RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman

RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

kittinSol -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 6:49:49 AM)
Walmart, fucking bastards... Why weren't they crushed when they were still smallish, fucking cockroaches? Boycott Walmart, peeps: you know it's the only thing to do. All they sell is junk anyway. Do you think any of these self-righteous, sanctimonious, self-satisfied business-orientated people who preach this unique brand of American individualism will go in person tell that poor family to "pull out of it" and "take responsibility"? This sad story illustrates perfectly why there should be a safety net. That's why social welfare is necessary. For fuckssake. This dog eats dog world is a fucking abomination. [:'(]

pissdoll -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 7:06:19 AM)
as i think about it just a little more.... where is the outrage for the legal system that takes a MILLION DOLLAR settlement, and after legal fees leaves the family with $417,000?? had the legal team only eaten up a paltry 200k, Walmart would have been reimbursed their 400k+ and the family would have been left with a little over 300k. Walmart is an evil beast, but this just goes to show that attorneys have all the power. "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." Ahhhhh, Shakespeare!

Lockit -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 7:25:15 AM)
People need to be informed about laws, insurance, disability... all sorts of things they are not informed about. They need to learn how our government does things, how SSD and SSI work, etc. Ignorance will hurt you. Most think becasue they pay taxes for certain things, that they are covered in the event of a crisis. Most should take another real look at that! Here in Colorado, we have medical malpractice laws. You cannot find an attorney to take on a cadistrophic case against a medical practioner and assure they are really paying attention to the patient. Insurance companies can put almost anything in a contract and with employers or these companies, you really don't have a choice. You sign on the dotted line because what else are you going to do? You need insurance and this is what your employer offers and there is no other choice unless you pay for it yourself, which most cannot afford to do. There is a clause, hitch, loop hole to most things. They only way to combat any of it is to be informed! What you think you see or what once was... isn't always what you are going to get. Actually... if you want to look at it more realistically... figure they are going to stick it up your ass if they can... because they will. Signing a document under duress or from no other choice shouldn't mean concent, but it does.

kittinSol -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 7:42:09 AM)
You are perfectly right. However, not all of us can afford legal advice to protect ourselves from the evils of small print. I think we should move towards a system whereby people don't have to fight for their rights to be recognised, and where they aren't such easy prey to the greed of the corporate world. How about we build a real welfare system, with a proper safety net, for families such as that one? God knows we could afford it, if it wasn't for our over-enthusiastic spending on wars and other frivolities. Not all laywers are scumbags, I hasten to add: many actually fight on behalf of downtrodden individuals for nothing. But I see that the legal system doesn't encourage fairness either. It's all fucked up [:(] .

Lockit -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 7:48:12 AM)
kittenSol, I agree whole heartedly!

MusicalBoredom -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 7:50:20 AM)
First, like most in here I really don't like Walmart at all. However, in this case they are just an insurer. An insurer pays medical claims as they happen but it was them that paid. If a lawsuit turns around and pays for those expenses then it has to go to the party that payed them in the first place. Most insurance policies are written that way. In this case, it is the plaintiff's attorneys that are at fault. They should have sued for already incurred expenses (that would go to the insurer) and for expected future medical and lifestyle adjustment expenses which would go to the plaintiff. If an attorney is making over $300,000 to represent someone then they had better do the very best they can to examine all of the relevant paperwork, bills, expenses and existing contracts and policies as part of the requested amount. Now as for Walmart, they should do the right thing for their employees and have special funds to help out in times of crises such as this. As small as my companies are that is exactly what I set up for unforeseen emergencies. We have a account that is funded by a percentage of annual profits that is an aid to employee fund.

kittinSol -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 7:54:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom Now as for Walmart, they should do the right thing for their employees and have special funds to help out in times of crises such as this. The problem is that in Walmart's eyes, employees are as disposable as the cheap junk they sell. When have Walmart ever done the right thing? Like I said... it's all fucked up. Boycott the bastards!

