I have to side with Wal-Mart on this one - Wal-Mart sued for prank pulled by 16 year old customer

[liberal N proud]

Walmart sued for 'all black people must leave' prank
A black man is suing Walmart for $1 million in damages, claiming he suffered emotional distress while he was shopping at a store in Washington Township, N.J. On March 14, 2010, a voice came over the PA system announcing: "Attention Walmart customers: All black people leave the store now." A manager quickly took control of the microphone and a 16-year-old boy was later arrested for the prank. Donnell Battie's lawyers claim the megastore was negligent and reckless in allowing the incident to occur, and that he suffered from a number of psychological disorders as a result.

http://now.msn.com/now/0516-walmart-black-announcement.aspx

How can Wal-Mart be responsible for something a customer does in the store?

[Meiko]

1. The store should

have controlled the access to their PA system better. It's hard to believe that they don't have any better security than to allow anyone to make announcements unchecked. What if this kid would have yelled "fire" and panicked everyone, possibly causing injuries to someone. This is Walmart's fault.

[liberal N proud]

2. A but they do

They have codes they are supposed to enter. The questions is how did the kid get on the PA.

[Forward2012]

4. It depends on the system

I worked at Sams Club (which is the country club of Walmarts). We had the same PA system. Basically you pick up one of the phones and hit the 'loudspeaker' button. No codes needed. Im not sure if other stores have a code-system or if there is a company wide standard for phone/PA systems. It could happen though.

[Maine-ah]

35. at the two wal marts I worked for

this is back in 1992-1995, Maine and Florida, we had codes on the phones. The codes were the same for all the stores. Not that hard to figure out, and many of the phones had the instructions on them for different extensions, and for the intercom system. All these years later, the code is still the same at the Maine store I worked at. I've been tempted many many times.....

[randome]

37. "Attention, Walmart shoppers!"

"For one hour only, everything is FREE!!!"

Something like that?

[Ian David]

20. You hang-out near the phone and watch an employee enter the code. n/t

[randome]

3. It's Walmart's 'fault' perhaps.

But it is not a million dollar fault. And 'faults' like this can be corrected. That's the only reasonable outcome.

[Logical]

10. Wow, people like you disappointment! n-t

[Meiko]

44. Why?

Walmart should be able to control their assets. I don't think it's a million dollar screw up but it needs to be looked at.

[Baitball Blogger]

22. Possibly so, however, they should subrogate against the boy and his family.

[Cave_Johnson]

5. The kid is a jerk and...

A reasonableness standard applies...

The guy who is suing is a scumbag looking for a payout.

[Logical]

8. I00% agree! This is NOT walmarts fault! Wish I was on the jury!!

[lame54]

6. no sympathy here...

fuck walmart - let them be the victim for a change

[Logical]

9. LOL, this was not walmarts fault! Jesus, people are not logical!

[lame54]

12. missing the point...

i don't care if it's walmarts fault

I wouldn't lift a finger to defend those scum-bags - and that includes writing an OP

[liberal N proud]

13. I think your point is very clear

Wrong perhaps, but very clear.

Just because a large corporation has no heart, even though they have been declared a person, that does not make them responsible for the actions of mindless person, who is not associated with the company.

[lame54]

16. and i'm not responsible for who wrongfully sues them...

it is not my place to publicly defend them

their team of lawyers will probably flick him off like a flea

but - this is their fight - and if they lose it - fuck 'em

with all the people they screw on a daily basis they don't deserve the defense of anybody here

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. You're not responsible because you have no power one way or the other.

And this is a good thing.

[lame54]

32. Go Walmart

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. So, because I don't support Stalinism I must be a Czarist

And all this time I've been told reflexive, uncritical, bumper-sticker argumentation was the exclusive province of conservatives.

[lame54]

39. Ok - I'll go with that...

whatever the hell it means

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. It means you're relying on a false dichotomy.

Speaking against a perversion of justice is not defending Wal-Mart, it's speaking out against a perversion of justice.

[lame54]

43. you are standing up for the defendant...

the defendant is walmart
therefore:
you are standing up for walmart

i agree that you are speaking against what you see as a perversion of justice
but there is no way you can subtract walmart from this equation

there is injustice all around us - we can't possibly fight it all

we have to pick our battles

there is no way I'm picking this one

[qazplm]

18. you are defending them

its about rule of law and the right result, not who the individual defendant is.

