Wal-Mart sues brain-damaged woman for $417,000

[RandomGuy]

I agree that ministering to the poor is more central to the Christian life than disapproving of sexuality is.

However, ministering to the poor is not the "real emphasis of God's message." If it were, we could just do away with all the trappings of religion and go feed the hungry. A lot of secular liberals dream of the day that would come to pass.

I meant "emphasis of God's message" relative to the issues at hand. I was comparing relative emphasis on things, as opposed to trying to distill the entire thing down. I realize that I didn't make that clear, sorry.

[PixelPusher]

Do you think Wal Mart is the ONLY corporation in the world? How many can you name off the top of your head. 500? 1000? 5000? And if this happens to every one of them?

Sure, Wal Mart is large enough to withstand a half million bucks. Others aren't.

See the problem is, you want to look at this as a single one time scenario. It isn't.

No one has to rush to apply for a job at Wal Mart.

Would you think it fair to say that with the current employees that Wal Mart has, it is feasible to say that in the next 12 months, this same scenario of one of them being involved in a disabling automobile accident could happen 12 times? So now we are talking 6 million or thereabouts. At what point is enough, enough? The problem is, you don't look at things in the big picture. Only on a case by case basis.

You and Wild Cobra's assertion that this will lead to some apocalyptic slippery slope for corporations everywhere is a paranoid delusion. A "special case" is exactly what this is, and Wal-Mart's decision not to pursue the money is predicated on the special cir stances of this case and won't affect their policies going forward. Your hypothetical 12 annual automobile accidents will be handled exactly like all the other automobile accidents in Wal-marts history: on a case by case basis, because they all don't involve life altering brain damage, 3rd party settlements or media attention.

And I'm still waiting for Wild Cobra to explain the "scam" here. Spending the rest of your life as a vegetable in a nursing home sounds like a pretty ty scam to me.

[boutons_]

It was Wal-mart's choice, not a legal decision and precedent.

Other companies makes their own choices independent of W-M single example, and the SC has helpled them by making subrogation more winnable.

Which do you think has been happening more frequently and will undoubtedly continue to pick up steam? winning subgrotions or wal-marting a won subrogation?

[SPARKY]

Who do you think owns the insurance regulators in all 50 states?

[boutons_]

'the insurance regulators"

did you notice that Paulsen's plan pretty much kills state insurance regulators in favor of fed?

Repugs are for states' rights? for small govt? GMAFB

[SPARKY]

Well, at least that would make it more affordable for Wal-Mart, who now faces a deluge of brain-damaged associates with sons killed in Iraq milking it dry, to buy its influence.

[Wild Cobra]

It was Wal-mart's choice, not a legal decision and precedent.

Yes and No. It was Wal-Mart's choice to let them keep the money. The precedent was winning the case that allowed Wal-Mart to make it their choice. It would be a bad precedent if Wal-Mart lost the case. Then it would not be their choice, or the next corporation in a similar situation.

[SPARKY]

Yes and No. It was Wal-Mart's choice to let them keep the money. The precedent was winning the case that allowed Wal-Mart to make it their choice. It would be a bad precedent if Wal-Mart lost the case. Then it would not be their choice, or the next corporation in a similar situation.

So then, what's the problem now? It would seem that both sides got what they wanted.

[boutons_]

"Yes and No."

What robotic bull sping. It was a stand-alone YES,
there was no mitigating, compromising NO about it.

There is no slippery slope,
American capitalism and corps are not crashing down, no legal precedent other than wal-mart won its subrogation case.

There IS a lot of fear mongering and slinging of red herrings.

Wal-mart decision to cave may be an example for other corps, but I bet against that. Corps don't yield profits and power and "rights" to be nice guys and good citizens.

[Wild Cobra]

"Yes and No."

What robotic bull sping. It was a stand-alone YES,
there was no mitigating, compromising NO about it.

Come on, it was not a single question or statement.

It was Wal-mart's choice,

Yes, it was Wal-Mart's choice. You are correct.

not a legal decision and precedent.

I say no to this statement as in you are incorrect... It was a legal precedent. You say it wasn't a legal precedent, I say it was.

[boutons_]

wal-mart's caving is not a legal precedent. It is an example of how when the press exposes certain corp behaviors, the corps will abandon a behavior. The corps almost never do this. Wal-mart clearly thought it was to their advantage, removing ill will, which has monetary value behond $400K.

