Wal-Mart faults Tracy Morgan for accident injuries - Page 3

sidsmom · ‎11-25-2011

Walmart's just getting their 'wagons in a circle'. Wonder who released this information....Morgan's team?

mstyrion 1 · ‎09-18-2014

On 9/29/2014 RainCityGirl said:
On 9/29/2014 mstyrion 1 said:
On 9/29/2014 RainCityGirl said:
Typical victim shaming that seems to run rampant in our society. Seat belt or not, Morgan would have been fine had the Wal Mart driver not hit him.

It's really not victim shaming, RainCityGirl.

In a state where it is permitted, it is a totally standard defense. When a lawsuit is answered, all possible defenses are stated, just like when a plaintiff files his suit, all possible areas of damages are stated even if they later prove to be unfounded.

Also, keep in mind, the defense has nothing to do with the cause of the accident. It is a defense against his claimed injuries. His own contribution to the severity of injuries. A seatbelt defense in a head injury case is almost always pled.

I'm not a lawyer, so I am only calling it as I see it. To me, it's like the prison defense on an employee rape case where they blamed the victim for "bringing it on herself." It may be standard procedure for the defense to do that, but it is still victim shaming. The defense in the Morgan case will be basing their conclusions on speculation that he wouldn't have had the head injury if he had had the seat belt on, not that they can necessarily prove that conclusively. He would not have had a head injury at all, had their driver not hit them. How do they defend that? It just doesn't matter that he failed to put on the belt. He still didn't cause the driver to hit him.

I can see how you would think that.

It really isn't the same as blaming a rape victim. That's an abhorrent practice and wouldn't be allowed in an Answer to a suit, I suspect.

In order to prove the failure to wear a seatbelt, the defense would have to have an expert-a Biomechanical Engineer-testify. It won't just be speculation. It has to be supported by an expert who reviews all the facts, including an inspection of the vehicle.

Again, it has nothing to do with what caused the collision in the first place. It's simply a defense against the scope of the injuries.

~Enough is enough~

Kachina624 · ‎03-10-2010

On 9/29/2014 lovescats said:
Doesn't walmart have a history of never accepting responsibility for anything they're charged with

They have a virtual army of attorneys working for them. Probably about as many attorneys as cashiers.

Does anyone know if backseat passengers were required to use seat belts in the place where this happened? Not every state has that requirement.

New Mexico☀️Land Of Enchantment

shoekitty · ‎03-10-2010

On 9/29/2014 chickenbutt said:
On 9/29/2014 shoekitty said:
Walmart is at fault for the accident.. Mr Morgan should be cited for seat belt violation, and that is it.

My husband was in an accident in 1982, before seat belt laws. Not wearing a seat belt in his case saved his life. But so many serious injuries can be prevented with seat belts. it is the law, like it or not. My daughter had to pay a 290 fine years ago for failing to put her belt on before she left the parking lot.At the time she didn't clear that much a week, LOL! She had to pay it, and it was a struggle. Everyone should be treated the same. But as far as anything else, Walmart is at fault.

Interesting info about his accident. I was in a really bad car accident in 1978 and it was the same exact thing - they said that it was a good thing I wasn't wearing a seat belt or I probably would have had my guts ripped out, plus they would have had a much more difficult time getting me out of the car (it was a weird set of circumstances where the car went off a bridge and landed in the end of a concrete ditch so there was no access to the right side of the car. They had to pull me out from the driver side).

I'm fine with seat belt laws, and not disputing them, but it's not always black and white.

ITA. Yes, my husband was traveling South on the 680, near Berryessa. That is where they cut through some hills to make the freeway. He was run off the road, and his truck rolled down the embankment about 1/4 mile. The hood was flattened to the floor on drivers side. He had rolled to the passenger side. The wheel was embedded clear to the floor drivers side. I quiver at the thought of what could have happened!

You had way more physical damage than he did as I remember you mentioning. You were mending forever. It took him almost a year to heal though..

Hooty · ‎03-09-2010

In my State it is my understanding, that it is Contributory Negligence, he contributed to the injury for failure to wear a seatbelt and obeying the law!!!

dreamytoo · ‎03-12-2010

On 9/29/2014 shoekitty said:
On 9/29/2014 chickenbutt said:
On 9/29/2014 shoekitty said:
Walmart is at fault for the accident.. Mr Morgan should be cited for seat belt violation, and that is it.

My husband was in an accident in 1982, before seat belt laws. Not wearing a seat belt in his case saved his life. But so many serious injuries can be prevented with seat belts. it is the law, like it or not. My daughter had to pay a 290 fine years ago for failing to put her belt on before she left the parking lot.At the time she didn't clear that much a week, LOL! She had to pay it, and it was a struggle. Everyone should be treated the same. But as far as anything else, Walmart is at fault.

Interesting info about his accident. I was in a really bad car accident in 1978 and it was the same exact thing - they said that it was a good thing I wasn't wearing a seat belt or I probably would have had my guts ripped out, plus they would have had a much more difficult time getting me out of the car (it was a weird set of circumstances where the car went off a bridge and landed in the end of a concrete ditch so there was no access to the right side of the car. They had to pull me out from the driver side).

I'm fine with seat belt laws, and not disputing them, but it's not always black and white.

