No. I'd suspect that anyone who votes to the contrary is doing so because of a bias against Walmart and other big businesses. Besides, the family is suing the mall and the security company, and is considering suing the police department as well. Wow. Someone's looking for a big payday. Give me a break.

And as I've said before, nothing says "I love and miss you" like suing for millions of dollars.

Also- where is personal responsibility? If Walmart is to blame for not somehow knowing better or thinking through the possible outcomes of Black Friday a little better, how is this man not also responsible for not demanding to stand post further away from the doors? He could have prevented his death just as well as Walmart could have. The fact is, accidents happen, certain things get out of control, no one can see the future, and you can NOT and should NOT put a multi-million dollar pricetag on an unfortunate, unforseeable event.

But it wasn't unforseeable. The police warned Walmart ahead of time to expect larger crowds. The police commissioner said their security people were all inside, and that they were not adequately prepared. Walmart knew ahead of time that the number of people in line far exceeded the limited quantities of specially priced goods they have on hand.

I don't blame that family for suing. He'd only worked there a week and had not been given any training in crowd control, and Walmart put him in the front of the crowd.

When I was coming home from Thanksgiving dinner I saw a tent city outside a Best Buy, many hours before they were to open. Already a couple hundred people. But they set up a tall cyclone fence along the sidewalk in front of the store, to control the line, so even if people pushed, they couldn't get too many through the space in a short time. Then we passed a WalMart, and people were camping all over the place, with nothing to control the line.

Foxie, I never put foot in a Walmart so I don't think I have a bias against them. I truly think they have to pay, and a lot of money, for what happened. To die because of sales is probably one of the most ridiculous reasons to die this society has created.

My thoughts are with the family, it's gonna be sad holidays.

But sales weren't the reason the guy died. There were stupid people there who trampled a walmart employee. Walmart is simply an easy target.

I said Other - this for for the court to decide. Each side can present their case and a jury will issue their verdict. Not knowing all the details of the case I can't judge. Wrongful death suits happen all the time, and sometimes of them are justified.

This one is really a hard decision - I've seen reports of stampedes and crazy shoppers from all sorts of stores, Wal-Mart is not exclusive here. It is NOT their fault in the typical sense.

BUT, Wal-Mart KNEW that day was going to be crazy - did they do anything to prevent something like this? It's not like this sort of thing has never happened in the past - at least one store every Black Friday has something like this occur.

Wal-Mart is no longer the store good ole Sam envisioned and built up - I bet he's rolling in his grave.

Ditto mydiadem.

Although I don't know both sides to the story, I would say it's definitely not unfair that the family of the victim is suing. Just imagine one of your family members dying because of something as ridiculous (and preventable) as a sale? These issues need to be addressed so that they don't happen in the future. God bless the family.

I agree with foxie's comment. Why should walmart have to pay anything other than condolences? People who work on black Friday should know not to step in front of crazy shoppers. Where was this person standing at? I hate to say it but if it were a member of my family I would be mourning them...not finding a way to get money for their death.

foxie, I have to disagree, Wal-Mart was responsible for the crowd control. Why was there (apparently) only one guy at the door? Why was there no security or crowd control outside the doors?

The police had just left, and an adjacent Best Buy had a similar crowd, so it was not an isolated or unforeseeable situation.

IMO they should not allow these lines to form so far in advance of opening. There needs to be a different way to deal with these mob scenes.

You know, I'm usually very anti-lawsuit, and I really don't have a problem with Wal-mart at all, but I do think the lawsuit is fair. Wal-mart has a responsibility to protect it's employees, and they obviously knew this situation was dangerous because they hired extra security, but they failed to actually control the situation.

I just re-read what happened on friday...why did they have to open the doors manually? Thats pretty strange...Aren't they automatics?
hmm..

@ lille- The fact that you've never been to a Walmart, to me, says that you're in fact MORE biased than the average bear.
@ frenched- This issue should certainly be addressed... like it has been in the media already. There's no need for a suit, aside from WANT.
@ Laine- According to WalMart, they had additional security and had consulted the police department on steps to take for security. It's not like they treated this like any other day. How were they to know how much precaution was enough? It was my understanding that the crowd had broken through the glass doors, which would lead me to believe that they weren't intending on opening the doors yet, with only one man posted at the front.

I would sh!t my pants and haunt my family if they ever tried to cash in on my unfortunate demise. I feel terrible for this young man -he was killed trying to protect a pregnant woman!- but I gotta say, his family is looking pretty shady to me. I mean hell, their brother isn't even buried yet!

While it's difficult to say whether Walmart really made a reasonable effort to protect its employees, I think it could be fairly easily demonstrated that Walmart was negligent. They quite clearly failed to control the crowd that they had drawn and excited.

It's an unfair characterization to say that the bereaved are filing a lawsuit because they're greedy. This is one of the only ways to convince people to be responsible in their future actions.

I agree with mydiadem's comment.

this is such an unfortunate event.