lighthearted -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 8:05:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Walmart, fucking bastards... Why weren't they crushed when they were still smallish, fucking cockroaches? Boycott Walmart, peeps: you know it's the only thing to do. All they sell is junk anyway. I want to preface my statement by saying, I'm no fan of Walmart, and as there isn't one within 25 mi of my home I don't shop there anyway. but for a lot of people, the way Walmart has have positioned themselves within their communities makes it a lot harder for them to just boycott them. the fact that they also sell groceries in some of them as well makes it really, really tempting...after a long day of work, if you could go to one place and buy everything you need, stuff you'd have to make several stops for otherwise, it's a lot easier to say, "ok, right now I just need to buy this crap and get home." unfortunately, communities have allowed Walmart to put themselves in such strategic positions. in the city I live, Walmart has twice tried to set up shop, but both times haven't been able. other cities in CA have also blocked them, so I guess there's hope, but for a lot of people, the choice is lot more cloudy.

Lockit -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 8:06:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MusicalBoredom First, like most in here I really don't like Walmart at all. However, in this case they are just an insurer. An insurer pays medical claims as they happen but it was them that paid. If a lawsuit turns around and pays for those expenses then it has to go to the party that payed them in the first place. Most insurance policies are written that way. In this case, it is the plaintiff's attorneys that are at fault. They should have sued for already incurred expenses (that would go to the insurer) and for expected future medical and lifestyle adjustment expenses which would go to the plaintiff. If an attorney is making over $300,000 to represent someone then they had better do the very best they can to examine all of the relevant paperwork, bills, expenses and existing contracts and policies as part of the requested amount. Now as for Walmart, they should do the right thing for their employees and have special funds to help out in times of crises such as this. As small as my companies are that is exactly what I set up for unforeseen emergencies. We have a account that is funded by a percentage of annual profits that is an aid to employee fund. BINGO! I wonder if there should be or is a way the client of negligent lawyer's could hold them accountable?

OmegaG -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 8:11:46 AM)
Walmart is not unlike many other companies that look out for themselves first, the difference is that the media doesn't like Walmart and therefore we hear about it. I think that we are forgetting the attorney that represented the family. He surely could have been savvy enough to understand the letter of the law and sue the trucking company for enough so that he'd get his share, she'd get hers and Walmart would get reimbursed as well. When damages are awarded, past and future medical bills should be included, he dropped the ball by not including those paid by the insurence which had a pay back clause.

pissdoll -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 8:12:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Boycott the bastards! i have never spent a dime at Walmart and i never will. we worked very hard to keep them out of Inglewood. there is only 1 Walmart in Los Angeles...and we will work to keep it that way. HOWEVER...in this case, Walmart IS doing the right thing. they paid out almost a half mil for the woman's medical care. the insurance settlement was FOR HER MEDICAL BILLS. why should she be allowed to collect twice? If the company she worked for wasn't Walmart, but was Patagonia, or some other company with social consciousness, how would we feel then? would we still feel outrage, or would we look at the merits of the case objectively? this woman was NOT injured on the job. she was in a car accident off of work hours. how responsible should a company be for its workers? do they owe her a half million simply because she was employed by them? if the same thing happened to Mom & Pop Donuts, should they have to pay? if so, why? if not, why not? is your answer the same for them as it is for Walmart? Why or why not?

celticlord2112 -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 8:20:55 AM)
quote: BINGO! I wonder if there should be or is a way the client of negligent lawyer's could hold them accountable? There should be, but the practical reality is that lawyers are rarely willing to file suit against other lawyers.

kittinSol -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 8:31:15 AM)
You make a good point that with their monolithic hold of the retail market, Walmart are difficult to circumvent in some communities. Even more the reason why those of us who have the choice of which retailer to patronise ought to do our best to beat their monopoly. I don't go to Walmart because I have the choice; it's obviously not up to me to judge those that do. I apologise if that's how it came across: my enthusiasm rules me at times [&:] .

