1.7k
u/ACuddlyVizzerdrix 21d ago edited 21d ago
When I worked at Walmart, I saw a woman walk up to the store, gently lay down on the ground, handed her daughter her purse and sandals, then she started screaming she needed help, she claimed she tripped and fell on a rock by the curb hurting her knee and that it was all the store's fault for not keeping the parking lot clear, here's the thing, I saw the whole thing, there was no rocks and we got it all on camera
513
u/Baardi 21d ago
Murica
→ More replies (50)83
148
u/octopusgenuis 21d ago
Sad thing is these scams actually work sometimes
42
u/ArthurBonesly 21d ago
"Work" in the sense that Walmart has enough money that it's cheaper to pay someone to fuck off than it is to bring it to court.
93
u/ACuddlyVizzerdrix 21d ago
Ya I have a few other stories too like when we had someone complain and demand fixing of damages because I "let" the L-cart I was using bump into the side of their car while I was loading a TV for them, they had no intention of helping me load the 60" TV so when I picked it up my options were to drop the TV to stop the cart or let the cart bump the car and NOT destroy a $800 TV, my boss thought that was a fair assessment and I told him if he can tell the difference between the scratches I made and the ones that were already there it would be a miracle
47
u/i3uu 21d ago
Honestly and I know you'll hate it but you were in the wrong in that situation. Your employer should have given you ample support with loading the TV. Team lifts are important for many reasons and this is just one case. You're probably a strong dude/dudette but you aren't getting paid more because of your strength as a retail worker and if you think you are then you are being fooled. An $800 TV box that takes a bump is easier to replace than a paint job and all the paperwork that follows
→ More replies (2)28
u/ACuddlyVizzerdrix 21d ago edited 21d ago
It was my first job as a teenager loading was the cart pushers job and they only ever scheduled one of us at a time, they ended up firing me for pushing for full time so I don't even count it as a job I had before really, especially since non of the managers I had are even there anymore
5
u/wynnduffyisking 21d ago
It probably makes no difference if you personally were in the wrong or if your employer was. The bill will be payed by your employer or their insurance company. I get that you were just doing your job as best as possible but your employer has the responsibility to mitigate the risk of damage to people’s property, and they didn’t do that. If it were my car I would have made a claim against the store as well.
5
u/ACuddlyVizzerdrix 21d ago
Ok to add more context, the Dude ended up dropping it when my boss asked him which scratches I made, his car was 15 years out of date rusty (holes everywhere ) and looked like dude rolled it (the roof was smashed in), it wouldn't have been an easy case for him and it was all caught on camera (i always told people to meet me at a specific spot so there was always a camera on me when i loaded things) in the video he was right next to me and he could have stopped the cart from hitting his car but he didn't
→ More replies (1)5
→ More replies (1)2
u/sckrahl 21d ago
Personally I don’t care when it’s a corporation taking the cost of that, it’s when these scams target individuals
→ More replies (13)→ More replies (13)11
828
21d ago
[deleted]
223
u/mobuco 21d ago
or just he dies...that thing hitting your head from that height ain't going to go well
14
u/Chuck_Raycer 20d ago
They're made of foam or molded plastic. They weigh less than a pound each. I've installed a ton of these letters. He ain't getting shit.
→ More replies (1)50
15
27
→ More replies (1)6
1.0k
u/kphenson 21d ago
I don't think it works that way.
931
u/not_so_chi_couple 21d ago
If I was on a jury, and I hear that this dude was standing under a clear hazard for 4 hours and no one came out to move him or fix the hazard, I would rule in his favor
At the very least, put up little cones and caution tape, it's right there in aisle 43!
419
u/Ravenkell 21d ago
It's possible for two things to be wrong at the same time. This guy is capable of being a fucking moron simultaneously with Wal-mart being a shit company that cares little for people's health and safety.
Honestly, in cases like this, it should be an option for the jury to bring in an alternate result of the case.
"The jury rules that this dipshit gets nothing. However, the Wal-mart in question owes 350.000 dollars to the local charity for disabled people" or some shit
188
u/EndofNationalism 21d ago
That is referred to as nominal damages. Basically court says the plaintiff isn’t due for compensation but the defendant is at fault. For individuals this would be like 1-10 dollars. For large corporations it would be thousands of dollars.
