Walmart sued for not providing security in El Paso

A Texas couple who were injured in a mass shooting at a Walmart store in El Paso last month recently filed a lawsuit against the corporation alleging it did not have adequate security in place to prevent the attack that killed 22 people.

The lawsuit submitted Friday by Guillermo and Jessica Garcia is the first filed in the aftermath of the Aug. 3 shooting that also injured about two-dozen people, including the El Paso couple.
FROM HERE
-Padawan

This entry was posted in News. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Walmart sued for not providing security in El Paso

  1. rolldog says:

    I’m curious and maybe someone in the know can answer this question. Venues of all sorts have increased security – schools, concert venues, athletic fields, etc. By increasing the rectal exam you are given when you enter one of those places, does that venue assume more liability if someone makes it through security and kills a bunch of people?

    • FaCubeItches says:

      In theory, yes, people who place you in increased danger or who assume to provide you with security are liable if you get hurt, and technically, violent crime is a known/foreseeable risk.

      In practice, not really. You (or your surviving family members) could certainly bring a claim, but the success rate for such things isn’t high, with a few exceptions – insufficiently lit partking lots where an assault or robbery takes place, being the prime example.

      • Plankton67 says:

        There also needs to be constructive notice that a place or circumstance is dangerous. Example… a landlord may not be liable if you get broken into and something really bad happens. If it has happened before in that place, and management does nothing (better security, lights, locks, etc.) they face liability. Ask an attorney if you really want to know. Real answers will cost you $$$, so don’t take my word for it.

    • crazyeighter says:

      For an answer to that, let’s see how the Gilroy CA shoot-em-up plays out.

    • Bacon says:

      No, it doesn’t cause them to assume more liability, it provides a preemptive defense against standard liability, and it also reduces exposure to minor nuisance lawsuits.

  2. loadedforbear says:

    I can’t argue with the lawsuit. You can’t ask me to abdicate my 2A rights to you, if you aren’t capable of defending me.

    There are events I attend, with more armed security than you imagine. I will not carry when I go there. On the other hand, there are plenty of stores, office buildings, movie theaters, etc, that ask me, via signage, to either not openly carry ( which I never do ) or conceal carry on their premises. I routinely ignore those signs.

    On the anniversary of 9/11, I would remind everyone to stay vigilant today, and always.

    • wayne says:

      I agree with you provided there was signage posted at the entrance that forbade the possession of weapons by customers in the store. Otherwise, no. Not that I think the couple are entitled to monetary damages; rather, I think any establishment that prohibits self protection should be punished for not providing it for you. Perhaps that would help eliminate the so-called ‘safe zones’.

    • MeatPopsicle says:

      I might agree IF this incident happened BEFORE Walmart’s policy change on open carry. When this happened in Texas – Walmart still allowed open carry where lawful as well as concealed. So, no I cannot agree with this lawsuit as the victims were NOT forced to be disarmed to enter the place of business.

      • loadedforbear says:

        You and Wayne are correct about the sign postings at WM. My posting should have contained that caveat about this specific case.

        My comments were meant as a broad brush stroke thought about the subject, in general.

  3. Dan says:

    The lawsuit is doomed. There is NO WAY the courts are EVER going to force private business to actually be held accountable for customer safety. That would cost too much and can never be guaranteed 100%. The problem is the courts won’t tell these businesses that they can’t ban legal gun possession. They make the problem as bad as possible by allowing businesses to disarm customers and employees while refusing to make them liable for the inevitable results. Big business is big money. That means big business is more important than the cash cow sheeple.

  4. Fred says:

    So if Wally World has to start providing metal detectors, armed security guards and all the rest who do you suppose would end up paying for all that? Some people think the world should be all safe. Never gonna happen, cupcake.

    • crazyeighter says:

      If that does happen, then WallyWorld would have security and wanding at one entrance, the rest would be either unmanned or wand-yourself.

    • Butch says:

      I wonder if some company had the guts to do it, place ads everywhere, tell everyone, If you are our customer and are carrying a gun (and show it to us) we will offer a 20% discount on your order. What would happen?

  5. UH1H CE says:

    The Supreme Court has ruled that neither the police or any other government entity has an obligation to protect you. So if the government isn’t bound to protect us, how can any private entity be held to a higher standard? It can’t, and this lawsuit will not stand.

    We are responsible for our own protection.

    • FaCubeItches says:

      “So if the government isn’t bound to protect us, how can any private entity be held to a higher standard? ”

      The government has sovereign immunity – private entities don’t.

      • Chris Mallory says:

        Sovereign immunity is a doctrine that needs to die a quick and painful death. The citizen should be sovereign, not the government employee.

  6. Daryl says:

    Most people suing Walmart don’t expect to win, they are just after the money, knowing Walmart doesn’t want the publicity and may make a settlement so they will just go away.

  7. Cavguy says:

    Businesses that deny me to carry while in their facility don’t get my patronage.

    Why is that so hard people? You still have a choice. Well for now anyway!!!’

    Walofchinamart sucks anyway!

  8. Common Cents says:

    This is the absurdity of all these corporate virtue-signalling tweets asking customers not to open carry – declaring your facility a “gun free zone” just sweetens the target appeal to criminals and mental cases who want to cause problems. A more rational solution is to welcome customers to carry concealed firearms for the safety and security of all patrons.

  9. Chris Mallory says:

    Wands and x-ray machines would have to be used to provide the “security” the sheep want.

    But if for the sake of discussion, a bad guy decided to mix a few gallons of two common household cleaners? How are they going to stop that? Or setting a display of lighter fluid or automotive chemicals on fire. Or a hundred other things I am too lazy to think up.

  10. Bacon says:

    Who the hell would even want to enter a store with that much security anyway? How many of us stopped flying simply because of the “security”? Almost every possible “security” measure is a violation of the customer/client/patron’s space/privacy/rights anyway.

  11. dav says:

    Karma is a Bitch ain’t she Walmart?

  12. trib says:

    Them Mexican lawyers are coming out their holes

Play nice.