Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(via   Employee Sues Wal-Mart Because Store Didn't Protect Her From Husband's Attack   ( divider line
    More: Asinine  
•       •       •

3526 clicks; posted to Main » on 29 Aug 2001 at 11:04 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

134 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

2001-08-29 12:23:42 PM  
Order of events: 1) Woman gets restraining order after husbands arrest for assault. 2) Woman tells her place of employment, Walmart. 3) Husband enters Walmart repeatedly, unchallenged. 4) Husband purchases ammunition at Walmart. 5) on the SAME TRIP to Walmart, husband then asks manager when his wife, who the manager knows he is not allowed near, starts work. 6) Presumably the manager answers the question honestly (this is unclear in the artical) 7) Husband returns shortly after woman arrives for work (only a half hour after he left), again enters the store unchallenged (despite her physical presense, thuse violating the restraining order whether or not a place of employment clause was in it) 8) Husband attempts to kill wife, using ammunition (and, possibly, specific information) provided by wife's place of employement. I say fark Walmart. Give the woman an 8 figure judgement and arrest the manager (and, if he was aware of the restraining order and the identity of the man) the employee who sold the ammunition for accessory to attempted murder.
2001-08-29 12:26:29 PM  
expecially CD's by N'Sync
2001-08-29 12:28:01 PM  
MacGabhain: your logic persuades me. fark walmart.

at the same time, fark the police who hadnt arrested this asshole before he fired the gun
2001-08-29 12:29:34 PM  
Beware Midgetts with guns.
2001-08-29 12:29:36 PM  
MacGabhain: I completely agree wit' that
2001-08-29 12:32:15 PM  
I thought it is "Law Enforcement's job" to protect the public not the employer.

Sounds like another case of "Cops can't keep the bad guys in jail, because they are too busy protecting the donut shops from victimless crimes such as drug abuse".

Gotta luv it
2001-08-29 12:39:58 PM  
So do you think the husband got a smiley sticker?
2001-08-29 12:42:08 PM  
MacGab - Based on how you described the facts, I agree: Walmart should pay. This is not Asinine.
2001-08-29 12:42:52 PM  
Wal-Mart Greeter: Welcome to Wal-Mart
Psycho Hubbie: I are needing some bullets for a pistol I have iun my pocket, also do you know where my biatch-a$$ wife is right now?
Wal-Mart Greeter: Sure, aisle 10 for the ammo and she is in Electronics and not paying attentionso youcould probably surprise her if need be!
Psycho Hubbie: Thanks, I will spare you.
2001-08-29 12:45:49 PM  
[image from too old to be available]

Once again, the masked happy man was not on the scene for some reason unknown to us.
2001-08-29 12:50:27 PM  
yes... walmart had an obligation to protect it's employees since they were made aware of the problem. also.... if he had previously assaulted her, then he should have been in jail. i say she sues walmart, the cops, and the judge who let him go.

i had a restraining order against my exhusband once. had to give a copy of it to the guards to keep at the front desk at my place of employment. that (to me) meant that they were to stop him if he tried to come on the premises. if he had, and they didn't try to stop him... i would own half of the company by now
2001-08-29 12:53:39 PM  
Dang you, Rabbito, you beat me to it.

CASHIER: Paper or plastic?

PSYCHO: Naw, I'll just load 'em up here.

You're supposed to ask the customer "to go or shoot-in?"
2001-08-29 12:57:01 PM  
jodibug, you're wrong. it is not the job of the employer to enforce the law.

and it's "its employees" not "it's employees." btw.
learn some freaking grammar.
2001-08-29 01:00:17 PM  
2) Woman tells her place of employment, Walmart.

6) Presumably the manager answers the question honestly (this is unclear in the artical)

8) Husband attempts to kill wife, using ammunition (and, possibly, specific information)

First-Who did she tell at wal-mart?
Second- #6 and #8 are speculation, except the ammo part.
2001-08-29 01:01:26 PM  
Jkhat, go to the corner.

