• You must be logged in to see or use the Shoutbox. Besides, if you haven't registered, you really should. It's quick and it will make your life a little better. Trust me. So just register and make yourself at home with like-minded individuals who share either your morbid curiousity or sense of gallows humor.
I took my shit, walked my dog home, and then drove all the way back. Got right up next to the guy checking out and ripped into this asshole for being a jerk and why the fuck is he judging me on my purchases and appearance when I'm not even buying anything requiring me to be a certain age?? Totally unsolicited and rude and unprofessional (not to mention... Would he have EVER had the same conversation with a guy? Something tells me no). Told him this was where I normally buy my beer but I certainly will not be purchasing it or anything else from a place that would assume my ass has a fake ID. Told him I make wine for a living and have an MS, how does a 10yo pull that off? Essentially I became that crazy white lady. He looked like he wanted to die.

You sound like an awful person to be around. How classless and dumb to do something like this.
[doublepost=1469815973,1469815467][/doublepost]
except they knew why she was like that, so they didn't really care.

Impossible to know.

And I think this is the same reason a lot of you are arguing against Walmart's potential liability. I think, if this was a slightly different story, and this woman had walked into Walmart nude from the waist down, with vomit in her hair, smelling of poop, because of actual seizures, and she bought a soda, then walked out to her car and died... I know like the sun will rise tomorrow that the prevailing response would be anger at the people who saw her like that and didn't call 911. Just like we get angry at people who walk past people dying on the street, or fail to intervene in an assault. Sure, Walmart wouldn't have been liable, but you guys would not be coming up with every excuse under the sun for the checkers.

I wouldn't put any blame on em.


But, she was doing this to herself, so suddenly, no one who sees her in this condition has any responsibility, and it's okay that they sold her even more of the shit she was killing herself with.

Agree 100%. Right on.

a court is going to rule in favor of her family.

They don't deserve a single cent. If they have any amount of decency whatsoever, they'll give ALL winnings to some charitable cause, perhaps related to drug addiction, should society make the sickeningly wrong decision and award them any.

I bet the family is loaded with scummy drug users though. No way the deceased didn't come from rotten stock.
 
But I'm not arguing for the cashier because she was a drug addict and should get what she gets. I'm arguing for the cashiers because it's a god awful job and likely the only person the customer has interacted directly with inside the store and as a consequence are blamed for whatever if the customer is having a shitty day.

You learn to keep your opinions to yourself, you can't make any decisions about anything and you're definitely not allowed to insult the customers by assuming they are drug addicts because they have bought too much of something you consider the wrong thing.

But you may be right WM might have to pay out the nose because they are WM and don't want the trouble of lawsuit. But in my humble, lifetime retail worker opinion, WM did nothing wrong.
 
You learn to keep your opinions to yourself, you can't make any decisions about anything and you're definitely not allowed to insult the customers by assuming they are drug addicts because they have bought too much of something you consider the wrong thing.

And that makes lawsuits like this all the more important.

Everybody knows that if a bartender or a convenience store clerk sells to someone obviously intoxicated, and that obviously intoxicated person kills themselves or someone else, that bartender or that clerk, and the company that employs them, are on the hook. I mean, common knowledge, right?

What should be common knowledge is that the very same liability applies to EVERYTHING that someone could use to hurt themselves or others.

If you sell a rope to a person with fresh, visible ligature marks around their neck, and that person goes and offs themselves that night with that rope, you are liable.

If you sell a gun to an obviously mentally ill person, and that person goes and shoots someone, you are liable.

Let's talk about bath salts for a minute. Stores have been successfully sued for wrongful death for selling bath salts to people who then died. Same situation. The salts, now criminalized, said "not for human consumption" on them. But it was contended that those sellers knew - or reasonably should have known - that these people were not going to use them as intended.

And I must say, if a woman came in like this and was attempting to buy nothing but 5 cans of dust spray, you'd have to be mentally impaired yourself to not see what was going on.

