1) who shot whom? if the assailant is not an employee but an actual robber, then how can the store prevented the shooting. especially if the shooter shot him 8 times in the back? what if the shooter was actually going after him specifically?
2) how much safety are you going to require? afterall, you walked yourself to the store and could have been shot. who are you going to blame then? the police? are you going to expect the mom-pop stores to have to put up metal detectors? are you going to have them required to hire security guards? are you willing as a customer have your goods increased because you think these small stores need to find another extra protection?
3) did you sue the fellow that shot you? did you sue the gun maker? did you sue the store that sold the gun or previous owner?
4) i think this was more the lawyer’s doing because he was hoping on collecting at least $1 mil instead of 300k.
truly, sounds like we are trying to make this retro…. or make the law ineffective because of one individual….
Looking up what I could find about the shooting, I found that Mr. Lymas was shot outside the store. The articles did not say who did the shooting, but nothing implied that it was an employee. They all said he had sued because the convenience store did not insure his safety adequately.
Frankly, I don’t see how getting shot outside the store entitled him to anythign but medical coverage for being injured while on the premises. SOrry for his injuries, but, this is not the store’s fault, unless the store personnel shot him. I do not expect Kroger to post watch over me while I am in their parking lot to make sure someone does not shoot me. If I was shot while in their lot, I don’t see that it is their responsibility to have some sort of safeguard set up to patrol the lot looking for shooters.
Sorry, but this one is a ridiculous award in my book. I hope the court uphold the 1 mil and not the 4.1. The constant get rich quick, sue someone mentality in this country has got to end.
This is typical of the good old boy network in the uncivilized south. There was a statute in place limiting general damages to 500,000. Now, just because this greedy piece of human garbage and his scumbag lawyer want more money, they are challenging the law. There is no mention of the assailant who shot Ronnie boy IN THE BACK, 8 TIMES. This was no random shooting. Ronnie must have pissed somebody off big time. Even “if” there was a security officer present, it doesn’t guarantee this could have been prevented. You can’t always hold business owners responsbile for things out of their control. These kinds of incidents are a societal sickness.
i agree, if outside the store, is like walking on the sidewalk… would that mean i can sue the city for not protecting me from the idiot w/the gun. how this ever made it to the liability of the store is beyond me… folks just want to sue because big-brother has money, but in this case it’s a mom-pop store that does not even have a lot of money… it should go to the supreme court and be tossed out!
does this sound like someone just sending a frivilous lawsuit to court and almost or possibly have gotten away with this along with the time of court!
Let’s look at another different scenario. Let’s just say that the victim robbed the convenience store while armed with a handgun that held 8 bullets. In the process he juut couldn’t resist the corn dog and deep fried wings and also stole them. As he exited the store he switches hands holding the firearm and(now in the parking lot) is trying to hold it with the excessively greasy hand and looses his grip dropping the gun which when it hits the ground begins to fire repeatedly striking him in the back as he runs from his own gun. Oops! that won’t work, it was his gun.
According to this site: http://minoritydefenselitigator.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/brief-of-appellant-double-quick-inc.pdf
the shooting took place in the parkign lot by the street and was perpetrated by Orlando “Red Boy” Newell. The suit brought expert witnesses who related the violent nature of Newell and the store’s knowledge of his presence and a lack of surveillance equipment or other precautionary measures. Apparently, that would include armed guards , body armor, and not having stores in rough areas.
ok, let’s look at your perspective if their was an expert witness…
1) parking lot? who owned it?
2) just because this person was known to be about the place, how would the store actually know about this person’s reputation? the police might know. also, how many other stores who have parking lots, have a security guard for the parking lot? 8 shots in the back can be done in a matter of seconds. survellience would have only taken a picture of the event, not prevented it.
folks, we can not rely on everyone to look over our shoulders 100%. we already get frustrated with the gov’t when they do it. if he was shot in the back, it was meant for him, luckily he is still alive. sometimes folks are just in the wrong spot at the wrong time. this does not seem like the case, because of the many shots fired.
whoa! there are several things wrong with this.
