quote

From the label of a bottle of Dasani water "Dasani is filtered for purity, useing the state of the art treatment by reverse osmosis, and enanced with minerals...."

______

no idea why I got disparaged for that one

---

quote:

---

i'd rather argue they are following a wal mart policy to pre release goods prior to agreed upon times in order to be the known source in these instances and thus reduce the market share of vendors who adhere to their contracts.
when questioned about these contract breaches they mearly point to "know nothing" employees as an excuse

---

Bull fucking shit. I worked at Wal-mart. While my store was fucked up, I can tell you this - you are making them halciously more... conniving then they are as a whole. This whole big conspiracy theory of yours about early realeses is total and complete BS - it's more like A: the stockers DON'T know the release dates - only the department poeple have it, and stockers rotate nightly to differewnt sections. and B: Nothing can sit in the back. You have to have it on the floor to sell it. THAT'S company policy. And game companies are aware of this - as are CD makers and DVD makers.

Wal-mart has no policy to "pre-release to get business form others" otherwise they would continuasly pre-realease EVERYTHING, and it would be advertised.

Now. Listen reallll hard.

JUST BEING ON SOMEONE'S PROPERTY WHEN YOU GET HURT DOES NOT MAKE THEM AT FAULT.

Get that? You keep skipping it. NOT AT FAULT.

Plus, I can bet you dollars to donuts there was security. Seeing as how I WORKED at Wal-mart on Black Friday, I would know better then you. While I cannot guarentee it, it's pretty likely.

I am a better source of information about Wal-mart then you. Period. You want to bash Wal-mart? Fine. My Wal-mart had no MSDS book, got fined by Osha, had poeple from toys climbing into the trash compacters, and one of my mid-level managers kept telling me to go play in traffic.

But you have no idea what you are talking about. Period. You don't know the situation - neither do I. I can hazard my best guess from my experience. I'm guessing they took all of the proper precautions because otherwise, THEY WOULD HAVE NO COMMENT. Not just "Too bad." but "No Comment" because of pending legal issues. They would also be bending over backwards to make her happy - not just reserving her a DVD player.

Use your brain. It's there for a reason.

Oh, and there is ALWAYS room for a frivolous lawsuit. I could sue you right this minute for .. mental distress. That's not saying I'd WIN. You can sue anyone for anything - even for the color of thier hair, or something. It may get thrown out of court, but you still would have sued them.

*shows off her gold-nose-star proudly*

[ 12-02-2003: Message edited by: Gikk ]

quote:

---

Somthor said this about your mom:
I didnt ask him to do that it concerns the issue of perditory priceing.

the question i asked and let me restate it to better satisfy you and others...

"in your proffesional opinion, do you think there is no basis for a Lawsuit by the victim against Wal-mart Frivolous or otherwise?"

---

Go back and read Gikks post... you know the one that she got the star for.. you know the one.

Now go read it again.

and again.

*goes to wash his hands muttering as he goes*

I'd rehash alot of points made in this thread, but I don't think they'd manage to stay in the newbies head anyway.

quote:

---

Gikk attempted to be funny by writing:
You know nothing about Wal-mart.

Bull fucking shit. I worked at Wal-mart. While my store was fucked up, I can tell you this - you are making them halciously more... conniving then they are as a whole. This whole big conspiracy theory of yours about early realeses is total and complete BS - it's more like A: the stockers DON'T know the release dates - only the department poeple have it, and stockers rotate nightly to differewnt sections. and B: Nothing can sit in the back. You have to have it on the floor to sell it. THAT'S company policy. And game companies are aware of this - as are CD makers and DVD makers.

Wal-mart has no policy to "pre-release to get business form others" otherwise they would continuasly pre-realease EVERYTHING, and it would be advertised.

Plus, I can bet you dollars to donuts there was security. Seeing as how I WORKED at Wal-mart on Black Friday, I would know better then you. While I cannot guarentee it, it's pretty likely.

I am a better source of information about Wal-mart then you. Period. You want to bash Wal-mart? Fine. My Wal-mart had no MSDS book, got fined by Osha, had poeple from toys climbing into the trash compacters, and one of my mid-level managers kept telling me to go play in traffic.

Oh, and there is ALWAYS room for a frivolous lawsuit. I could sue you right this minute for .. mental distress. That's not saying I'd WIN. You can sue anyone for anything - even for the color of thier hair, or something. It may get thrown out of court, but you still would have sued them.

*shows off her gold-nose-star proudly*

---

At this time I'd like to mention I worked at a Sam's Club from OCT-JAN you base what you know from your store...I base mine from the one I was at and colaterial experiences from the stores in my comunity, as well as various unverified internet sites.

quote:

---

Oh, and there is ALWAYS room for a frivolous lawsuit...