Companies should protect themselves, their clerks, and the public by explaining liability in a thorough sense to their employees.
 
You also have to remember too, that these cashiers work maybe 15-20 hours a week, make minimum wage and are generally very young themselves.

I'm not really saying they shouldn't but what I am saying is that is asking a hell of lot of a part time teenage employee. If that kind of ruling is put in place that they have to make judgement calls like this, then they are basically out of job.

They already can't physically sell alcohol, they have to call over a front end manager to ring it up and bag it. So now they'd have to do it for dozens of other products?
 
Someone on the front page works retail, and said that it is beaten into their heads at her company that, if a customer is intoxicated, they are not allowed to sell that person anything that might further the person's intoxication.

That sounds simple enough. And, if a customer has a problem with that, yeah, call a manager over to make that assessment.
 
There lies what the defense has to prove to be able to win this, and they can't. The defense will not be able to prove that the Walmart employees knew with 100% certainty that she was huffing or that Difluoroethane is detrimental to ones health.

If you walk into a liquor store drunk they can refuse to sell you more, why because the effects of drinking too much are proven. They have mandated laws in place to try and prevent people from self harming or harming others with alcohol. It is not the same with Difluoroethane.

Like I said earlier, Difluoroethane has been tested into the ground already. Difluoroethane has been widely used since mid - late 1800's. They have even done human fetal tests. You don't just get to jump in and start willy nilly testing stuff on unborn babies. It takes decades of gathering data from lab test, animal tests, full grown human etc before you are given clearance to start doing fetal tests. Not to mention that everyone of those previous tests had to come back with a clean bill of health first. There are no long term effects to Difluoroethane use.

Difluoroethane is considered so safe that it is used in way more than people know. It's used in food safe pest control for crops and livestock. It's used as a propellant in food and non food items. Whip cream, spray cheese, hair spray, cologne, deodorant and air fresheners. It's used in your fridge, the fire extinguisher and hundreds of other house hold chemicals. It's used to make styrofoam take out containers. It is approved by the FDA to have contact with food. It is patented to be used as a aerosol anesthetic. It is in the very air you are breathing now (it's a greenhouse gas).

People through out history have abused items in ways not intended. There comes a point when people need to take responsibilities for their own actions. It's not always someone elses fault. I get it, the parents are torn up over their daughter death. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be holding her accountable. Her death is her fault. If they really cared to change things they would be campaigning to get awareness of what can happen if you abuse things in a way not intended. Instead they are suing to fill their wallets.

The only reason they might win is because this is a civil suit and not a criminal suit. You don't have the same burden of proof in a civil suit.
You are such a fascinating fountain of knowledge! How do you know so much about difluoroethane? The fetal test thing blows my mind.
[doublepost=1469829412,1469828937][/doublepost]@JackBurton I already admitted it was crazy. But I care fuck all what you think about me, and frankly the only people's opinion on that topic I would actually take to heart would be from other women. You have no idea what it's like receiving unsolicited comments (be them positive or negative) about your appearance on a daily basis. Sometimes you snap. I'm dealing with harassment from my boss right now so my tolerance to this sort of attention is extremely low. :bye: until you grow a vagina.
 
Everybody knows that if a bartender or a convenience store clerk sells to someone obviously intoxicated, and that obviously intoxicated person kills themselves or someone else, that bartender or that clerk, and the company that employs them, are on the hook. I mean, common knowledge, right?

But... companies are legally required to provide training and obtain certification to their employees who serve alcohol. It's tied in to their ability to have a liquor license, I believe. Responsible vendor training. I had to do it years ago when I worked in a restaurant.

Companies should protect themselves, their clerks, and the public by explaining liability in a thorough sense to their employees.

How much time and expense do you propose companies and their employees invest in assessing every customer in ALL the various ways they could harm or kill themselves with innocuous products available for sale?