ITA. Yes, my husband was traveling South on the 680, near Berryessa. That is where they cut through some hills to make the freeway. He was run off the road, and his truck rolled down the embankment about 1/4 mile. The hood was flattened to the floor on drivers side. He had rolled to the passenger side. The wheel was embedded clear to the floor drivers side. I quiver at the thought of what could have happened!

You had way more physical damage than he did as I remember you mentioning. You were mending forever. It took him almost a year to heal though..

Same here, my accident was in 1983...I was told by 3 different doctors that if I had my seat belt on I would have been cut in half by the impact and surely died of massive internal injuries....

I get a bit anxious every time I fasten my seat belt.

scotttie · ‎03-09-2010

On 9/29/2014 mstyrion 1 said:
On 9/29/2014 RainCityGirl said:
On 9/29/2014 mstyrion 1 said:
On 9/29/2014 RainCityGirl said:
Typical victim shaming that seems to run rampant in our society. Seat belt or not, Morgan would have been fine had the Wal Mart driver not hit him.

It's really not victim shaming, RainCityGirl.

In a state where it is permitted, it is a totally standard defense. When a lawsuit is answered, all possible defenses are stated, just like when a plaintiff files his suit, all possible areas of damages are stated even if they later prove to be unfounded.

Also, keep in mind, the defense has nothing to do with the cause of the accident. It is a defense against his claimed injuries. His own contribution to the severity of injuries. A seatbelt defense in a head injury case is almost always pled.

I'm not a lawyer, so I am only calling it as I see it. To me, it's like the prison defense on an employee rape case where they blamed the victim for "bringing it on herself." It may be standard procedure for the defense to do that, but it is still victim shaming. The defense in the Morgan case will be basing their conclusions on speculation that he wouldn't have had the head injury if he had had the seat belt on, not that they can necessarily prove that conclusively. He would not have had a head injury at all, had their driver not hit them. How do they defend that? It just doesn't matter that he failed to put on the belt. He still didn't cause the driver to hit him.

I can see how you would think that.

It really isn't the same as blaming a rape victim. That's an abhorrent practice and wouldn't be allowed in an Answer to a suit, I suspect.

In order to prove the failure to wear a seatbelt, the defense would have to have an expert-a Biomechanical Engineer-testify. It won't just be speculation. It has to be supported by an expert who reviews all the facts, including an inspection of the vehicle.

Again, it has nothing to do with what caused the collision in the first place. It's simply a defense against the scope of the injuries.

You cannot prove a negative.

Pickwickpapers · ‎06-24-2013

On 9/29/2014 dreamytoo said:
Wasn't he on his tour bus? As far as I know with motor homes etc...only those in the front cab part require seat belts. Look at it this way, this country thinks nothing of jamming 60 or more kids on School Buses with no seat belts.

< School bases usually don't have belts. Several of the party buses that I have been on don't have belts either. We rode from the hotel to the park on public roads and from the casino to the mall. Are these vehicles suppose to have belts? IMO WM is still at fault. The driver had too many hours behind the wheel. Secondly, the driver rear ended Mr. MORGAN'S vehicle. Why not do the right thing for once and take responsibility. WM will pay out that much and more in legal fees and bad press. It would be refreshing to see corporate America and WM in particular just make the right call.

mstyrion 1 · ‎09-18-2014

On 9/29/2014 scotttie said:
On 9/29/2014 mstyrion 1 said:
On 9/29/2014 RainCityGirl said:
On 9/29/2014 mstyrion 1 said:
On 9/29/2014 RainCityGirl said:
Typical victim shaming that seems to run rampant in our society. Seat belt or not, Morgan would have been fine had the Wal Mart driver not hit him.

It's really not victim shaming, RainCityGirl.

In a state where it is permitted, it is a totally standard defense. When a lawsuit is answered, all possible defenses are stated, just like when a plaintiff files his suit, all possible areas of damages are stated even if they later prove to be unfounded.

Also, keep in mind, the defense has nothing to do with the cause of the accident. It is a defense against his claimed injuries. His own contribution to the severity of injuries. A seatbelt defense in a head injury case is almost always pled.

I'm not a lawyer, so I am only calling it as I see it. To me, it's like the prison defense on an employee rape case where they blamed the victim for "bringing it on herself." It may be standard procedure for the defense to do that, but it is still victim shaming. The defense in the Morgan case will be basing their conclusions on speculation that he wouldn't have had the head injury if he had had the seat belt on, not that they can necessarily prove that conclusively. He would not have had a head injury at all, had their driver not hit them. How do they defend that? It just doesn't matter that he failed to put on the belt. He still didn't cause the driver to hit him.

I can see how you would think that.

It really isn't the same as blaming a rape victim. That's an abhorrent practice and wouldn't be allowed in an Answer to a suit, I suspect.

In order to prove the failure to wear a seatbelt, the defense would have to have an expert-a Biomechanical Engineer-testify. It won't just be speculation. It has to be supported by an expert who reviews all the facts, including an inspection of the vehicle.

Again, it has nothing to do with what caused the collision in the first place. It's simply a defense against the scope of the injuries.

You cannot prove a negative.

Your interpretation is wrong.

In this situation, you are not proving a negative. You would be addressing whether the physical act of wearing a seatbelt would have prevented or lessened an injury.

It's simple. If a person is injured because a collision propelled the body forward causing the head to hit the dash an injury is sustained. If the body was restrained, the head would not hit the dash. That's very simplistic, but it's the general idea. It's physics and biomechanics. not attempting to prove a negative.

~Enough is enough~