Jump to content

Manger stops robbery by shooting - company being sued


jporter12

Recommended Posts

Wow.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120719/NEWS02/207190360/Kroger-sued-over-suspect-s-fatal-shooting-during-robbery-attempt

Nearly six months after Jeremy Atkinson was shot and killed by a Kroger store manager during an attempted robbery, his mother is seeking more than $75,000 in damages in a wrongful-death lawsuit filed against the supermarket chain.

The complaint filed July 13 in U.S. District Court argues that Kroger neglected to enforce its own policy that prohibits employees from carrying firearms while on duty. Experts are saying this could be a tough battle for the plaintiffs to win.

Not only do they have to establish that Kroger was negligent by failing to enforce its gun policy, Indianapolis attorney Drew Miroff said they also have to prove that that negligence — not Atkinson’s own actions — led to his death.

“It’s ludicrous to me to say that Kroger should be sued when, in fact, their employee had a legal right to protect himself and others,” Relford said. “What’s the alternative? That Kroger should’ve enforced the policy so that (Atkinson) could’ve had a successful armed robbery? That, to me, is ridiculous. It other words, we shouldn’t defend ourselves against the criminals because the criminal might get hurt.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bad news is that the lawsuit is priced for the defendant to roll over and pay, rather than pay more to the lawyers to fight and dismiss it. This is an ambulance chaser.

The plantiff should be fined... $75,000. But that won't happen.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The bad news is that the lawsuit is priced for the defendant to roll over and pay, rather than pay more to the lawyers to fight and dismiss it. This is an ambulance chaser.

The plantiff should be fined... $75,000. But that won't happen.

I never thought about it that way. Nice catch!

I'm trying to follow this, since my wife works at a Kroger, in the pharmacy. Pharmacy's get robbed fairly regularly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I never thought about it that way. Nice catch!

I'm trying to follow this, since my wife works at a Kroger, in the pharmacy. Pharmacy's get robbed fairly regularly.

Don't they have the bottles full of sleeping pills and stool softeners labeled as "strong narcotics" :lol:

"Oh, here you are Mr. Bad guy. Now go to sleep and crap yourself for being a moron pill poper" ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't they have the bottles full of sleeping pills and stool softeners labeled as "strong narcotics" :lol:

"Oh, here you are Mr. Bad guy. Now go to sleep and crap yourself for being a moron pill poper" ;)

That's bullshit! If I specifically robbed you for narcs and you slipped me something else, I'd sue the crap out of you!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned this to Ben on facebook, but this woman could sue and win for alot more. After Bernie Goetz shot those guys trying to rob him on the NY subway they sued him (the one that lived anyways). He was paralyzed and could no longer commit crimes, so him and his family got paid because he was unable to work. The city had to pay out a HUGE settlement because crime was his job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mentioned this to Ben on facebook, but this woman could sue and win for alot more. After Bernie Goetz shot those guys trying to rob him on the NY subway they sued him (the one that lived anyways). He was paralyzed and could no longer commit crimes, so him and his family got paid because he was unable to work. The city had to pay out a HUGE settlement because crime was his job.

makes me want to vomit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Entitlement. That's all murica know these days.

And $75K is an insult to valued life. How about this, next time, sell your kid at birth and get $75K for them then. Save sociaty the exposure to your failed parenting. See, you can't loose. But nooooo, you wanted to play parent. Sad for us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question is, if the plaintiff loses, do they pay court costs? It's not as cut and dry as you think.

Also, there's more to consider than just morality. If they fight it and lose then they set a legal precedent that all future cases may wind up following unless it is appealed.

Fight it and win, and the next numbnuts who sues because he sucks at crime will have to prevail at a higher court to overturn the precedent.

If they just pay out as a Nuisance Settlement then they open the floodgates for countless more failed criminals suing in hope of nuisance settlements in the wake of failed felonies.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Ohio there is specific legislation prohibiting these types of lawsuits.

Agreed - Ohio has individual immunity (Does castle doctrine apply at your place of work?) But this is a Negligent Supervision case, and I don't know the details of any business immunity Indiana might have. Kroger's failure to enforce their no-guns policy is the issue, so the statewide individual lawsuit protection does not appear to apply here.

Some problems:

1) They would have to prove negligence. The simple fact that the gun was in the building does not mean that Kroger was negligent. To be negligent they would have to act in a way that shows they failed to consider a given risk that a normal person/company would have considered, and failed to take reasonable steps to enforce the no guns policy. Problem is that other than a ban on guns what other steps should they have taken? Metal Detectors? Searches of employees? Ball-grabbing TSA folks at the staff entrance (if you know what I mean)

Unless they have a copy of company memo showing management were aware that this guy carried a gun and chose to do nothing about...

Even then...

2) Kroger could have chosen to NOT ban guns and that would still have been legally ok. Specifically allowing their staff to carry, or simply taking no position on the issue, would leave them in no legal jeopardy as they are allowing something that is legal to do. It's not like they are allowing CC in a non-CC state.

3) Ohio provides civil immunity to the owners of property whether they ban or not. Does Indiana have this rule? If so then this lawsuit should be dismissed on those grounds alone.

Ironically, if Kroger had allowed guns, or taken no position, there could be no "Negligent Supervision". As such, this lawsuit sends out a message that banning guns leaves you liable for not eradicating them. NOT banning guns leaves you safe. Wonder if any companies will drop their bans because of this.

Edited by Scruit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or a smart judge just throws it out of court because it is an obvious waste of tax payer dollars.

Why is it a waste of taxpayer dollars? This is civil litigation with courts costs being paid by one or both of the parties to the case. :confused:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...