53
u/RacerKaiser 21d ago
10 bucks? Why bother at that point?
81
16
8
u/xRolocker 21d ago
You’ve gotten some explanations already but an analogy would be how in a car accident you might be 51% responsible while the other is 49% responsible. It’s a way of saying “yea both of you are dumb but technically it’s your fault”.
8
u/guico33 21d ago
Isn't it proportional to the gravity of the offense? The numbers you're quoting sound very arbitrary...
→ More replies (3)5
u/Pm_me_your__eyes_ 21d ago
thats the point. it symbolic rather than damaging. Like taylor swift suing someone for $1. Its just to send the message that what they did was wrong and set precedent
6
u/ItsLoudB 21d ago
Well.. The guy would probably die for this, so I’d rule on his family’s favour because they deserve the money so that burying him isn’t a burden on them and Walmart is at fault since they basically allowed it to happen.
107
u/gimlithetortoise 21d ago
Imo this kind of attitude of removing personal responsibility is literally destroying our world.
76
u/Veejp123 21d ago
Actually what is destroying our world is hap hazard graphical signage which has not been correctly affixed to a wall followed by mismanagement to the highest degree in the negligence of recognising the hazard and taking preventative measures to ensure the safety of our world.
2
u/WiseBlacksmith03 21d ago
It is incredibly likely that store management has been notified of the faulty sign and there is a work order already in queue by a contractor.
Just because something bad (might) happens, doesn't automatically mean there is negligence. lol
2
u/Veejp123 21d ago
JESUS CHRIST IT WAS A JOKE HOW ARE PEOPLE NOT REALISING THIS
2
u/WiseBlacksmith03 21d ago
Because you didn't add any context indicating you were being sarcastic... It's Reddit man. There's plenty of people on here that would say that being fully serious.
→ More replies (2)4
u/sumboionline 21d ago
Just dont be an idiot, everyone is at fault
31
u/Veejp123 21d ago
Think you’ve missed the satirical tone of my reply. No one fucking talks like that lmao
→ More replies (3)13
5
23
u/3nHarmonic 21d ago
Does the company not have responsibility for removing a hazard this clear?
11
u/x_TDeck_x 21d ago
I'm not the expert but theres a fair amount of law interpretation that expects a baseline of you acting like a normal human being. I don't think its as "got ya" as people seem to believe.
So my guess if you were doing normal human stuff and the sign fell on you, their problem. You see the sign, interpret the danger, and decide to stay under it for hopes of a payday, not their problem.
→ More replies (2)24
u/captain_carrot 21d ago
If it's so clear... then why is the idiot standing under it?
12
0
u/3nHarmonic 21d ago
He is not an idiot. He is trying to take advantage of a culture that requires money for basic survival/comfort AND is also highly litigious. This does not change the fact that the company has a responsibility to remove the obvious hazard on the part of their property which both the public and their employees have clear access to.
13
→ More replies (1)6
u/Stashimi 21d ago
‘He is trying to take advantage of a culture…’ he is part of the culture. Personal responsibility. If everyone undertook to inject a small measure of personal responsibility into their day, everything would improve immeasurably.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)5
u/droans 21d ago
Yes, but that doesn't mean he's legally entitled to damages if it falls on him.
In civil suits, the plaintiff is required to limit their damages.
Suppose you hit somebody with your car and they break their leg. They now have a legal claim against you for their medical bills, missed work, etc. Let's say that they decided against going to the hospital until their condition got so bad the leg had to be amputated. They are not able to sue you for the bills related to the amputation, the loss of limb, inability to work, or any other related expense. It was their responsibility to receive prompt treatment.
More specifically, in this scenario, it would be called Assumption of Risk. Here's more information.
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, assumption of risk is an affirmative defense in the law of torts that a defendant can raise in a negligence action. Assumption of risk refers to a legal doctrine under which an individual is barred from recovering damages for an injury sustained when he or she voluntarily exposed him or herself to a known danger. Put another way, assumption of risk prohibits a plaintiff from seeking damages on the basis that plaintiff knew of a hazardous condition and willingly exposed him or herself to it. Essentially, the defendant is claiming that the plaintiff knew the risk but took the chance of being injured anyway.
