circuit city doesn't have products on shelves. best buy is a warehouse environment, they should have forseen this.
if i walk in a store and a light fixture falls on my head, the store is responsible. why, because the light fixture should have been secured. the light fixture is a part of the store, so is the employee, the employee is supposed to be trained. it isn't hard to forsee accidents in a situation with employee grabbing large products off shelves.
i work at Best Buy and I wouldn't use a ladder for a 27" tube. Best Buy has Big Joe which is a platform like forklift. Granted, I'm a weakling and a sissy so I would blame the employee. He should have sold an LCD to the man for just a few dollars more Or had a spotter. But customers are morons on the whole. The customer should not stand that close to the ladder/loading area for his own safety. Accidents happen.
Trained people still make mistakes. That's why it's called an accident instead of negligence. I've asked twice now - what would you suggest as a reasonable policy to prevent an accident like this from occurring?
have trained employees moving items off shelves. but i have to ask you, does your "accidents happen" mantra mean that we should have no more lawsuits for accidents? looks like you're arguing just to argue. we know its an accident. that's no reason its not subject to a lawsuit.
So as long as he's trained, you're good? How do you know he wasn't trained? Trained people can have things fall out of their hands. This situation might have completely fullfilled your requirements for Best Buy's responsibilities. No, they are claiming willful neglect - that's entirely different than an accident.
well maybe we need a lawyer to clarify what "willfull neglect" is because i do believe its negligence to have an employee not trained to be involved in this activity. we do know that there is no store policy in place. so if the employee was trained than the training isn't good enough if it doesn't involve clearing the area.
We're actually in agreement then. As for injuries, it's hard to tell. Not sure how we'd measure a change in the quality of Sam's posts.
By "mistakes" I read negligence. Trained people still commit acts of negligence. Just because a negligence standard is not a 100% effective deterrent to negligent acts - why do you draw the conclusion that there should be no liability for negligent acts? Further I don't get your "accident" category. By that I take it you mean something that is completely unforseeable to the average person - or an act of god or something like that. Manhandling a TV while standing 10 feet above somebody and having the TV fall on somebody does not seem to be an unforseeable accident. An unforseeable accident would be if a meteorite crashed through the best buy roof and knocked the TV off the shelf while a customer was standing nearby. You seem to be advocating raising the standard of liability for torts up to gross negligence or even recklessness. Let us dismiss the deterrent value for a second. Absent a contractual waiver to the contrary - why should the onus fall on the injured party to absorb the cosequences of negligent acts? That appears to be the standard you are urging.
Regardless of whether the guy was a moron for standing too close does not remove the liability of Best Buy for injuring him. People are winning these lawsuits regularly.
It may or may not be negligent. If I'm walking and trip and land on a kid, it was an accident, but it wasn't negligence unless I was just not looking where I was going or something like that. Every time someone makes a mistake, they are being negligent? That's the dumbest definition I've ever heard. I've never said that - in fact, I've implied the very opposite by suggesting an accident could be different than negligence (suggesting that negligence might be worse). No, I'm asking where the willful neglect is that is claimed in the lawsuit. People keep saying "the employee should be trained" but can't answer whether they were. They keep saying "there should be a policy" but can't give a suggestion of what the policy should be. I'm suggesting people might be expecting an unreasonable standard. I've been to many stores that have employees that get stuff off of shelves. I've never once seen any of them make an announcement to clear the area or anything like that. The standard I'm urging is that it is stupid to sue a company for "willful neglect" for a fluke accident that caused no injuries and could have been prevented with a little common sense on the part of the customer. I have no idea whether he will win or not, but these are the types of idiotic lawsuits that result in us having a lawsuit-happy culture.
Forgot to include - the plantiff is suing for gross negligence and willful intent. That's my problem with this whole thing. From the original article: Fisher is now suing the store, claiming it is guilty of gross negligence. ... The suit is seeking exemplary damages on the count of Best Buy's "willful, wanton, and reckless disregard for the safety and welfare of its customers." It may very well be that Best Buy has horrible safety procedures, but nothing in this incident suggests that was the case here.
Really? In all your years of existence, you really think the defintions of "making a mistake" and "negligence" are so distinct, objective and non-fluid that it makes the ranks of one of the dumbest things you have ever heard? That is funny because I got a big fancy law degree and I don't consider it one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, and rather seem to see the two things overlapping. In fact read some jury instructions and you will frequently see the two used simultaneously in the same sentence. I made a mistake and thought I closed the barn door, rather I left it open. The horse got out and trampled somebody to death. Mistake - not negligence? I fired a shotgun into a playground, mistakenly thinking Jack the Ripper was there.. Mistake - not negligence or recklessness? The definition of negligence is the standard "reasonably prudent" test. You are telling me that a mistake or series of mistakes would not lead be probative as to whether the defendant was being "reasonably prudent"? I find this simply not credible or rational - and you don't need a law degree to know that.
To me the only wanton display of negligence is that of the consumers. If you CHOOSE to stand directly underneath a man trying to pull down a TV from a high shelf, then YOU are guilty of being a stupid person who doesn't deserve one dime. You don't have to have a policy on training. Only that Training is being conducted. You guys seriously are arguing the merit of a dummy, making a dummy decision getting himself hurt?
The guy may be stupid if indeed he was standing too close. If so, Best Buy, through its employee has the responsibility to make sure he stands clear in case the TV falls, regardless of the rare odds that it would happen. That the policy "sir, we are going to move the TV off the shelf, please stand back 20 feet". Problem solved. The negligence is not dropping the TV, the negligence is not telling the customer to move away. Home Depot and Lowes actually close their isles down when they are moving stuff off of high shelves.
