Robber's mom sueing Kroger

[Bapak2ja]

And now you know why corporations ban guns on their premises.

Actually, the suit is based on the claim that the manager violated company policy. If the company did not have that policy, there would be no basis for the suit. Seems to me it is best for the company to take a neutral position. Or to support local law, which would allow LTCH holders to carry while at work. The company would then not be part of the suit.

 

[wizard_of_ahs]

Took longer than I expected, hope she loses.

Her child was in there to buy some popcorn and some sodas then some one shot and killed him. My son was a good boy.


Even good Moms can be wrong about their children. Too bad.

Yea, I'm sure the manager just wanted to kill someone that day

She's going all out and asking for $75K! Even she knew her kid was a thug and not worth much.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^ THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

[Scutter01]

He was in the process of turning his life around. He aspired to be a music producer. Or something like that. Yeah.

So, the whole "armed robbery" thing was just a side gig, then? A part-time job, so to speak?

 

[Scutter01]

Actually, the suit is based on the claim that the manager violated company policy. If the company did not have that policy, there would be no basis for the suit. Seems to me it is best for the company to take a neutral position. Or to support local law, which would allow LTCH holders to carry while at work. The company would then not be part of the suit.

I agree. Nevertheless, a corporation's desire to not be held liable is the basis for virtually all anti-gun rules in the workplace. Whether that rule makes sense or not is up to the lawyers. Given that so many of them have those rules, I'd say the lawyers have already chimed in.

 

[Stschil]

Well, Kroger needs to pay! Her son was at "work" robbing stores that night, and Kroger failed to provide him with a safe work environment.

Slam dunk case.

I seriously hope the Judge who gets this uses it for TP before he hands it back to the attorney who filed it.

 

[Hornett]

I've often said that I'm not allowed to carry when on duty as a pharmacist for this very reason - my death benefits are much cheaper than a lawsuit against me exercising my right to self-defense.

On another note, doesn't Indiana law prohibit lawsuits against self-defense scenarios? Or is the fact that a corporation is involved change that?

If you should be killed in a robbery, your wife should sue.
I could get behind that lawsuit.

 

[redwingshooter]

This reminds me of the robber that fell through a skylight onto a kitchen knife and sued the home owner. I hope she gets nothing!

 

[Bunnykid68]

So, the whole "armed robbery" thing was just a side gig, then? A part-time job, so to speak?

Have to get start up capital to start your own business

 

[Barua]

He was in the process of turning his life around. He aspired to be a music producer. Or something like that. Yeah.

lol. It seem like "He was in the process of turning his life around." are the magic words that vindicate any criminal...

 

[iChokePeople]

There is a special place in hell for an attorney that would even bring this suit.

Oh, it's not really that exclusive, they might as well reserve it for future ABA conventions.

(Just kidding, Kirk and Guy...)

 

[canav844]

So, your cause of action is based on Kroger Inc. failing to maintain a safe work environment for your son and the fact that a Kroger employee did not follow corporate's directives? Hmmm, I see a flaw in your logic.

Now see of Kroger didn't have that policy and allowed all their employees to protect themselves within the confines of state law, then there wouldn't be a breach of internal policy to sue on. Perhaps the person in the headlock should be suing for having policy that prevented them from carry, and thankfully someone that ignored the policy was there to save them. Either side of the coin the no guns policy seems to be a liability for the private company, but IANAL and Kroger has expensive ones.

 

[DocGlock86]

And wonder why I'm loosing faith in humanity.......

 

[Mosinguy]

And we didn't see this coming?

 

[Scutter01]

. Either side of the coin the no guns policy seems to be a liability for the private company, but IANAL and Kroger has expensive ones.

In this particular case, I agree. But what if the shooter missed and hit an innocent bystander? Kroger would be on the hook for millions in damages because they didn't have a policy prohibiting their employees from carrying dangerous weapons. Pretty much regardless of their policy, they're getting sued no matter what.

I don't agree with their policy, but I'd be interested in seeing the pro/con sheet that their lawyers and the insurance company undoubtedly drew up to decide which policy would be cheaper in the long run.

 

[Stschil]

Actually, the suit is based on the claim that the manager violated company policy. If the company did not have that policy, there would be no basis for the suit. Seems to me it is best for the company to take a neutral position. Or to support local law, which would allow LTCH holders to carry while at work. The company would then not be part of the suit.

Seems to me that the Company had a policy in place. It's not their fault that an employee chose to violate it.

Now, if it was common knowlege that the guy carried despite policy and could be proven that there was tacit approval by the GM, there might be a sliver of a case, IF the shooting had been ruled unjustified in the first place.


As for your last statement, The Company will always be a part of the lawsuits because that's where the money is. These suits are NOT about seeing justice enacted, they are soley for the purpose of fleecing a large company of as much cash as the plaintif (and their ambulance chasing lawyer) think they can get because large corporations rarely allow things like this to go to court, they settle to keep things on the down low and not 'hurt' their image.

My ex FIL used to be the Chief of Security at a nuke power plant in TX. I remember one summer, two drunks (BAC's of well about 3X legal limits at autospy) drowned in the cooling resevoir. The families sued and the company settled out of court for something like $3M, thinking it was cheaper than court costs and the additional PR campaign to clean the tarnish off the reputation for 'fighting the poor families of the deceased' in court.

 

[Mr Evilwrench]

They probably have that policy for insurance purposes. The good guy violated company policy, which should let Kroger walk, and as a citizen, he was within his rights, so he should be golden. Shame he had to quit over it, but better that than he and others becoming dead.

 

[emsdial911]

Just a thought from the other side of the coin.

Ok, everyone is bashing mom. What if the suit wasn’t her idea? I was recently rear ended and I got 5 letters from attorneys wanting me to sue and no one was hurt. Now I am not bashing lawyers (both my sister andbrother in law are lawyers) but I am sure that this was brought on by lawyers looking to get a good paycheck , not for the benefit of the mother.

Mom lost her son to his own stupidity but she is theone that had to pay out of pocket for his funeral (I know that’s what she gets for raising a stupid son) so who wouldn’t try to recoup some of the money? After the attorney’s fees she might just break even. There is no way she will profit after paying for a funeral and lawyers. She may still owe.

I don’t think it’s a valid suit and I hope it doesn’t even get to court.

 

[KLB]

Her son failed to hold up the store, so now she is trying to.

 

[GBuck]

Lawyer's fees are what, 40%? So she still gets $45k if she gets awarded what she's asking? How much do you think funerals cost? I can tell you they're nowhere near that.

That's assuming a stupid jury doesn't award punitive damages in excess of what they're asking.

 

[looney2ns]

Just a thought from the other side of the coin.

Ok, everyone is bashing mom. What if the suit wasn’t her idea? I was recently rear ended and I got 5 letters from attorneys wanting me to sue and no one was hurt. Now I am not bashing lawyers (both my sister andbrother in law are lawyers) but I am sure that this was brought on by lawyers looking to get a good paycheck , not for the benefit of the mother.

Mom lost her son to his own stupidity but she is theone that had to pay out of pocket for his funeral (I know that’s what she gets for raising a stupid son) so who wouldn’t try to recoup some of the money? After the attorney’s fees she might just break even. There is no way she will profit after paying for a funeral and lawyers. She may still owe.

I don’t think it’s a valid suit and I hope it doesn’t even get to court.

Really, that's your logic? How about that's the cost of her doing a poor job raising him.
I'll bet we (taxpayers) have already covered her expense's.

Any judge that doesn't throw this out of court at first reading, needs to turn in his robe.