"Mrs.Crabapple, Mrs.Crabapple, I know the answer!! Ooo Ooo me me!!"
2001-08-29 01:07:06 PM  
Silly americans.
2001-08-29 01:17:46 PM  
From my observation, most Wal-Mart "Greeters" are senior citizens. Old senior citizens at that. What were they going to do? Attack and jump on the guy? They'd fall and break a hip. So now what do you have? One woman shot in the head, one man who committed suicide, and one greeter with a broken hip.
2001-08-29 01:23:11 PM  
Jkhat I am afraid that you are in error in your opinion.
The fact is that any employee has the right to expect a measure of safety in the workplace. This is not a matter of enforcing the law - this is a manner of creating a dangerous workplace.

If (like some of the above Farkers have mentioned) the victim has presented the management with a copy of the restaining order then they are legally obligated to prevent the agressor from entering when the victim is present.
If they had asked him to leave and he refuesed then they should have their rent-a-cop escort him out of the store and call the cops to come arrest him for violating the restraining order.
2001-08-29 01:23:20 PM  
Those dumbass newswriters! The guy didn't buy "bullets." He bought ammunition. Sheez! It's not a muzzle-loader, folks!
2001-08-29 01:26:51 PM  
Speaking of antiques, this wouldn't have been much of a story if it happened before self-contained ammo and repeating firearms. "As the man reloaded his weapon, employees stood around in terror. One cashier checked her watch and asked to go on break."
2001-08-29 01:33:19 PM  
Personally, I hope she nails Wal-Mart's a$$ to the wall. I'm on the tail end of one lawsuit against their Workmen's Comp Carrier and I'm about to start another one up for negligence. It's about time someone knocked them down a peg.
2001-08-29 01:38:25 PM  
Jkhat... I think you need a little reminder of Farks commandment #10 :) Have a great day, and I sure hope no one comes to gun you down at work, I mean that sincerely!
2001-08-29 01:43:47 PM  
Marsha Midgette... heh, heh.
2001-08-29 01:52:01 PM  
If the evidence presented either as fact or under speculation is proved to be true, it is correct that the woman deserves restitution. But lawsuits are not remedies. Our legal system was not designed to "destroy" those that we feel deserve destroying. Filing a neglegience lawsuit may help this woman recieve the monetary restitution that Wal-Mart may not otherwise provide her with. But nothing can turn back time, and becoming bitter heals nothing. Attempting to solve our problems with lawsuit after lawsuit will result in nothing more than the kind of litigious society that we Freedom-of-speech-supporting FARKers complain about every day. True, she deserves restitution, but using a lawsuit as a means of personal revenge is unfounded and is an abuse of the American Legal sytem.
2001-08-29 01:57:16 PM  
Just a thought, but does telling management mean that every employee working that particular day would know who the guy was? Think about it, would the guy covering Sporting Goods have known this psycho?
Personnally, It's still speculation that the management even knew. Saying her "manager" knew could mean that it was a department manager, and may or may not mean store manager. More info is needed before making a decision, for me.
Course, this is America, where no one is responsible for their own actions anymore.
2001-08-29 02:02:47 PM  
I am going to sue fark and all of those who post since your product is preventing me from getting my work done. BTW in a recent article, walmart is sued second to the most in the US, only the Fed gov is sued more. Walmart is only liable if the employees helped the incedent to occur. Whens the last time an employee has helped you (bullets are at the back counter, your target is in the break room. If i can be of any more assistance...)
Fark it all to hell and back.
2001-08-29 02:07:13 PM  
I am going to sue myself because I tripped up the stairs just now and I am pretty sure I caused it.
2001-08-29 02:07:41 PM  
Why did everyone post about this story. It's really boring
2001-08-29 02:07:51 PM  
Not responsible for their own actions? Which action exactly were you referring to - the action that the biatch probabally did to this man that made her deserve to get shot in the head? Is that what you were implying? If that is not what you meant then that statement was a non-sequitur.