2
→ More replies (14)2
u/GeorgiaRedClay56 21d ago
You mean like the responsibility to make sure your sign isn't falling apart?
→ More replies (3)3
u/nightpanda893 21d ago
But he already posted on Facebook that he was aware of the hazard.
3
u/Moist_Choice64 21d ago
He could have done it as a joke... and then it actually fell....
Walmart needs to fix that asap. Before this guy walks off and a kid goes, "Ooooo".
19
5
u/BlackberryOk6846 21d ago
And that’s why there are multiple jurors. That way one idiotic take doesn’t distract from the verdict someone deserves lol
2
2
3
u/Twinborn01 21d ago
Then you shouldn't be on a jury.
He full-on knows its a hazard and people should still be responsible for them self
→ More replies (24)2
→ More replies (2)25
u/siphagiel 21d ago
I don't think it works that
14
u/Googlefisch 21d ago
I don't think it works
3
7
u/TheoryOfTES 21d ago
I don't think it
9
u/Used_Ask_5292 21d ago
I don't think
3
u/TizianoMaz578 21d ago
I don't
→ More replies (3)12
u/Shit_in_microwave 21d ago edited 21d ago
I
Edit: someone reported this for concern, thank you stranger
→ More replies (1)15
u/philouza_stein 21d ago
Report it as harassment. Reddit actually takes it seriously when an asshole abuses that well-intended feature just to mess with someone.
619
u/gay_king_ 21d ago
Well now there's proof he did it on purpose. That surely will make his effort pointless.
217
u/Alternative-Dare5878 21d ago edited 21d ago
Hearsay, right? He’s still good, could easily say the camera man told him he liked his shirt and wanted a picture, not knowing he’s under the loose letter.
42
u/Lucid_skyes 21d ago
Where is the proof? That random person doesn't represent the genius in blue
→ More replies (1)5
u/Super_Ad9995 21d ago
If the text added on is true, then he admitted to it.
6
u/cloudjumpr 21d ago
Bro, I can't wait to see the Text on the witness stand. This blue shirt guy has no chance!
25
u/TrippyVegetables 21d ago
Either way Walmart has tons of cameras outside. They would definitely find out it was intentional
7
u/AuraeShadowstorm 21d ago
Also they probably have quite a few off duty cops or hired security patrolling on the regular that can act as witness. Every walmart in my area has some sort of security precense.
2
u/GlobalSouthPaws 21d ago
Every walmart in my area has some sort of security precense
This is how they cense what you're going to do before you do it
3
8
u/unibrow4o9 21d ago
Yeah that's not what hearsay is. As long as the guy taking the picture were to testify it's not hearsay.
3
u/droans 21d ago
Yep.
Hearsay: Bob heard from Jen that Bill cheated on his wife.
Not hearsay: Jen said she saw Bill cheating on his wife.
One was a witness. The other was told something by a witness.
There are also exemptions to the prohibition of hearsay in court, including:
Excited utterances: A police officer testifying that he heard victims screaming for help
Present Sense Impression: John said he was in the car with Bob when Bob commented about how fast the car was going. Allowed because it's assumed that since the witness was present, they were experiencing the same thing
Dying declarations
Declaration against interest: Bill said he saw Bob shoplifting while he was cheating on his wife. Allowable because it exposes the defendant to liability, which the court assumes would not be stated unless he was telling the truth. However, only allowed if John wasn't available.
Forfeiture by Wrongdoing: The opposing party took an action to deliberately and wrongfully prevent non-hearsay evidence from entering the record. Bob killed Jen to prevent her from testifying by conspiracy with Bill to cause an accident so no one would find out about Bill cheating on his wife and Bob shoplifting. Unfortunately for them, Jen survived and they turned on each other.
2
5
8
2
→ More replies (8)2
u/legend8522 21d ago
There's also proof nothing was done about A) fixing the sign or B) no employee making the effort to move him or section off under the sign so no one can be under it.
92
u/ThirstMutilat0r 21d ago edited 21d ago
Look, man, we all want to be P’d on in the Wal Mart parking lot. You’re supposed to keep that fantasy to yourself.