Oh no, random part-time Party City employee...
That customer claims to be throwing a surprise party with all these helium balloons, but they have a defeated posture, and their eyes are a bit sunken in. Don't sell them those balloons! You know some folks commit suicide with helium, and you never can be too cautious. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
 
@Athena said:

And I must say, if a woman came in like this and was attempting to buy nothing but 5 cans of dust spray, you'd have to be mentally impaired yourself to not see what was going on.

As a matter of fact, I only learned of abuse with this product very recently.

The law is not based on assumptions and unless who ever the girl came in contact with absolutely knew she intended to huff this then, I don't see how walmart is liable.

I think the burden of her death lies with her. Also, I blame the family for not stopping her, they would certainly be more familiar with her drug abuse then a cashier at walmart.

Because this is walmart, I'm going to bet that this suit hever makes it to court. They will probably settle out of court and none of us will ever know the details.
 
If you sell a rope to a person with fresh, visible ligature marks around their neck, and that person goes and offs themselves that night with that rope, you are liable.

Your hypothetical comparisons are getting a bit absurd at this point. This one is complete nonsense for numerous reasons.

I'm not really saying they shouldn't but what I am saying is that is asking a hell of lot of a part time teenage employee. If that kind of ruling is put in place that they have to make judgement calls like this, then they are basically out of job.

Agree 100%. It's simply unreasonable and unrealistic to ask your average retail worker to exercise such judgment and make such calls.


You have no idea what it's like receiving unsolicited comments (be them positive or negative) about your appearance on a daily basis.

I used to be quite an attractive man in my youth.

Nobody asked for nor wants your life story btw, move the fuck on with it.
 
What should be common knowledge is that the very same liability applies to EVERYTHING that someone could use to hurt themselves or others.
Then it applies to everything. Full stop.
If you sell a rope to a person with fresh, visible ligature marks around their neck, and that person goes and offs themselves that night with that rope, you are liable.
And if that person presented as a calm individual, lacking ligature marks, and used the same rope for the same fell end, what then?

ANYthing can be used to bring harm to virtually anybody. It is a staple in the murder-mystery genré that the wife slays the husband with a frozen cut of meat, typically a leg of lamb. Do you want to have to sign the register every time you purchase lamb?

--Al
 
How much time and expense do you propose companies and their employees invest in assessing every customer in ALL the various ways they could harm or kill themselves with innocuous products available for sale?

I work for a manufacturer, and I have to sit through a 15-minute safety video every so often covering all the classes of possible safety hazards.

My facility hasn't had a lost-time accident in something like 2,000 days (they measure that sort of thing in days). Seems simple enough to me.

The law is not based on assumptions and unless who ever the girl came in contact with absolutely knew she intended to huff this then, I don't see how walmart is liable.

Criminal law isn't. Civil law absolutely is. It's called "reasonable forseeability", and it's the crux of this lawsuit.
  • "...when we speak of a risk of injury as being 'foreseeable' we are not making any statement as to the probability or improbability of its occurrence, save that we are implicitly asserting that the risk is not one that is far-fetched or fanciful[2]."
As a matter of fact, I only learned of abuse with this product very recently.

That's fair, but inhalants were being covered in D.A.R.E. classes nationwide 25 years ago, so the court's definition of a "reasonable person" is going to have that knowledge about aerosol cans.

And if that person presented as a calm individual, lacking ligature marks, and used the same rope for the same fell end, what then?

That's just it - something has to tip you off. If not ligature marks, maybe you overheard her mention something about wanting to commit suicide on her phone as she walked through the door. You have to be able to reasonably foresee the conclusion.

I handle alcohol deceivingly well. I've never been refused service, even when I really should've been. Hell, anyone who's listened to one of our drunk podcasts from once upon a time knows that I remain articulate and without a slur after a couple bottles of wine.

If I left a bar under these circumstances, got in my car (which I don't do, I live two blocks from my preferred watering hole) and wiped some poor pedestrian off the planet, the bar I left absolutely could not be sued unless they served me so many drinks they could have reasonably assumed I was drunk. Camera footage would not show me stumbling around. Witnesses would testify I was communicating clearly.