---

quote:

---

Verily, the chocolate bunny rabits doth run and play while Somthor gently hums:
I didnt ask him to do that it concerns the issue of perditory priceing.

the question i asked and let me restate it to better satisfy you and others...

"in your proffesional opinion, do you think there is no basis for a Lawsuit by the victim against Wal-mart Frivolous or otherwise?"

let me change that to ---in your opinion, do you think there is a basis for a Lawsuit by the victim against Wal-mart Frivolous or otherwise?

that ought to do it oh and

_________________________
reverse osmosis.... water forced through a membrane removing impurities leaving pure water.

oh let me quote

From the label of a bottle of Dasani water "Dasani is filtered for purity, useing the state of the art treatment by reverse osmosis, and enanced with minerals...."

______

no idea why I got disparaged for that one

---

---

Your second question first: you got disparaged because you're making a habit of stringing unrelated buzzwords together and calling it an argument.

Your first question is just dumb. How can anyone with even a single misfiring brain cell stand the public humiliation of asking, "Is there no basis for a lawsuit, frivolous or otherwise?"

I'll just save Gydyon the trouble of ripping your lungs out in exasperation by pointing out that the very definition of a frivolous lawsuit is one without basis. And you've already been told by the resident lawyer that there's no basis for a claim against Wal*Mart for the trampling.

Honestly, can you learn to STFU when you've been proven wrong? If you continue with the "Ohos its t eh intarweb anymousity makse me unvulnarabel!" schtick, I can pretty much guarantee you won't last long around here.

The rules are very different. Ask Maradon.

And I worked at Walmart for almost a year.

And the "I smell a lawsuit" makes it sound like "Hey! I smell a legitimate lawsuit" i.e. there is reason for her to sue them!

Not "I am going to sue them because thier sign is blue" You could, you know. It would just get thrown out of court. Saying they can be sued in a lawsuit that will not work in court is pointless.

Nice way to still act like you are right.

I'm going to bed. Ciao til mornin.

quote:

---

Bloodsage put down Tada! magazine long enough to type:
It is morning!

---

Oh yeah?! Well, YOU'RE a morning!

Your second question first: you got disparaged because you're making a habit of stringing unrelated buzzwords together and calling it an argument.

______________________
I was being made fun of for the reverse osmosis comment when we went OT on water.
________________________

Your first question is just dumb. How can anyone with even a single misfiring brain cell stand the public humiliation of asking, "Is there no basis for a lawsuit, frivolous or otherwise?"

I keep saying I smell a lawsuit are you and everyone else saying that no one will aproach the victim and offer represnetation in a claim against Wal mart for this event? look i know i miss the point repeatedly on a regular basis but this is what im saying and I cant seem to find where anyone is looking at that instead of all the rest of the clutter on this thread.

" And you've already been told by the resident lawyer that there's no basis for a claim against Wal*Mart for the trampling. if he said that I missed it.. what i saw was him saying that there was no case for preditory priceing."

find where he said it, put it in bold, hit me in the face with it and I'll finaly see it i suppose.

Honestly, can you learn to STFU when you've been proven wrong? sure can you see me argueing about nuclear bunker busters anymore?
__________________________________________________________________________
If you continue with the "Ohos its t eh intarweb anymousity makse me unvulnarabel!" schtick,
_________________________________________________________________
I dont use leet speak, How long I stay on EC is really a factor of if I get asked by the Sysop to leave or I just plain fade away on my own.

Somthor needs to be hit by a girder.

quote:

---

Gikk probably says this to all the girls:
Sams Club != Walmart.

Not "I am going to sue them because thier sign is blue" You could, you know. It would just get thrown out of court. Saying they can be sued in a lawsuit that will not work in court is pointless.
__________________________________________
Oddly i thought that the case where the old woman burned herself with coffee would get dissmissed, but we all know that a jury gave her a few mill for that one.
________________________________________
Nice way to still act like you are right.

Thank you, sleep well.

I'm going to bed. Ciao til mornin.

---

And can the lady sue Wal-Mart? Of course. Anybody can sue anybody. But I think it would lose on summary judgment in favor of Wal-Mart, because the plaintiff will not be able to show a duty owed to her as a matter of law. If the plaintiff gets a more plaintiff-friendly judge, she might get to a jury. But I doubt it.

More likely Wal-Mart will settle to avoid the publicity (like they would in a big predatory pricing case, regardless of their culpability). And someone will profit for an unfortunate accident at the expense of a big corporation, which we all know is made of money and evil so what do we care if they pay out the wazoo in settlements for something that wasn't its fault -- they just write it off anyway.

