Yesterday in a court filing, Walmart lawyers said that Tracy Morgan and the other passengers who suffered injuries when their van was hit by a Walmart truck were to blame for a portion of their injuries because they weren't wearing seatbelts. The filings were in response to the lawsuit Morgan filed after the crash. Tracy spent several weeks in the hospital and is still rehabbing his injuries while James McNair, who was with Morgan after a show where they performed together was killed that night in the crash.
A lawyer for Morgan said he was appalled at Walmart and said they told him initially that they were going to accept blame and try and put this behind them. For their part, Walmart says they are willing to talk to Morgan and the others that have sued them. It sounds like there will be a settlement eventually but that for now Walmart is going to play hardball. It is an interesting point they made and if the passengers had been wearing seatbelts would they have been injured or killed?
And I say WalMart should pay their employees better wages and give good benefits
ReplyDeleteTouché Sandyboo!!!
DeleteYup. And provide them uniforms or a uniform allowance. As to Tracy Morgan, I bet his hypothetical gay son would have told him to buckle up.
DeleteYup sandy, you nailed it. I hate the shithole that is walmart and NEVER shop there and never have because they treat their people shitty. Like 5 of top ten richest people are waltons, they are like bill/ millionares many times over, but god forbid they pay their people enough so they dont hv to live like animals. Of course morgan shld hv had seatbelt on, but then again id walmart ruck hadnt plowed into their car, it wld have been fine. I think they are floating this to see reaction of public. If too bad, walmart will shut up and pay up.
DeleteWearing seat belts have proven to save lives BUT it does not remove the culpability of the Wal- Mart truck driver. Shame on Wal-Mart for this " blame the victim" approach. A life was lost and they are trying to assign blame? Total B.S.!
ReplyDeleteShut up Walmart. No one likes you! You should know better. Just pay up and shut up. Bad PR for you. Not worth it.
ReplyDeleteAs a corporate entity, WalMart is worth ~$450 BILLION. Obviously, you don't get that rich w/o being a bunch of cold, ruthless, motherf******. '
ReplyDeleteSMH. Pay the victims, you sack of dicks. Isn't there insurance for exactly this kind of thing?
ITA, Nomnom. I always say "Nobody ever got rich by being nice." Pretty much explains why I'm not rich. But I'm very nice. (and I like to think I'd be a very nice rich person!)
DeleteThe Walmart clan were 6-10 of the richest people in America.
ReplyDeleteI hope a Walmart driver doesn't hit a bus full of kids bc they don't wear seat belts either.
He wasn't wearing a seat belt? Here, that's a crime (or misdeamor, I'm not an expert in legal terminology in English) that would get him fined.
ReplyDeleteThat, of course, doesn't make the other people innocent.
That Walmart thing is using a dumb defense because it doesn't make them not guilty. It would be good if they declare guilty and are quarrelling about the payments, but saying it before is telling the judge they deserve paying.
Yes. Tracy is PARTIALLY responsible.
ReplyDeleteWalmart needs to suck it.
ReplyDeleteAfter some research it seems that the general legal consensus is that n limos and buses, only front seat passengers (read: drivers) are required to wear seat belts. Since this was a "limo bus" the passengers are not required to wear seat belts by law.
ReplyDeleteAnd to that end Disco, most don't actually have them. Walmart needs to pay up and most likely will have to but they'll drag it out for years. This is. SOP for all corporations. Yes, they're greedy mother fuckers but then most corps are. Some more than others.
ReplyDeletethe driver was sleep deprived and on a 12hour shift or something like that. i should google.
ReplyDelete#DontMakeMeHateUDearWalmart
I'm still pissed at Walmart because 15+ years ago the old lady "greeter" didn't want to let me shop there because my toddler in the cart wasn't wearing shoes!
ReplyDeleteTracy Morgan isn't my favorite, and there are too many deaths because of no seat belt. Walmart is waaaay higher on my special list because they are a crappy corporation, so they need to shut it and pay.
2touch-i cannit believe that! Half the people who work and shop there , male and female, are missing hair and teeth, and they worried about baby's shoes??!! Who called you out on that, Cletus the Slackjawed Yokel's wife??????