I swear, guys, I'm not opening Pandora's Box, here. I'm trying to explain current legal precedent.

Your hypothetical comparisons are getting a bit absurd at this point. This one is complete nonsense for numerous reasons.

The ridiculous thing is people acting like noting someone's intoxication and not facilitating it by selling them more intoxicant is a Herculean task. Part-time, graveyard shift convenience store clerks are expected to be able to with alcohol. It's really not hard. This woman had vomit in her hair and had lost her pants.

My point with the rope was that it does not simply apply to controlled substances.
 
tinypic.com


I can't imagine Walmart employees saw her walking in like that and didn't call anyone for help? Wow.

But you know, Walmart isn't a babysitter and it's not a medical clinic. They sell stuff. So they sold her stuff. They didn't determine whether she needed medical care and they didn't call anyone to come help her because I don't think they're obligated to (would've been the compassionate thing, but by law, I don't think it was negligent not to.)

And no way is Walmart supposed to be responsible for anyone who rolls into their parking lot and huffs their life away -- they can't go checking every vehicle for that, it's not reasonable and it's beyond normal expectations; nobody really expects them to do that -- my god, it's Walmart.

There is no such thing as personal responsibility anymore, clearly. Walmart didn't raise this young lady, and Walmart didn't manufacture a product that can be addictive when abused, and even toxic -- the fact that they had in stock the product means nothing. And unless they were told not to sell over x-number of cans per customer or given some special instruction regarding the that, it's going to be difficult to prove they even made the connection between the girl with the seizure and that stuff. They probably did, but it would be hell to prove.
And rightly so, just because Walmart's property happens to be where she dropped, doesn't mean they had any part in her demise -- that girl was gone long before she rolled into Walmart. Pointing fingers isn't going to change that, and nobody deserves a payday out of this -- especially the parents, who've got some huge nerve to even suggest otherwise.
Sounds like those parents have been doing a little sunshine-walking of their own... Wow.
9
As a CSM at Wal-Mart I can say if she was speaking clearly and could answer and decline and ambulance or assistance than that all I'd be able to do. Unless she was violent or incoherent. In response to the whole thing about being covered in shit yall we would be amazed how many people shit themselves in Wal-Mart. Some of them are even really sick(we do have a pharmacy).
 
Last edited:
As a CSM at Wal-Mart I can say if she was speaking clearly and could answer and decline and ambulance or assistance than that all I'd be able to do. Unless she was violent or incoherent. In response to the whole thing about being covered in shot, yall we would be amazed how many people shot themselves in Wal-Mart. Some of them are even really sick(we do have a pharmacy).

What's the protocol for not having pants? ;)

Seriously, though... This is exactly the kind of lawsuit that will improve such a short-sighted policy.

Walmart's pretty much the only store where something like this would happen. They need to catch up, now.
 
What's the protocol for not having pants? ;)

Seriously, though... This is exactly the kind of lawsuit that will improve such a short-sighted policy.

Walmart's pretty much the only store where something like this would happen. They need to catch up, now.
You would assist customer in getting decent or ask them to leave, but if there is no legal limit a cashier cannot refuse the sell. She could call me to call management for permission to call police, but if there is no scene, that isn't happening. Also, many Wal-Marts have homeless in their lots, who often may be covered in various filth.
 
As a CSM at Walmart I can say if she was speaking clearly and could answer and decline and ambulance or assistance than that all I'd be able to do.
That's a good point- how do we know that the store employees didn't attempt to intervene?

We know that someone there cared enough to get her some clothes, it seems reasonable they would've asked her if she needed help?

She had her cover story of 'a seizure' to hide the truth for her condition, she could have easily been offered & refused to have 911 called for her.
 
Part-time, graveyard shift convenience store clerks are expected to be able to with alcohol.

Convenience stores, especially during night hours, are far less busy then a walmart. These people are specializing in a very select number of products(alcohol of course being one of the chief ones) and likely are more aware of what to look out for as a result, not to mention they're far more likely to be victims of robberies and theft in general so being alert and suspicious is actually part of the job.