Wal-mart's win in court is a legal precedent surely to be noted by judges and corps.

[RandomGuy]

'the insurance regulators"

did you notice that Paulsen's plan pretty much kills state insurance regulators in favor of fed?

Repugs are for states' rights? for small govt? GMAFB

Interesting. Link? I could find it, but I was hoping to see what you read specifically. (curious)

((BEGIN EDIT))

Nevermind, I found it.

[SAGambler]

You and Wild Cobra's assertion that this will lead to some apocalyptic slippery slope for corporations everywhere is a paranoid delusion. A "special case" is exactly what this is, and Wal-Mart's decision not to pursue the money is predicated on the special cir stances of this case and won't affect their policies going forward. Your hypothetical 12 annual automobile accidents will be handled exactly like all the other automobile accidents in Wal-marts history: on a case by case basis, because they all don't involve life altering brain damage, 3rd party settlements or media attention.

And I'm still waiting for Wild Cobra to explain the "scam" here. Spending the rest of your life as a vegetable in a nursing home sounds like a pretty ty scam to me.

I'm not sure that Wild Cobra ever stated this was a scam. Certainly it wasn't in any sense a "scam".

But what I'm trying to get across here, I guess, is that there is no way that Wal-Mart should be the ones getting the "bad guy" tag. All they were doing, is what was legal. Going by the contract. That, and that alone, is why every court has found in Wal-Marts favor.

Here is another question. Why didn't they just sue the trucking company strictly for either pain and suffering or loss of companionship or something other than recouping medical costs? Seems if they would have done that, Wal-Mart would never have tried to recoup the money, which by the way, goes back into the health fund for future victims, and not in their P & L statement.

The only reason is see for them being the "bad guys here", is like Keith Oberman put it. "Wal-Mart made 11 billion dollars last year, and they certainly don't need the money as bad as the woman does".

It's basically who makes the most money. They are always the bad guy.

[SPARKY]

The Shanks did sue for that. They settled so they'd be guaranteed to get something.

Wal-Mart was suing a brain damaged woman who lost a son in Iraq for the scant settlement which is needed to pay for full-time care for the rest of her life. Just because it was legal doesn't make it any less unseemly. Rinse. Repeat.

[smeagol]

I'm not sure that Wild Cobra ever stated this was a scam. Certainly it wasn't in any sense a "scam".

But what I'm trying to get across here, I guess, is that there is no way that Wal-Mart should be the ones getting the "bad guy" tag. All they were doing, is what was legal. Going by the contract. That, and that alone, is why every court has found in Wal-Marts favor.

Here is another question. Why didn't they just sue the trucking company strictly for either pain and suffering or loss of companionship or something other than recouping medical costs? Seems if they would have done that, Wal-Mart would never have tried to recoup the money, which by the way, goes back into the health fund for future victims, and not in their P & L statement.

The only reason is see for them being the "bad guys here", is like Keith Oberman put it. "Wal-Mart made 11 billion dollars last year, and they certainly don't need the money as bad as the woman does".

It's basically who makes the most money. They are always the bad guy.

That is why you need a little socialism in your brand of capitalism

[xrayzebra]

That is why you need a little socialism in your brand of capitalism

Oh, I don't think so. We have too much government
interference now. Why are you blaming Wal-Mart for
something that the woman's lawyer and family did, like
settle out of court, for what appears to be something the
woman was at fault to begin with. I mean after all
Wal-Mart has said she can keep the money as well as
what their insurance paid out to her. She is not without
means, she has SOC, possibly disability insurance and
maybe even workmans comp. We have no idea what
she has coming in. For certain she does have SOC.

[SPARKY]

That is why you need a little socialism in your brand of capitalism

Well, we do have a smidgen of that. Of course, the socialism that benefits the capitalists is not referred to as socialism. It's only when individuals receive something from the government that it is socialism, pinko communism, and un-American.

[SAGambler]

Well, we do have a smidgen of that. Of course, the socialism that benefits the capitalists is not referred to as socialism. It's only when individuals receive something from the government that it is socialism, pinko communism, and un-American.

And this has exactly what to do with the subject at hand?

[SPARKY]

Plenty.