A search on how effective wrongful death lawsuits are in deterring future accidents only yielded attourneys' websites... go figure.
In any case, I'd doubt that they actually are that effective. Probably not much more effective than negative press and, well, the DEATH, would be.
I don't think it's an unfair characterization at all. Their brother has been dead for only 6 days now, and they're suing everyone even tenuously connected to the tragedy (who has deep pockets). Call me crazy, but I doubt they're doing it out of the goodness of their hearts or because they're worried it might happen again in the future. Maybe I'm wrong though. Maybe they'll shock me and donate their multi-million dollar winnings to charities for people who have been trampled (or something).

I think this is a court decision. Yeah, it sucks. Yes, I do think the people who actually did the trampling should be held responsible, but more than likely, they'll never be found.

I think in some ways Wal-Mart is responsible... they were the source of crowd (having the sale), but in other ways, Wal-Mart isn't responsible for how the individuals in the crowd acted. You could have had all the security in the world and those people still would have acted like that.

It's just a twisted, sick, and sad situation. It's something the courts will have to decide... and I imagine it'll be a hard decision even for them.

I have to agree with Michelin and Lainetm in this situation. Walmart did have a responsibility not only to their customers but also to their employees. Why was he the only guy there at the doors, why was their no back up or help (a manager to help steer the crowed). This is not the first BF sale, so Walmart should know what to expect.

I am torn with this one.

On one hand I agree that stores set up these situations not understanding the liability that comes with it, inviting chaos and tragedy.

On the other hand, the PEOPLE who were there hold most of the responsibility to act like human beings and not a swarm of deadly bees in order to get a product that is on sale.

I've thought Black Friday to always be outta hand and think Walmart had to know how crazy people would get over saving money this year and should have hired security to control the crowd in the event things got out of hand and not left it to average employees.

The fact of the matter is that Wal-Mart could prevent this mayhem by employing the same systems that Best Buy, Circuit City, and others employ (i.e., having a line form and handing out tickets for the limited items to the first folks in line who are interested in them about 30 minutes before the store opens). There are reasonable and prudent safety and crowd management techniques. They CHOOSE not to manage the crowd, likely because they like the free advertising they get from the mayhem.

I think they should pay and pay hard. There have been countless shoppers injured in the past because of their failure to provide proper safety procedures.

I dont know about the whole frenzy issue, but doesnt each employer have a responsibility to protect their employees health and safety to the best of its ability?

I think you could make a case that they didnt do that.

As an employer, WAL-MART has a responsibility to keep their employees safe and create a work environment that is safe. Obviously, the idiots who stormed the store are at fault, too, but WALMART was responsible for making sure their employees will not get hurt or unfortunately, killed. They should have taken further measures to make sure nothing was going to happen--and they didn't.

I think Lainetm said it best, IMO. I totally agree.

...and Mich!

"@ lille- The fact that you've never been to a Walmart, to me, says that you're in fact MORE biased than the average bear.'

I grew up in Los Angeles and have never been to a Wal*Mart because the closest one is out in the valley hours away. (FTR I think one was supposed to be built but it got voted out or something.) The money spent on gas would kill any potential savings. I went to Target and SuperK/KMart instead. Your making assumptions about this person, not everyone lives near a Wal*Mart.

The point is that they were open and had some customers inside, we don't know from where we stand how well Wal*Mart handled the security situation and that is what court is for. I think your losing sight of the fact that just because they are suing doesn't mean they'll win. The law suit doesn't mean Wal*Mart is guilty.

I wonder why the doors were locked/closed in the first place. I do not take part in Black Friday craziness. I prefer to sleep and head outside after all that has died down. Plus, I hate crowds. But Walmart is open 24/7 (except Christmas) so why would the doors be closed/locked? That's confusing to me.

Mommaof2-- automatic doors do lock and have the "automatic" function controlled by an on/off switch so the door can be technically unlocked but not open when someone stands in the sensor zone. So that could have been the case-the door could have been unlocked but not opening.

This story just sickens me-- mob mentality and crowd craziness. I'm not worried about Wal-mart being sued. They have lots of lawyers to deal with these things and I trust that if there is any merit to the case on the family's side it will be handled properly.

I agree with those that said as an employer it is Wal-Mart's responsibility to keep its employees safe. And it seems this happens quite a bit more at Wal-Mart on black Friday than at other stores. It's unfortunate, and those that did the trampling are responsible, but it's quite hard to round up the thousands of shoppers and determine which ones were actually responsible for the death of that employee.

I never go the whole black Friday madness. I mean I don't need a tv or a camcorder or the hottest toy for my kdis so bad that I am going to sleep in a parking lot all night to get it. Why are people so obsessed with things? It's crazy.

Saucymegstar I believe they let a certain amount of people in and probably cut it off for capacity reasons . I can't think of any other reason why they would close the doors to people if they could let more people in. It's why people try to be the first in line. I assume that they closed to get ready for the sale.