DeleteOmg for a lawyer enty really has no idea about the law. Contributory negligence is an affirmative defense that a defendant has to raise in their pleading so that they don't waive it. It doesn't mean that Wal-Mart is trying to say it's not their fault; it just means that a jury could consider that Tracy's failure to wear a seatbelt could be in part a contributing factor to the full extent of his injuries. This will probably settle out of court eventually anyway.
ReplyDeleteInteresting point, really. If someone chooses not to wear their seatbelt (it's a law in the US) can then the settlement be less because of the personal chance (gamble) he took? I mean, regardless that Wal-Mart has the money. In a court of law i wonder if there is some sort of scale, depreciation. Thats the wrong word, but assuming u start out at (X)amount of money and they go backwards for anything that would be considered personal culpability, etc. Hhmmm
ReplyDeletebasically yes, but it depends on what state you're in. A jury could determine Wal-Mart is 90% responsible for his injuries but he was 10% responsible, and whatever damages he gets awarded would be reduced by 10%. Depending on the contributory negligence laws in your state.
Deletesmb1985 is right - it's comparative liability. I don't blame Walmart - every corporation would do this. Also any individual being sued in an automobile accident would do this. Your attorney would insist on it. I don't blame Walmart any more than any other corporation OR individual for this. If I were being sued for an accident, I'd do the same thing. And your lawyer would insist on it if you were the one being sued. I don't like Walmart any more than you guys but the fact that it's Walmart is irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteHaven't been to a Walmart in years! Don't miss them one bit.
ReplyDeleteAnd the Walmart family give nothing to charity …a bunch of old parasites
ReplyDeleteActually they contribute a lot to the Northwest Arkansas area in the form of grants, scholarships, supplies for schools, a free museum, a summer camp that lower income families don't have to pay for and getting in is based on community service and school effort, and revitalized downtowns. Walmart should definitely treat their employees better but as someone that benefits from their charity daily I can't hate on them too much in a general sense.
DeleteWell lets be frank shakira, it doesnt seem to be helping ark that much, lol
DeleteSo what are you saying exactly? Do you live here or are you making the standard "just a bunch of dumb hillbillies" generalisations? Do some research on Northwest Arkansas and you'll see how different we are from the rest of the state.
DeleteWalmart, and all it stands for, SUCKS.
ReplyDeleteI thought Morgan was in a limousine. What limousine has seatbelts?
ReplyDeleteI'll bet that everyone posting negatively on Walmart's legal response will have a totally different response the day a trespasser comes on their property, trips, breaks a leg and sues them. Suddenly all these posters will be filing responses saying that trespassing contributed to the injury!
ReplyDeleteDbrown, apples and oranges!
DeleteWal-Mart might be a big pile of shit for many reasons, but what people fail to bring up is how they DO employ thousands of people that would otherwise be unemployable- i do believe theres something to be said for this. Also, the socioeconomics of it- this is one store that people can afford.
ReplyDeleteOn the side, I still can't believe school buses don't have seat belts.
ReplyDeleteAnd let me add to this... I live in Pennsylvania where seatbelt's are mandatory by law, yet, why is it legal to ride a motorcycle with no helmet????
ReplyDeleteWhen I first heard about this accident I knew Walmart was going to bring up the seatbelt issue.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, it will be Walmart's insurers looking after this they are on the hook for the money.
I am not sure if the driver was an independent operator and had his own vehicle insurance or he was under a Walmart fleet umbrella or both. However Walmart will also have insurance for being sued under a commercial liability policy.
You can bet that the insurance company or companies working on behalf of Walmart are going to use every legal defence available to them. They owe that to their shareholders remember.
I am quite sure the insurers for Walmart were not happy about the acceptance of blame either, that could have some legal repercussions.
What I do not know is are there seat belts in limos in New Jersey, are seat belts supposed to be installed and is the law in New Jersey that you have to wear them if they are installed?
I know that if we need to take a limo to the airport, we prefer the Towne Cars after a nasty limo accident on the highway in the winter here which was the limo's driver's fault. Towne Cars have seat belts. Plus it's cheaper.