*tags Bloodsage back in*

[ 12-02-2003: Message edited by: Gydfather ]

quote:

---

Somthor had this to say about Punky Brewster:
[QB][/QB]

---

Which was negligent on McDonald's part because the coffee was heated to roughly 180 degrees - 20 degrees higher then food safety standreds, making it unsafe.

Which makes them at fault.

Which, by the way, is a really really horrible analogy - the only thing in common is person A suing Corperation B. Whether the cases having anything in common seems pointless to you.

Just keep spouting nonsense. This is fun.

A) to Gikk, Gyd, and 'Sage!

B) Learn to spell moron.

C) I like wal-mart

I contribute nothing

quote:

---

Nobody really understood why Somthor wrote:
Honestly, can you learn to STFU when you've been proven wrong? sure can you see me argueing about nuclear bunker busters anymore?

---

um?

quote:

---

Death of Rats had this to say about Tron:
Actualy Gryd, I've been reading up on Wal*Mart lawsuits (they get alot of them) and they don't settle. They have a policy which goes against the norm of forcefully persuing the case till they win, even if it would cost less to settle in the theory that if they beat down the person suing them brutaly, then their discourage others in suing them.

---

GYD

GYD

GYD

Some century you'll get that.

Interesting. I have some clients with that mentality -- it works most of the time.

quote:

---

Gydfather stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
GYD

---

Gynyon?

quote:

---

Sean spewed forth this undeniable truth:
Gynyon?

---

Gannon?

quote:

---

Somthor tried to impress everyone with:
Oddly i thought that the case where the old woman burned herself with coffee would get dissmissed, but we all know that a jury gave her a few mill for that one.

---

You obviously didn't bother to look into the case in any more detail than the superficial "omg the stupid lady spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonalds for it".

I'm sure the fact that the coffee in that case was well above established safety standards on testimony from McDonald's employees that it was at that temperature purposely, despite the safety standards and acknowledged known possible risks; and in fact at that temperature was too hot to even drink because it would have killed you; and gave the woman third-degree burns (we're talking the same type of burns you'd get if you went and set yourself on fire); and that the woman originally only asked McDonald's privately for doctor's fees but they refused, forcing her to take them to court; doesn't add up to negligence on McDonald's part -- but I only assume that because even a monkey would see fault in McDonald's case, which is why you'd argue the other side.

[ 12-02-2003: Message edited by: Drysart ]

quote:

---

Drysart's fortune cookie read:

I'm sure the fact that the coffee in that case was well above established safety standards on testimony from McDonald's employees that it was at that temperature purposely, despite the safety standards and acknowledged known possible risks; and in fact at that temperature was too hot to even drink because it would have killed you; and gave the woman third-degree burns (we're talking the same type of burns you'd get if you went and set yourself on fire); and that the woman originally only asked McDonald's privately for doctor's fees but they refused, forcing her to take them to court; doesn't add up to negligence on McDonald's part -- but I only assume that because even a monkey would see fault in McDonald's case, which is why you'd argue the other side.

---

You're really defending that ladies actions?

[ 12-02-2003: Message edited by: Reynar ]

quote:

---

The logic train ran off the tracks when Somthor said:
best reference I have found was by a lawyer who was protesting Wal Marts foray into banking. It cites several sources such as CBS the new york times 60 minutes etc etc basincly stateing that Wal mart is a preditory Company. (happy to post it as a follow up if any one wants to see it)

---

*cough*

I can dispute this one pretty well, as a former Wingspan/BankOne employee and interests manager.

False, and very false. Wal*Mart's 'foray' into banking was actually a front running started in 1998 by Wingspan (A daughter banking group of BankOne, and eventually just got absorbed into BankOne proper) who at the time was in an effort to make themselves known as the most convient way to bank. As one of the first fully online bank institutions, they sought to increase branches and services as best they could to make them an all in one. Wal*Mart was approached in one such venture, since they were doing simliar at becoming an all in one, and a mututal agreement between the two companies was setup to allow branching through the Wal*Mart stores, basically making them a daughter company (Branch) of Wingspan which was a daughter company of BankOne. So basically Wal*Mart became more universal, as well as Wingspan becoming more convientent for everyone since the Wal*Mart banking experience would actually go through them.

This is about the same time Wal*Mart tried to be the All In One Store of the future they are today (Which kicks ass by the way, I LOVE Wal*Mart SuperCenters). This was much the same as Wal*Mart's very short lived Freebie Online Intertnet Veture that was actually started (Supplied and created by Earthlink) they are services offered and supported by OTHER front runner companies that just have the Wal*Mart name on them. So it is OTHER companies WANTING to go into a joint venture with Wal*Mart that brought those about.