Well, let's see, if I got killed on-the-job, would my employee have to pay for it? I know that if I get hurt, they do have to cover all my medical expenses...

Yeah, I can see the impossibilities of trying to stock their deals for the sale while customers hover in the electronics department. The poor stockers would be swamped. If they knew they would create a queue then they certainly should have prepared adequately. If that specific store did not follow procedure the managers responsible should be disciplined/fired by their district bosses. If Walmart in general has inadequate planning in place then that should be dealt with accordingly. In either of those cases the family of this man who died would have strong backing for their suit.
I don't really think there is a good way to do huge sales like this. It has either become much crazier in the past few years or I am just now aware of it.

Seems to me like there should be a number of lawsuits, and like Michelin, I'm generally anti-lawsuit.

The people who actually murdered the individual should be brought in for criminal behavior.

Unfortunately, I do believe that Wal-mart should bear some of the burden as an employer. I am not a lawyer, so I don't know about the legal aspects, but most employers do cover work-related injuries.

I assume that the family is going after Wal-mart and the other companies because they (or rather THEIR insurance companies) have the deep pockets. IMO - the family should receive a payment that would be comparable what the individual would have received in wages over his lifetime as a Wal-mart employee, plus legal expenses. I am sure the family will claim pain and suffering, but IMO it is not right that they are kept in Rolls Royces for their rest of THEIR lives because they had a family memeber die.

I think wal-mart has some responsibility but I agree with Foxie that this family seems to just be out for a big payday. If they had brought criminal charges on the store execs, that would be different. They want money. Does this money make them feel better? Their family member won't ever come home. I just don't see how money will help.
As for the doors, every retail store I have ever worked in has a manual lock. A key that must be you to unlock it.
I don't think walmart could have expected that their doors would bow in and fall on employees. Or that if that happened that the crowd would just keep running over the employee. I mean, the shoppers even got mad when they closed the store down for this.
I guess I am torn, because wal-mart could have had more security, but at the same time, how responsible should a store be for shoppers actions? Would you feel different if it were 1 shopper who pushed him down and bashed his head and killed him. Should they be responsible for that. It's just a slippery slop.

Coming from someone who hates wrongful death suits...I'm a firm believer that people who are acquitted of murder should not be able to be sued civilly by the victims family. That aside I wouldn't expect the family not to sue Walmart..this is wrongful death suit is suppose to look like and is justified in my eyes.

"that would be comparable what the individual would have received in wages over his lifetime as a Wal-mart employee"
But why? He/his family are not incurring the cost of his day-to-day life anymore.
If they were simply suing for legal expenses and funeral costs (maybe a few other reasonable things that I can't think of right now), I'd probably support the lawsuit. Although, wouldn't Walmart have already offered them some kind of compensation? Any word on that?

This is a really hard one, and I'm glad I'm not on the jury for it.

1st, what about personal responsibility? I think they people that trampled this poor man need to be the ones to pay. I mean, it's not like Walmart themselves dropped a sign on his head is it?

However, on the OTHER side of it, he is A) An employee and expected to be kept safe while at work. B) This phenomenon isn't new to Walmart. This situation happens EVERY year, (The stampede I mean) and they HAD to know it would happen ESPECIALLY this year with the economy so bad. I do feel they had some sort of duty to keep an eye on this situation and somehow make the employees safer.

Then again, the employee ALSO knew the frenzy happened every year, so what about his OWN responsibility for being in the wrong place when the doors were opened?

Do i think Walmart deliberately puts these ads together to create this kind of Frenzy? No. That's just silly, but I think maybe their strategy needs to be re-thought.

All in all, it's sad and I feel bad for his family. I'm not surprised they're looking for monetary compensation either. I mean, when you lose a family member, doesn't money make it all better? (That's sarcasm by the way)

Take Walmart out of it, if anybody in here is killed at work because of an accident due to "possible negligence" on the part of your employer then your family and loved ones have the right to sue civilly. Wrongful death lawsuits are totally different than if the State of New Jersey was to go after one of the shoppers that trampled him the evidence doesn't have to be as "firm". I do think that the people who actually trampled him are just as if not more guilty than Walmart however if you or charging someone with a felony ( homicide, manslaughter, etc) then you have to have enough evidence in order for the DA to go forward and since it was hundreds of people on that tape any defense attorney could turn around and blame the next person in the stampede or even walmart!

While I don't agree with suing left and right when things do not go your way - in this case I agree with the family. Walmart did not protect its employees and it boggles my mind how a store as big and as popular as Walmart would not foresee that this could get out of hand. Especially since, as many already said,Target, Best Buy, and other big stores had better security measures.

foxie-

In response to your question about receiving lifetime wages, my understanding is that is what is often done in cases of malpractice that caused a death. It recognizes that the family - especially dependents - should be compensated, but puts a limit on it.

I think there is a general understanding these days that we all suffer when insurance companies are forced to make big payouts, but in the case of a lost life (especially a parent), the family should be compensated to SOME degree. Not a "rolling in it" degree, but some.