VERY different from your average walmart worker and their stressors/workload/customer interaction.


It's really not hard. This woman had vomit in her hair and had lost her pants.

At this point however we have no way of knowing if the person who rung up her huff cans during that visit was aware she had come in in such a state. We have no way of knowing whether the employee who dealt with her initial pantsless entry was aware she went on to purchase items that could be harmful to her health. We have no way of knowing whether they saw the vomit, whether they noticed a disheveled person but didn't feel it was so extreme that the person wasn't in their right mind.

A person might be liable if they noticed ALL this stuff and then proceeded to sell her the shit. However not making fuss and contacting authorities when someone comes in without pants and smelling a mess doesn't make you liable for shit. Ringing up someones huff cans, when you have no clue they exhibited all this batshit behavior upon first arriving in the store, doesn't make you liable for shit.

They need to catch up, now.

They need to use their immense wealth and resources to crush this lawsuit and punish this family with the hopefully enormous court costs/fees, set a new precedent that the coddling of irresponsible dipshits in our society will not be tolerated or mandated on any level.

In response to the whole thing about being covered in shit yall we would be amazed how many people shit themselves in Wal-Mart

This is actually a fetish. I shit you not, there's blogs online where people share their fantasies and real life stories about how they went into a walmart and intentionally shit themselves. sick fucks get off on whether anyone is noticing or can tell it was them, it's like some bizarre, creepy grotesque exhibitionist perversion. The worst ones are the fuckers who talk about being so turned on cuz they shit themselves in the checkout line right next to some little kids. Pretty fucking twisted.

Anyways, it goes without saying that many a walmart customer comes into the place soiled or in some manner unclean. Just looking at the clientele should be all one needs to do to realize how likely it is to encounter a shitty individual. Quite commonplace.
[doublepost=1469845570,1469845184][/doublepost]
She could call me to call management for permission to call police, but if there is no scene, that isn't happening.

A policy that prevents employees from freely and independantly contacting authorities when they perceive a problem needs such intervention sounds like a huge obstacle for walmart to overcome in case like this. That shit screams, "somebody sue us!" to me. Good lord what an asinine policy. If i'm hearing one side trying to make a case that walmart has created an environment that discourages workers from aiding those in desperate need and instead contributes to their demise, and then i hear that a policy like this exists, shit, wouldn't be hard for a slick attorney to win someone over at least in part.

I think it's far more potentially dangerous towards employees than customers though.
 
MISFIREFLY SAID:
She could call me to call management for permission to call police, but if there is no scene, that isn't happening.
Is that really the policy- that employees need to ask management for permission to call 911?

I can see an employee asking the manager to make the call or maybe letting management know that they are going to call- but needing permission to call for help? Idk that just seems crazy to me!
 
That's fair, but inhalants were being covered in D.A.R.E. classes nationwide 25 years ago, so the court's definition of a "reasonable person" is going to have that knowledge about aerosol cans.

Well that certainly explains why I only recently became aware.

Maybe a civil court will see it differently than I do?

I'm going to leave it at that.
 
Last edited:
They need to use their immense wealth and resources to crush this lawsuit and punish this family with the hopefully enormous court costs/fees, set a new precedent that the coddling of irresponsible dipshits in our society will not be tolerated or mandated on any level.

And fuck booster seats! We all survived, right?!

Sorry, Jack. Society evolves. And other retailers already have policy in place that would have prevented this situation.

Selling inhalants to minors has been prohibited by many major chains for a while, now. It was only ever going to be a matter of time until they started reviewing the practice in general.
 
Permission to call may be a bit too strong a word, but they would definitely call management to make an assessment before a 911 call was made unless the person was most certainly in dire straits. Chain of command and all that.