1) who shot whom? if the assailant is not an employee but an actual robber, then how can the store prevented the shooting. especially if the shooter shot him 8 times in the back? what if the shooter was actually going after him specifically?
2) how much safety are you going to require? afterall, you walked yourself to the store and could have been shot. who are you going to blame then? the police? are you going to expect the mom-pop stores to have to put up metal detectors? are you going to have them required to hire security guards? are you willing as a customer have your goods increased because you think these small stores need to find another extra protection?
3) did you sue the fellow that shot you? did you sue the gun maker? did you sue the store that sold the gun or previous owner?
4) i think this was more the lawyer’s doing because he was hoping on collecting at least $1 mil instead of 300k.
truly, sounds like we are trying to make this retro…. or make the law ineffective because of one individual….
Looking up what I could find about the shooting, I found that Mr. Lymas was shot outside the store. The articles did not say who did the shooting, but nothing implied that it was an employee. They all said he had sued because the convenience store did not insure his safety adequately.
Frankly, I don’t see how getting shot outside the store entitled him to anythign but medical coverage for being injured while on the premises. SOrry for his injuries, but, this is not the store’s fault, unless the store personnel shot him. I do not expect Kroger to post watch over me while I am in their parking lot to make sure someone does not shoot me. If I was shot while in their lot, I don’t see that it is their responsibility to have some sort of safeguard set up to patrol the lot looking for shooters.
Sorry, but this one is a ridiculous award in my book. I hope the court uphold the 1 mil and not the 4.1. The constant get rich quick, sue someone mentality in this country has got to end.
This is typical of the good old boy network in the uncivilized south. There was a statute in place limiting general damages to 500,000. Now, just because this greedy piece of human garbage and his scumbag lawyer want more money, they are challenging the law. There is no mention of the assailant who shot Ronnie boy IN THE BACK, 8 TIMES. This was no random shooting. Ronnie must have pissed somebody off big time. Even “if” there was a security officer present, it doesn’t guarantee this could have been prevented. You can’t always hold business owners responsbile for things out of their control. These kinds of incidents are a societal sickness.
I fail to see where the store is liable at all for any damages…. clue me in?
i agree, if outside the store, is like walking on the sidewalk… would that mean i can sue the city for not protecting me from the idiot w/the gun. how this ever made it to the liability of the store is beyond me… folks just want to sue because big-brother has money, but in this case it’s a mom-pop store that does not even have a lot of money… it should go to the supreme court and be tossed out!
does this sound like someone just sending a frivilous lawsuit to court and almost or possibly have gotten away with this along with the time of court!
Let’s look at another different scenario. Let’s just say that the victim robbed the convenience store while armed with a handgun that held 8 bullets. In the process he juut couldn’t resist the corn dog and deep fried wings and also stole them. As he exited the store he switches hands holding the firearm and(now in the parking lot) is trying to hold it with the excessively greasy hand and looses his grip dropping the gun which when it hits the ground begins to fire repeatedly striking him in the back as he runs from his own gun. Oops! that won’t work, it was his gun.
According to this site:
http://minoritydefenselitigator.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/brief-of-appellant-double-quick-inc.pdf
the shooting took place in the parkign lot by the street and was perpetrated by Orlando “Red Boy” Newell. The suit brought expert witnesses who related the violent nature of Newell and the store’s knowledge of his presence and a lack of surveillance equipment or other precautionary measures. Apparently, that would include armed guards , body armor, and not having stores in rough areas.
How does this law compare to the one that was struck down in Illinois?
There was a cap on medical malpractice that was declared unconstitutional.
ok, let’s look at your perspective if their was an expert witness…
1) parking lot? who owned it?
2) just because this person was known to be about the place, how would the store actually know about this person’s reputation? the police might know. also, how many other stores who have parking lots, have a security guard for the parking lot? 8 shots in the back can be done in a matter of seconds. survellience would have only taken a picture of the event, not prevented it.
folks, we can not rely on everyone to look over our shoulders 100%. we already get frustrated with the gov’t when they do it. if he was shot in the back, it was meant for him, luckily he is still alive. sometimes folks are just in the wrong spot at the wrong time. this does not seem like the case, because of the many shots fired.