If I had a restraining order against a man I would tell my mamager at work and then he would distribute the info to everyone at work - but espically the receptionist. More than likely with a picture. And he would say - this man is not allowed in this building.
Just because this woman works at WalMart does not mean she has any less of a right to expect safety in the workplace. When she notified her manager that manager should have gone to the store manager. They then make up a flyer with the guy's picture on it and distribute it to the departments and to the greeters. Hang it in the break room. Then they could say they did everything possible to prevent injury and this woman would have no recourse.

If they blew the threat off and will not compensate her for her injury then they deserve to be sued.
2001-08-29 02:09:34 PM  
Shaftman3: Because Wal-Mart + Jacka$$ people + violence = good shiat
2001-08-29 02:11:46 PM  
I guess you are right Rabbito. I need a beer.
2001-08-29 02:13:52 PM  
Because we all wish we had a reason to sue walmart.
And we are greedy motherfarkers.
2001-08-29 02:18:54 PM  
All we are is...another brick in the wall
2001-08-29 02:22:58 PM  
that's true Shaftman3, and I am the brick with gum on it
2001-08-29 02:23:08 PM  
Wal*Mart is most definately liable. Let me explain why. Let's say that Random Employee A has a restraining order against Husband B. Random Employee A tells her boss, "Boss, I have a restraining order against Husband B - he can't come within 500 feet of me which means he can't be in the Wal*Mart when I'm here. I got the restraining order because I feel my life is in danger and he's abused me in the past." Now, it's the responsibility of management to insure Random Employee A has a safe working environment. Now that Boss knows about the restraining order it's his/her responsibility to make sure the security people at Wal*Mart know about it and to make sure the other employees are aware of it. That way, if Husband B shows up and starts BUYING BULLETS and asks when Random Employee A WILL ARRIVE AT WORK someone could get SUSPICIOUS and call the police.

Obviously, this didn't happen. Either the word wasn't passed out to anyone or security wasn't made aware of the situation or the Boss didn't pass the information out. Whatever the mistake, it's now the liability of Wal*Mart to resolve all of this women's medical bills, mental anguish etc. because they failed to protect her at work. This isn't an issue of her husband being a psycho. This isn't an issue that deals with her personal life or your opinion of her. Pure and simple: her employer failed to aid her in maintaining the restratining order and she was shot IN THE HEAD at her place of business. Wal*Mart has a very LARGE responsibility to take care of her monetary needs.

Wouldn't you expect YOUR boss to aid you in maintaining a restraining order you had against some psycho? Wouldn't you feel that your place of work had some responsibility for the resulting actions when they failed to stop the psycho from storming into your work place and shooting you in the head? Don't you feel it's your bosses' responsibility to create and your right to have a safe working environment?

Come on people, think.
2001-08-29 02:39:12 PM  
The important thing we can all learn from this is: It's called AMMUNITION, people! Not bullets! Bullets are just the projectiles! The guy bought some AMMUNITION and put a BULLET in his wife's head. Please, in all this talk of liability, try not to lose sight of the important things.
2001-08-29 02:46:10 PM  
CO2factory: I may very well be thinking of the terms differently than you, but "punitive damages" seems very much to me to be using a lawsuit as a means of personal revenge.

Soupgoblin: It is, indeed, law enforcement's job to protect the public. It is not, however, their job to protect any particular member of the public. However much information the police have that someone is in danger, unless they take actions that accentuate the danger (such as, oh, telling a few rapists that their victim filed a complaint, which they, the police, were ignoring - as opposed to merely ignoring the complaint), they're not legally responsible for the subsequent (or ongoing) injury.