Pantless is a very subjective condition. I've seen things that would amaze you walking in WM like it was nothing. Way back in the 90's when slit clothing was in fashion, this large woman came in with her sweat shirt slit across the back and front. On the front side her nipples were hanging out, didn't get her barred then, so nowadays, I'm not sure a pantless woman would even get a look. If she truly looked homeless and like an addict, most folks probably didn't do more than glance and move away from her. Wouldn't want to get involved and all that.
[doublepost=1469849795,1469849538][/doublepost]She was not a minor.

also why is there a picture at the top of this page. I've been on several pages in the last few minutes and it's only on this one. It's a DD red box across the top pf the page with the addict from Intervention with a caption of "(slurred) it's like I'm walking on sunshine." I don't care but it's strange tho.
 
And fuck booster seats! We all survived, right?!

Totally different. Children are helpless and laws need to be in place to ensure they are provided protection and proper care. I have no issue with seatbelts or booster seats being mandatory.

A grown adult should be free to purchase as many huff cans as they want and inhale till they die, if they choose to, and no one should be penalized for it.

It's a DD red box across the top pf the page with the addict from Intervention with a caption of "(slurred) it's like I'm walking on sunshine."

haha i saw it too. I hate that dumb bitch so much.
 
I've seen things that would amaze you walking in WM like it was nothing.
There's actually an entire website dedicated to this phenomenon called People of Walmart - ;)

Also why is there a picture at the top of this page. I've been on several pages in the last few minutes and it's only on this one...
She's the infamous Dust-off huffer girl from Intervention- I'm sure that's why her pic is up there, but I'm not sure how @Morbid got her pic up there!
 
You can't look at someone and make a judgement on who or what they are based on their appearance. My best friend's daughter in law has MS, she's been accused of being drunk so many times, had cops called on her at a concert, was refused alcohol at a bar, and that's wrong and you @Athena wouuld be the first to call them out for that, but here you are demonizing some Wal-Mart workers because they didn't know she was an addict, likely didn't pay enough attention to her to determine that.

It's also possible that she was in there everyday looking homeless, staggering around, always looking like she'd just had a "seizure", how are you to determine that this time she's going to kill herself in the parking lot?

These days, most cashiers only work 3-6 hours at a time, it's likely she never saw the same cashier or even the same associate twice.
She could have went in 10x's in an hour and hit a different line every time. We live in East Texas- it's fucking hot with not very cool nights either. Unfortunately we also have a population that lack good hygiene - I have backed the hell up off some Walmart people a time or two. Those workers don't make much more than minimum wage here - fuck getting cussed out & written up in one night! I with @JackBurton on this one. She was a disaster of her own making. Anyone who has ever got help knows you are to be accountable for one's self and actions.
 
also why is there a picture at the top of this page.
The local moldies station had that song in rotation. Every time I heard it I couldn't help but think of that episode of Intervention.

--Al
 
Two things- did she self check out? And if she would have driven off and killed someone while driving would they blame Wallie Fart?
 
Is that really the policy- that employees need to ask management for permission to call 911?

I can see an employee asking the manager to make the call or maybe letting management know that they are going to call- but needing permission to call for help? Idk that just seems crazy to me!
Management makes the decision to call 911 if it isn't clearly an emergency. If it's a disturbance they usually walkie back immediately. But the system is in place because a lot of people have no sense of perspective.
 
Did a little research and I'm pretty sure that she was arrested for chemical abuse 3 times in November-December of 2015. Not sure how that would effect a lawsuit. Probably bad for the family though, she had a history, they can't throw their hands up and act all surprised.
 
Employee here, but you all know that.
60 cans in a day. Easy. We have the register near electronics where the product is sold. 10 cans there. Service desk, 10 cans there. Manned register. Self checkout. Then different employees.
No way walmart can be held responsible.
 
Did a little research and I'm pretty sure that she was arrested for chemical abuse 3 times in November-December of 2015. Not sure how that would effect a lawsuit. Probably bad for the family though, she had a history, they can't throw their hands up and act all surprised.
Every detail will be brought up if the judge allows it and it does actually make it to court.
 
Back
Top