[Bake]

28. Then let it play out in the courts and see what happens.

That's what the "rule of law" is all about. Funny, but it seems like it's always the Pukes who cry about the "rule of law."

So let it play out. That's what the rule of law is all about.

Bake

[Buns_of_Fire]

7. Well, now HERE'S a lawsuit that's destined to go a long way.

Someone once said something mean to me here, and it caused me much "emotional distress," leading to numerous "psychological disorders" and uh... the heartbreak of psoriasis, too. (Yeah, that's the ticket.) Therefore, I'm suing everyone here for a zillion dollars for letting it happen.

[randome]

15. Your avatar causes me emotional distress.

So we're even.

[Buns_of_Fire]

17. My team of lawyers has advised me to accept your settlement.

[Kaleva]

24. Your username mocks those with hemorrhoids. Expect a class action suit!

[Bake]

29. I will gladly serve as a class representative!!

Buns of fire, indeed!

Preparation H, anyone?

Bake

[pinboy3niner]

31. Count your blessings. At least you didn't end up with AWSD...

'Attention WalMart Shoppers' Disorder.

[LeftinOH]

11. Store-wide speaker systems are easy to use, it just

takes someone with enough nerve to use it. Wal-Mart is not at fault.

[Blue_Tires]

14. why even sue?

1. The voice on the PA should have been easily recognizable as a 16-year-old

2. Like 99 percent of 16-year-olds, I don't think he'd even be able to finish the 'announcement' without snickering...

[Amaril]

30. Because there is money to be had

Walmart will undoubtedly pay the guy -- and his attorney -- something (not a million or even close to a million), because it will cost them far less to make a "nuisance" settlement than to defend it thru trial.

Squeaky wheel.........grease.

[obamanut2012]

19. As much as it pains me to admit, I agree

This isn't Wal-Mart's fault.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

21. That Mitt Romney is getting out of control with his pranking. n/t

[sharp_stick]

25. They've got the money

the kid doesn't. First rule in hiring a lawsuit lawyer is find one that will go after the cash.

Not only that there's a better chance that a big company will settle before it's realized how idiotic your lawsuit actually is.

[lynne]

26. Have to agree that Walmart isn't at fault here -

- We would feel differently about this case if this occurred at a small mom and pop shop. To want to make Walmart liable and pay for something that was not their fault isn't justice - it's vigilantism.

[hifiguy]

27. This is BS, the definition of a frivolous lawsuit,

and I am (1) someone who doesn't make that accusation lightly; and (2) a plaintiffs' attorney.

The standards for infliction of emotional distress are quite high and usually involve things like lying, libel, slander and the like. If I were a judge I would bounce this claim, should it be filed, on Rule 12 grounds - failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and then sanction the hell out of any lawyer dumb enough to bring such a claim. Wal-Mart isn't responsible for the conduct of the public unless it involves something vastly more egregious than this. "Psychological disorders" my ass.

[Remmah2]

33. Stupid prank, stupid lawsuit.

Make the kid do a million hours community service in a local soup kitchen and attend ethnic sensitivity training.

[4th law of robotics]

34. Wanting free money isn't a psychological disorder

How about you get to lash the kid X amount of times. Until you feel better.

I think that's a fair solution.

[-..__...]

38. Plaintiff is a sad, opportunistic POS.

No wonder people are angered and frustrated by the current legal system.

suffered from a number of psychological disorders as a result.

Gimme a break.

I agree "fuck WalMart"...fuck WalMart if they cave in and settle out of court and pay out even one cent.

[jp11]

41. Wal-mart has a burden of limited responsibility in providing a safe environment for customers

to shop. This includes having security and employees that aren't mentally unbalanced/dangerous/etc. They are far more limited on their control of other customers but have to have SOME methods to prevent the customers from attacking each other.

As far as this incident walmart is only to blame in so far as they should have had better control of the PA system assuming one of the employees hadn't left it unsecured/easily accessed by anyone.

Now this person is not entitled to 1 million dollars for that outburst of a stupid kid. It would have been nearly identical had the kid brought in a megaphone and said the same thing, or had a personal amplified, or worse if he had said something more offensive and racist. Is Walmart to blame then, when he isn't using their property/equipment no they are not. They should react when employees are aware or informed of that kind of behavior to eject the customer or call the police.

I don't know if the customer suing had issues in another country or was the victim of racial attacks as those are pretty much the only ways I can see claiming emotional distress to the tune of $1 million dollars.

[Liberal_in_LA]

42. I remember that incident. frivilous law suit.