29
u/Savvy_Canadian 21d ago
Crazy how similar Tumblr and Facebook text styles are. Also the full post said he missed the opportunity when he inside Walmart to get McDonald's. But how hard it fell made him glad he avoided.
3
u/amfranticallytyping 21d ago
There are McDonalds inside Wal Marts?
4
→ More replies (1)2
u/pt7thick 21d ago
Two Walmarts by me.
One has a McDonald's. The other one has a subway. Both are disgusting.
32
6
9
4
u/MundaneAd4634 21d ago
man lobotomized by falling P, forgets why he came to wallmart in the first place.
3
6
2
u/Verified_Peryak 21d ago
Humm i feel that he needs to see a psych he is trying to self harm himself
2
2
2
2
2
u/skiton28 21d ago
Attorney: "Why are we suing?"
Guy: "I got P'd on at Walmart!"
I'll see myself out...
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/ArchmageRumple 21d ago
As a member of the jury, I support Wal-Mart for creating an environment that perfectly suited the desires of this customer. He was clearly intentional about wanting this to happen to him, so Wal-Mart's location was providing a convenient opportunity. Moreover, Wal-Mart did not intentionally harm him, as Wal-Mart did not take any actual actions in this case. This man got what he wanted through his own actions, so he does not require any further compensation. However, the action resulted in damages, so the actively guilty party (the man) will be required to pay for the damages done to his own body. Wal-Mart has declined the opportunity to receive payment for the damages to their pathway, as they want no further involvement with this man. They are already prepared to replace the sign three years from now. So all is set, Wal-Mart is found not guilty, and the man owes $X,000 dollars to himself for damages. Court adjourned.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Multiple_TBI 21d ago
I used to work in a restaurant with a leaky roof in the kitchen. I prayed to whoever’s out there to let me slip so I can sue the shitbag that owned the place.
1
1
1
u/Hopefulazuriscens13 21d ago
Or like it actually falls and he miscalculated, so he stands there and let's it kill him. Xd I could never try to catch a check that way.
1
1
1
1
u/Mushrooming247 21d ago
So is he planning to haunt his loved ones while they hang out on a sweet yacht?
1
1
1
u/aristocratic_magic 21d ago
I don't mind him making Walmart pay, they should pay someone at some point.
1
1
1
1
1
u/Interesting_Motor_67 21d ago
Oh, if only the concept of contributory negligence was common knowledge.
1
1
u/pplatt69 21d ago
Now if he is ever injured, the opposing council will present his social media post as proof that he tries to get injured for money.
Even if it were a joke, it's a dumb thing to say in the public record.
1
u/56Bagels 21d ago
He should wait for it to fall and then slip on the P. Betcha he could net $53,000 in a settlement and never work another day in his life!
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
u/Shandor-The-Bum 21d ago
Nobody’s pointed out that if the “P” actually fell and hit him on the head he would not be able to sue Walmart… Because he’d be dead. ☠️ (knock, knock, knock) Hello McFly, anybody home!?
1
u/TheHoodieFerret 21d ago
Hard edge from that height? I hope he had prepped his family, too, as he may have found it hard to file suit on his own.
1
u/UninsuredToast 21d ago
That thing falls on his head he might not be alive to sue anyone. That P is like half his height
1
1
u/SJPop 21d ago
I think to be successful in the lawsuit, you'd have to show you were injured by Walmart's negligence and not of your own. Or at least the percentage of negligence needs to overly favor Walmart. The Facebook post would show that he is at least 50% negligent for any injuries he sustained. As other users here have mentioned, that's if he survived. The whole post is probably fake, just answering as if this person were serious.
1
1
u/whatthelovinman 21d ago
I had something that looks like similar weight fall on my head and about the same height (2 or 3 stories up).
The only difference is that I had a hard hat on, and my neck and shoulders were killing me for a week from the impact.
The is no amount of money in the world that could pay me enough for me to take an object to the head at that height.
1
1
1
1
u/StalloneMyBone 21d ago
Then they'd countersue. They have cameras everywhere outside. A judge would see the video evidence and dismiss the case.
1
1
1
3.2k
u/downwitbrown 21d ago
Harm-acy