MissHarlet -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 8:35:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lighthearted quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Walmart, fucking bastards... Why weren't they crushed when they were still smallish, fucking cockroaches? Boycott Walmart, peeps: you know it's the only thing to do. All they sell is junk anyway. I want to preface my statement by saying, I'm no fan of Walmart, and as there isn't one within 25 mi of my home I don't shop there anyway. but for a lot of people, the way Walmart has have positioned themselves within their communities makes it a lot harder for them to just boycott them. the fact that they also sell groceries in some of them as well makes it really, really tempting...after a long day of work, if you could go to one place and buy everything you need, stuff you'd have to make several stops for otherwise, it's a lot easier to say, "ok, right now I just need to buy this crap and get home." unfortunately, communities have allowed Walmart to put themselves in such strategic positions. in the city I live, Walmart has twice tried to set up shop, but both times haven't been able. other cities in CA have also blocked them, so I guess there's hope, but for a lot of people, the choice is lot more cloudy. Not all of us have a choice .. we are in a small community and there is only one other grocery store other than walmart within 70 miles and it doesnt have everything one needs .. so to Walmart we go..... I dont like the way they do business nor treat their employees but I also dont think EVERYTHING they sell is junk nor that all of us that shop there are losers.... People speaking in absolutes often dont have the whole story ..... When we have choices we make them .. but when we dont we do what we have to ....

lighthearted -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 9:40:06 AM)
no offense taken, I just meant to point out, like MissHarlet, that sometimes the worst choice is unfortunately the best choice. if only enthusiasm could eradicate all social injustices...[:)]

KatyLied -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 10:07:01 AM)
quote: Walmart is not unlike many other companies that look out for themselves first, People seem to forget that a corporation has a duty to the shareholders. And the primary duty is to make money (for the shareholders). It isn't always right and pretty. But there it is.

kittinSol -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 10:11:47 AM)
Yep. Goes to show that something is seriously wrong when the rights of corporations prevail over those of "human" individuals. When are we going to deregulate this abberation that has entitled commercial organisations to have the legal status and rights of flesh and blood citizens?

OmegaG -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 10:18:59 AM)
when I heard about this originally on Keith Oberman (or however that's spelled) the entire story wasn't given and it was made to sound like she was a helpless victim. Now that I've read more on it, I'll agree that she was helpless, but victimized at her lawyers hands, not at Walmarts. And I suspect that if Walmart made a policy of not recouping losses when matters go into litigation, it's not the shareholders that would suffer, the funds for insurance come out of a seperate budget normally, the insurance losses would result in worse health insurance for current and future employees. Had she been unisured, the settlement claim would have contained the cost for past medical expenses, and so should it be when an insurence is involved. I certianly don't want my insurence policy to change to reflect losses when someone has been found liable for medical expenses accrued. So when is the media going to sling mud at the lawyer?

Mercnbeth -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 10:39:42 AM)
quote: So when is the media going to sling mud at the lawyer? As soon as they first get permission from their lawyers. While clamoring for national health care, remember that the lawsuit lottery may be a casualty. While considering the European 'ideal' make sure you include the European ideal concerning lawsuits. Not saying that this situation reflects a case of a frivolous lawsuit, however, in the land of 'free health care' the tort system is loser pays. As a businessman currently paying 100% for my employee's health coverage; I'd support removing that burden from my operation and turning it over to the taxpayers. If as a result loser pays tort reform comes to the table - I'll be campaigning for it. Meanwhile, sad as it is, this is the way it is. ANY lawsuit involving incurred expenses first reimburses those expenses. Next in line is the plaintiff attorney. Anything remaining goes to the injured party. It's how John Edwards, and others of his industry, can afford $400 haircuts.

Level -> RE: Wal-Mart sues disabled woman (3/27/2008 3:32:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KatyLied WalMart is not a nice place. But who's responsibility is it to compensate her for a car accident? It doesn't seem to me that her employer should bear this responsbility. Shouldn't it be her auto insurance or the other driver's? Did her personal injury attorneys not read the fine print on her WalMart health insurance coverage? She paid for her insurance through Wal-Mart, so it would be there if she ever needed it, and she did. For them to turn around and sue her to recoup that, to me, is bull. Legal or not. Sometimes legal doesn't mean right.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125