Walmart - What were you THINKING (Blames Tracy Morgan)

[Cow Poke]

Somebody at Walmart (legal department?) wasn't thinking. Or is this just "necessary legal talk" to avoid paying megabucks?

Source

Source: TMZ

Tracy Morgan has only himself to blame for the horrific injuries he suffered in the accident with a Walmart truck ... because he wasn't wearing a seatbelt ... Walmart is now claiming.

According to new legal docs ... Walmart is laying blame on Tracy for NOT strapping in while riding home in a limo van in NJ back in June. The company says that's what caused most, if not all, of Tracy's injuries.

As for any responsibility falling on the driver of the Walmart tractor trailer -- the company says it can't comment because of the "ongoing investigation." Walmart won't even confirm the driver, Kevin Roper, was an employee.

Tracy sued Walmart for that accident that left him seriously injured, and killed his friend Jimmy Mack.

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

The blowback for blaming the victim could well cost Walmart more than what they would have ended up paying in a settlement which they'll likely end up paying anyway. And if a jury is involved they are also risking irritating them and having a larger judgment against them assigned than they would have awarded otherwise.

[Cow Poke]

The blowback for blaming the victim could well cost Walmart more than what they would have ended up paying in a settlement which they'll likely end up paying anyway. And if a jury is involved they are also risking irritating them and having a larger judgment against them assigned than they would have awarded otherwise.

Yeah, I think this is a classic PR blunder.

[Sparko]

Yeah I think a jury would see it as it was not Morgan's fault, even if he wasn't wearing a seat belt. Let's say he was riding by on a bike and the same thing happened. Would they claim that it was Morgan's fault because he was not in a sufficiently armored vehicle with seat belts to prevent his injuries? I don't think so.

[Teallaura]

[supton]

I'm going for "necessary legal talk". Walmart is huge but should they pay out more because they are a) Walmart or b) because someone famous got hurt/killed?

[Cow Poke]

I'm going for "necessary legal talk". Walmart is huge but should they pay out more because they are a) Walmart or b) because someone famous got hurt/killed?

OK, no, and no. Regardless of WHO it was hitting whom, it's dumb -- ESPECIALLY for a high profile player -- to fault the other guy for "not wearing a seat belt". Now, if "the other guy" had been weaving in and out of traffic, or speeding, or texting while driving, or something that actually CONTRIBUTED to the accident, that's a different story, IMOHBAO.

AND, I'm not sure "the other guy" was even REQUIRED by law to be wearing a seatbelt -- there are exceptions for certain types of vehicles, including limos (depending on the state).

[Cow Poke]

OK, so I have been trying to find out what, exactly, Walmart claimed, and still looking for a copy of the alleged "court records", but here's another source other than TMZ...

Source: USAToday

But in court papers on Monday the company asserted, among other defenses, that Morgan's injuries "were caused, in whole or in part, by plaintiffs' failure to properly wear an appropriate available seatbelt restraint device," according to The Hollywood Reporter and TMZ.

Therefore, the company says, the plaintiffs aren't entitled to damages because they "failed to mitigate their losses."

Brooke Buchanan, spokesperson for Walmart, issued a statement late Monday. "Walmart filed its official response to the plaintiffs' lawsuit earlier today, and the company continues to stand willing to work with Mr. Morgan and the other plaintiffs to resolve this matter."

Morgan was a passenger in a limo bus involved in the six-car pile-up on June 7. He and three others were critically injured, and one fellow passenger, comedian James McNair, 62, was killed.

© Copyright Original Source

The notion that Morgan's injuries were caused "in whole or in part" by his lack of a seat belt is ludicrous.... especially the "in whole" part..... like he STILL would have been badly injured had the truck NOT hit him.

I think Walmart would have been better off addressing the "Just because we're a big company and he's famous" angle, to which Supton alluded. Why isn't SUPTON their spokesperson on this?!?!?!

[Teallaura]

'Failure to Mitigate' limits damages. You can't expect the plumber to pay for all the water damage if you don't bother to turn off the water or call for a day or two - that sort of thing.

According to these guys, California doesn't require rear seat passengers to have seat belts on so the point is a moot one. Actually, some studies show using lap belts can make injuries worse in certain accidents so a passenger can be acting in good faith by not wearing the belt.

[KingsGambit]

Practically speaking, is anybody going to actually boycott Wal-Mart over this? The company is polarizing as it is and anybody who would be of the mind to boycott it probably would have found a cause to do so already.

[Teallaura]

Well, I doubt Tracy Morgan's family will do much shopping there - and I don't blame them a bit. It's a crass, classless defense - both a PR nightmare and a legal nothing. Walmart needs better lawyers or a better PR department. Or maybe they just need to talk to each other once in a while...

[KingsGambit]

Well, I doubt Tracy Morgan's family will do much shopping there - and I don't blame them a bit. It's a crass, classless defense - both a PR nightmare and a legal nothing. Walmart needs better lawyers or a better PR department. Or maybe they just need to talk to each other once in a while...

I would agree there. It's not like they're a small mom-and-pop company scraping by who can't afford to pay.

I suspect they're trying to avoid publicly setting a precedent of paying out a bunch of money any time anybody gets hurt by one of their company vehicles, so people won't be reasoning "well they paid out X amount to Tracy Morgan, so I'm sure I'm in line for a hefty sum too."

[Teallaura]

I would agree there. It's not like they're a small mom-and-pop company scraping by who can't afford to pay.

I suspect they're trying to avoid publicly setting a precedent of paying out a bunch of money any time anybody gets hurt by one of their company vehicles, so people won't be reasoning "well they paid out X amount to Tracy Morgan, so I'm sure I'm in line for a hefty sum too."

Even if they think they have a legit case, there are better ways to defend it.

[Cow Poke]

'Failure to Mitigate' limits damages.

Failing to mitigate INCREASES damages.

(but, yeah, I know what you meant )

[Cow Poke]

Even if they think they have a legit case, there are better ways to defend it.

Yeah.