I agree that some items on my previous list are not known for certain. However, assuming that the woman did inform her employer (which the artical states is part of her claim), those would only be relevant to any specific liability of the individuals involved. Whether any civil or criminal action could be taken against, say, the manager for telling the husband when she'd be there, I don't know. I only strongly believe that it should be (assuming, of course, that the store informed him of the order). Walmart as a whole was responsible for making sure that all relevant people know of the order, and is thus responsible if they fail to take appropriate action based on not knowing about the order.

2001-08-29 03:10:57 PM  
Yes, think, people, and save your contempt for lawsuits that deserve it. This one's legit, for the reasons that Irascible, Crowell29a, McGabhain, Jodibug, Vox8 and Cyberpunk cited: A restraining order was issued, she informed her employers of that fact (presumably, though it doesn't explicitly state that in the article), and the employers were obliged to provide her a safe workplace. They didn't. Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.
2001-08-29 03:16:02 PM  
First of all, I think she should consider herself lucky to be alive if she was shot in the head.
Secondly, shouldn't the cops be ones that are supposed to protect her, not Wal-mart?
2001-08-29 03:19:03 PM  
MacGabhain - I never mentioned "punitive damages". I only discussed "restitution" not punishment. I agree that Wal-Mart needs to provide it's workers with a safer environment. But think - by filing suit solely with the intent of punishing a company, what will you accomplish? Will Wal-Mart go on to be a safer place to work? Or will it just become another company with slippery rules and clauses that make the corporation less and less liable or responsible? It's obvious that changes need to be made. But what is important is how those changes are made. I may not have all the answers, but I do know that simply taking money from a company will not cause it to take a 180 as far as policy and training go. In fact, the more money you take, the more corners the company may have to cut.
2001-08-29 03:19:04 PM  
Oh, and here's a little bit of a fact here since I used to work for Wally World and my wife currently does. It is against Wal-Mart policy for any employee to tell anyone not employed by Wal-Mart when another employee's shift starts or ends. At the very least, if this employee did in fact tell this man when the victim's shift started, he/she should be fired and held responsible for his/her actions.
2001-08-29 03:20:11 PM  
well it's all fun and games until one of your employees gets capped in the grape with ammunition (for you Boorite) purchased from your store by an angry ex-husband you were previously notified about
2001-08-29 03:20:20 PM  
This is completely cut and dried, she had a restraining order. And i'm sorry but a job has a legal responsibility to protect you while there, if they did not provide security, and it sounds like they didn't do much of anything from what I can tell (at Walmart? NO!) if they didn't provide that, then you bet your arse they are liable. I hope she wins and gets everything up to and including Sam Walmart's limo fleet.

Sorry folks, I hate flippant lawsuits more then the next guy, this isn't one.
2001-08-29 03:20:33 PM  
I really want to hear CONNIE CHUNG's take on all of this. Can anyone get her in here for an interview?
2001-08-29 03:22:59 PM  
Can Wal-Mart put this woman's life back together? The only thing businesses understand is money. So if you have to teach them a lesson, teach them in a language they understand.
2001-08-29 03:26:58 PM  
Sure, just take their money, hurt them and their employees. That might encourage them to change... But it might just mean that they cut corners and we hear about more Wal-Mart murder attempts.
2001-08-29 03:28:35 PM  
No matter what, it's not going to their employees where it belongs. I'd rather it go to people that deserve it than into Wally's fat pockets.
2001-08-29 03:31:37 PM  
Hey, guys, did I mention that I have a LOT of money riding in Wal-Mart stock? Be kind, please shop at Wal-Mart. As this forum has brought to light we have some GREAT specials on Ammunition this week. In fact, if you find a box that's already been opened, you get it half off!
2001-08-29 03:39:13 PM  
I'm glad we're all using ammunition now. I mean the word.
2001-08-29 03:44:09 PM  
hooray for you Boorite, you accomplished something today.

Now, I'm tired, can I go home yet???
Displayed 50 of 134 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.