If this limo had seat belts and they were not worn, it goes without saying that the injuries sustained would likely not been as serious and even the death of the one passenger might have been avoided. If there was a legal duty to wear the seat belts that makes that argument stronger. If there were no seat belts not sure where that goes. Did the limo company fail to ensure seat belts were provided etc.
Then experts will come in and testify what they think the injuries would have been if seat belts had been worn and then how you apportion blame 10/90, 25/75, 50/50 then you decided on the monetary value of the damages and then you apply the ratio and there is your judgment. Now what if they were partying in the back of the limo etc. Of course the limo company is going to get sued too because they can always find fault with the driver or the vehicle if they try hard enough.
Now Walmart also has the allegation that its policies were creating dangerous driving conditions for its drivers.
That's not going to be that easy to prove esp if he is an independent contractor.
In Ontario, all truckers have to keep logs because they are not supposed to drive more than a certain number of hours everyday.
A lot of the independent contractors in order to get work and keep contracts will lie on this log.
Yes, I've been wondering about the driver. Does he work directly for Walmart? Was the extra long shift of his own doing? Not protecting Walmart, but could it be that he was the one not following procedures? Obviously, it's a Walmart truck so they have responsibility, but it seems like the driver should be taking some of the heat.
ReplyDeleteThere wouldn't have been an accident at all if Walmart's driver hadn't been sleep-deprived. Just one more reason for me to never set foot in that company's stores. What assholes.
ReplyDeleteThis was discussed on the View this morning -- yes I'm still watching and it's getting slightly better -- Whoopi said that had they been wearing seatbelts would the truck still have hit them? Yes, obviously, so the driver is at fault. Nicole or whatever her name is had called Walmart's PR department and they responded that this was a standard legal filing and that they would not be blaming the accident on the fact that the limo passengers were not wearing seatbelts. I worked for a company where one of our drivers fell asleep at the wheel and drove into the back of another tractor trailer. He was killed. Considered his own fault because he had falsified his logs and had driven too many hours.
ReplyDelete@Wen-Helmet laws vary from state to state and there is big time lobbying on both sides. Some states also have age requirements for helmets. My husband has been riding since he was 3 and his father was a professional rider/performer/safety expert. Both always wear helmets, but are split on helmet laws. Dad-helmets save lives and should always be mandatory.
ReplyDeleteHusband-Always wear a helmet but if you want to be stupid, go right ahead.
I despise WalMart and their greedy overlords, but it's true, this is a standard legal filing by the insurance company. The appropriation of blame is to determine the amount of the settlement, not to determine the guilt of either party. It will still feel like a slap in the face to blame the victim for the injury, but Tracey's lawyers will bring up the fact that limousine passengers are not required to wear seat belts and therefore the guilt factor of an unbuckled passenger carries very little, if any, weight.
ReplyDelete@Pink Cashmere's comment makes a very good point. WalMart wouldn't pull this if it was a schoolbus full of children, it would be bad PR.
Good lord, people. Wearing a seatbelt reduces injuries and deaths by 50% in accidents. Even if you don't know the particular statistic it's basic common sense backed up by years of safety programming. You have to be aware of this fact to get a driver's license, for instance.
ReplyDeleteComparative negligence/liability is a standard defense and Wal-Mart is entitled to run it out there and they should. Tracy Morgan should have been wearing a seatbelt. If you caused an accident and the other person involved was injured but not wearing a seat belt you'd be alleging that defense as well.
Also, it is unbelievable that the person running this site is a lawyer. This is a first semester of the first year of law school concept.
ReplyDeleteSchool buses still don't have seatbelts because the federal transportation officials have contended for years that the buses are crashworthy and supposedly provide enough protection through "compartmentalization" of the children behind well padded (!) high backed, well-anchored seats and strong side panels. There have been studies disputing this conclusion for years. It is utterly bizarre that this has continued on as long as it has.
ReplyDeleteWhoopi Goldberg called them out on The View today--(and admitted WM is a sponsor) and they said that it was part of a legal filing --and that they don't feel the seatbelt is relevant to the details of the accident, but might have saved him some of the injuries.