Wingspan eventually went under in the dot.com fall out in 2000, and was absorbed by BankOne proper, its parent company. Wal*Mart liked the idea of having banking available in thier new, and WIDELY popular, superstores, but decided against tagging their name on them and would rather let the weight be carried by the original branchs. Which is why today there are VARIOUS, I repeat MULTI VARIED NUMEROUS DIFFERENT BRANCH BANKING COMPANIES, in the Supercenters now, from just about every major banking institution, or local branches.

The more you talk, the less it sounds like you have a clue... And you didn't sound like you had much of one aside from 'Wal*mart is the Devil!' crap.

quote:

---

Reynar tried to impress everyone with:
You're really defending that ladies actions?

---

Yes. Read what I wrote and tell me with a straight face that McDonald's was not purposely negligent in that case. If you or I intentionally gave someone coffee that was almost boiling hot and they received serious injuries as a result, we'd probably end up in prison.

quote:

---

We were all impressed when Drysart wrote:
Yes. Read what I wrote and tell me with a straight face that McDonald's was not purposely negligent in that case. If you or I intentionally gave someone coffee that was almost boiling hot and they received serious injuries as a result, we'd probably end up in prison.

---

The hot coffee would not have even been an issue had she not been clumsey and spilt it on herself.

Should people who sell other potentially dangerous items be held liable when their customers screw up and hurt themselves? Fireworks are potentialy dangerous, so if I light one and burn myself in the process, should I sue the makers of the product? Even though there's a warning on it?

There was a warning on her coffee, she wasn't careful and screwed up. The fault is as much hers as anyone elses.

I will agree that McDonalds should not have had it that hot, but her case was out the window (IMO) the moment she was a clutz and dropped it in her lap. Those medical bills she was asking to be paid were a direct result of her dropping it. If she hadn't dropped it, the worse that would've happened is she would've burnt her tounge or mouth a bit while drinking it. And tell me you've never burnt that eating before.

[ 12-02-2003: Message edited by: Reynar ]

quote:

---

Reynar got all f'ed up on Angel Dust and wrote:
If she hadn't the worse that would've happened is she would've burnt her tounge or mouth a bit. And tell me you've never burnt that eating before.

---

quote:

---

He said, she said, Drysart said:
and in fact at that temperature was too hot to even drink because it would have killed you;

---

quote:

---

Drysart had this to say about Jimmy Carter:
Yes. Read what I wrote and tell me with a straight face that McDonald's was not purposely negligent in that case. If you or I intentionally gave someone coffee that was almost boiling hot and they received serious injuries as a result, we'd probably end up in prison.

---

True. Not 3 million dollars true, but McDonald's should have paid some money in that suit. Which it did.

It's one of those cases the defense bar has used to institute wide-reaching tort reform when it actually only argues in favor of damage caps, if even that.

But since when does fact get in the way of a good dose of rhetoric!

quote:

---

Reynar enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
The hot coffee would not have even been an issue had she not been clumsey and spilt it on herself.

I will agree that McDonalds should not have had it that hot, but her case was out the window (IMO) the moment she was a clutz and dropped it in her lap.

---

So if the cup had contained acid, she should also be barred from recovering?

In fact, her damages were reduced based on what the jury felt was her own liability in being a clutz (they assessed it at 20%). So your point was taken into consideration by the jury, even if they went overboard on the punies.

[ 12-02-2003: Message edited by: Blindy Claus ]

quote:

---

Gydfather stopped staring at Deedlit long enough to write:
So if the cup had contained acid, she should also be barred from recovering?

In fact, her damages were reduced based on what the jury felt was her own liability in being a clutz (they assessed it at 20%). So your point was taken into consideration by the jury, even if they went overboard on the punies.

---

Depends, does the cup say there's acid in it? If it did and she drank it, then darwinism is doing its duty. If not, then they were falsey labeling their product and have a lot to answer for.

She would have burned herself regardless, whether or not this coffee was 20 degrees over the regular temperature, coffee is hot enough to cause burns (while to a lesser extent), even at the correct temperature.

I'm not saying my opinion is the ultimate right or anything, it's just how I feel on the matter.

[ 12-02-2003: Message edited by: Reynar ]

I contribute nothing to this thread! Mwahahahaha!

quote:

---

Reynar attempted to be funny by writing:
There was a warning on her coffee, she wasn't careful and screwed up. The fault is as much hers as anyone elses.

---

I'm confused. I thought the warnings were printed on the cup as a result of this incident and that the warning was not on the cup the lady received?

And subsequently, we now have similar warnings on almost every product we buy.

[ 12-02-2003: Message edited by: Vernaltemptress ]