ReplyDeleteTracy didn't run himself off the road. Seat belt or not.
ReplyDeleteWhy do people blame anyone EXCEPT the insurance companies, who are the ones that are going to fight like hell, crucify the victim through the press and lie and deflect as much as they have to so that they don't have to play a claim? Seriously do people not understand that Walmart has nothing to do with this? They bought insurance, like any other company would do.
ReplyDelete@Zoe if the hypothetical gay son hadn't yet been murdered, he might have suggested buckling up.
ReplyDeleteWho knows? If the driver was less tired would it have happened?
ReplyDeleteFact is the Walmart driver caused the accident. They should stop blaming the victims.
The driver caused the accident.
ReplyDeleteTracy Morgan caused his injuries to be worse than they would have been if he had been seatbelted.
Also, Tracy Morgan's assistant was injured in this accident. Was he wearing a seatbelt?
If not, isn't it Tracy Morgan's responsibility, as an employer, to make sure that his employee is obeying basic safety rules of the road?
@ rosie riveter - your post was such crap that I had to respond to it - unemployable? Really? So Walmart is doing the low lifes of this world a favor, huh? You really are a piece of shit.
ReplyDeleteDiana (or whomever you are, since I'm positive youve been here before under a different name) this statement i made is simply the truth. Walmart has thousands of employees That could get a job elsewhere- young, healthy, high functioning people. And for every one of them, there's one more who is:
DeleteOlder than 55.
Disabled.
Intellectually challenged.
Physically large.
And probably a few im missing. Im saying that in this world we live in whether like it it not, discrimination exists. Its simply a fact.
Oh, and also: Eat a dick.
Oh! Hi Astra! Is this your new handle? Thats a Ten-Four lil buddy.
DeleteIsn't there some concept in the law called contributory negligence? In cases like this, if they go to trial, damages are reduced proportionately if the plaintiff contributed to his own injuries.
ReplyDeleteSo this is a valid legal argument.
However, in the court of public opinion? BONEHEAD MOVE
@Diana Maras you don't need to start out on CDAN (I don't think I've ever seen you here before) by calling another poster a POS.
ReplyDeleteYou don't know exactly what Rosie meant. Maybe it was her awkward way of saying WalMart creates jobs in economically depressed areas where there's a high unemployment rate, and without those jobs, those people would not be able to find local employment.
Well there ya go, PB. Thank you. That is indeed what I'm saying. Maybe Walmart is different in other states? In Washington state, this store is a blessing to many families, and i have a couple very good friends who work there. The LAST thing i meant was anything derogatory. It simply is what it is.
DeleteI don't think it takes a real genius to see that person has been here before under a different name- as a matter of fact, "you really are a pos" sounds alot like someone posting to me the other day. I dont recall who, nor do i care. At all. But thanku for translating
Sorry Diana, I see you have posted here before. Guess your comments weren't very memorable ;-)
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day no one would have been hurt if the Walmart truck had not struck a van. That's the crux of the argument, what happened to the victims after that has no bearing on the fault of the crash. Walmart, ever the sleaziest people on Earth. DON'T SHOP OR SUPPORT WALMART.
ReplyDeleteWalmart is the worst company in America. I hate them.
ReplyDeleteI hope Wallmart's claim gets more people to wear seat belts.
ReplyDeleteUnknown said...
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the day no one would have been hurt if the Walmart truck had not struck a van. That's the crux of the argument, what happened to the victims after that has no bearing on the fault of the crash.
I disagree. Here's Walmart's point and it's legally valid. The man who was killed might not have been killed if he had been wearing a seatbelt, and Tracy Morgan might not have been so seriously injured if HE had been wearing a seatbelt. WalMart's argument is that for the tragedy to have been as bad as it was ... TWO events had to occur - their driver hitting Morgan's vehicle, and Morgan and his fellow passengers not wearing seatbelts.
...
ReplyDeleteHere is an explanation of contributory negligence from Wikipedia.
One short step away from "she had it coming"...
ReplyDeleteWal-Mart is run by sociopaths.
ReplyDelete