• 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.

Morbid

Rooster Illusion
Staff member
BAYTOWN, TX – A Walmart store is being sued for negligence after employees sold 60 cans of Dust-Off to a 24-year-old woman who was later found dead in the store’s parking lot.

The body of Karalee Williams was found in a Walmart parking lot back in April. Evidence found inside her vehicle, as well as her autopsy report, concluded Williams had died from a massive overdose of Diflouroethane – the chemical found in Dust-Off.

According to the attorney representing Williams’ family, they have evidence that shows the Walmart store sold Williams at least 60 cans of Dust-Off within a 25 to 26 hour period, including the towels she used to administer the chemical.

“The sheer volume that they are providing this woman, who is undeniably mentally impaired, knowing to an almost certainty that she is going to use it in an unlawful fashion, we think that crosses the line,” said attorney Jeff Steidley.

At first I was wondering how could a Walmart store be responsible for an addict dying in their parking lot, especially since she was buying the product legally and they had no way of knowing what she was doing with it after she left the store.

However, according to Steidly, Williams was incoherent when she would stumble into the store to make her repeated purchases. On one occasion she stumbled into the store nude below the waist with vomit in her hair claiming she’d suffered a seizure.

Instead of calling police or getting her medical help, Steidly claims store employees provided Williams with a dress and then sold her more Dust-Off.

“I believe this is a case of gross negligence. Where the lack of care is so extreme it amounts to the highest breech of civil liability,” said Steidley.

A shopper would find Williams’ partially nude body inside her truck two days later. She had never left the parking lot.

When asked for a comment, a Walmart spokesperson offered their condolences while stating their response to the lawsuit is contained within the court documents. I would love to get their side of the story, but looks like we will have to wait until October when the case is scheduled to go before a judge.


This article was written by Morbid for The Dreamin Demon - the Internet's self-appointed buzzkill.


NGjzIjkySAI


Continue reading...
 
My mom's next door neighbor died this way last year. 43 year old man with wife and 2 kids.
Seriously though....60 within a 24(ish) hour period? She stumbled in, naked from waist down with vomit in her hair and they provided her with a dress....AND sold her multiple more cans? Come on people! Sudafed and certain cough syrups are "regulated" at pharmacies. This should be as well. Who really needs 5 cans of air-duster at a time unless they're huffing it?
 
I believe Walmart's only failure was when they didn't contact the local police regarding a half-naked intoxicated customer covered in her own waste, but they should not be held liable for selling all those cans of Dust Off as it is not a controlled substance. No laws are in place to allow Walmart the means to restrict the sale of diflouroethane, and I don't think the corporate lawyers want low-earning cashiers and supervisors making inconsistent decisions on which adult can and cannot buy legal merchandise.
 
Fuck her :finger:
Bye !! One less reject in the world :dead:
;... and if it were me :shrug: I'd expect the same response from others :finger::finger: good riddance.


:rolleyes: get a grip and stop being a shithead!
 
I'm surprised she didn't show actual physical effects from huffing that much. They said there was no signs of physical damage to her. Using Difluoroethane is like using liquid nitrogen. As it turns from a liquid into a gas it cools rapidly and people huffing tend to suffer pretty severe burns, internally and externally.

I don't think they will be able to pull of a negligence suit. There is no known limit to OD on Diflouroethane because you don't really OD. You don't dying from taking to much, they have done human testing were the humans are exposed to 500,000 ppm (parts per million) continuously for several minutes, you die because of the affects it can have internally. One of the most common causes of death with Diflouroethane is the freezing of soft tissue in the airways. It can also cause pulmonary irritation, oxygen displacement and cardiac arrest or arrhythmia.

While Diflouroethane is in the blood for 3-4 hours, the effects that huffers go for are gone in under 10 minutes, even with massive doses. It is exhaled. If there is a death, it is almost immediately after huffing. There is very little delay. Because death is so rapid they generally take three samples, peripheral blood, central blood and vitreous humor to determine when the fatal dose was taken.

With factual data to back up the fact that you can't OD on Diflouroethane and the cans clearly having a label that reads "Do not inhale, not for consumption" they don't have much hope for a law suit. She's the one who inhaled them, it's not up to Walmart to police how people use the items they sell. Especially when said items aren't regulated.

For all they new she was a drunk who was frantically cleaning computers.

Who really needs 5 cans of air-duster at a time unless they're huffing it?
Erm anyone with computers? Businesses buy them in bulk. A lot of places sell in bulk because it's common to buy more than 1-2 at a time. I used to buy dust off by the case. I stopped buying it when huffing became a thing. Now I bulk buy q-tips and rubbing alcohol :hilarious:
 
She's the one who inhaled them, it's not up to Walmart to police how people use the items they sell.

This is where it's grey.

There is plenty of legal precedent establishing that a seller can be held liable as the result of an otherwise legal sale if the seller knew or could reasonably assume that the buyer was going to hurt themselves or others with the product. As the lawyer said, "The sheer volume that they are providing this woman, who is undeniably mentally impaired, knowing to an almost certainty that she is going to use it in an unlawful fashion, we think that crosses the line."

And that's the ticket. Can they prove the person who sold it to her could have reasonably assumed. In fact, that no called 911 could prove to be damning evidence. She came in naked from the waste down, vomit in her hair and smelling of feces. She said she had a seizure, but here's the thing:

A reasonable person is going to call an ambulance if someone comes in that bad off as the result of a seizure. You know who a reasonable person won't call 911 on behalf of? A stupid junkie doing this to themselves. The fact that they didn't call an ambulance strongly suggests they knew exactly why she was rolling around in that condition.

I think they've got a successful lawsuit, here. And it's not a bad one, either. More people really ought to know that they can be held liable under these circumstances, and nothing gets that message spread quite like a high-profile lawsuit.
 
I'd assume, from what I've seen of others recovering from a seizure, that it was just the seizure and not the culprit of huffing... Huffing wouldn't be automatic to me.


Yeah okay, not getting all up in your face...If she was buying a bbq chicken

I might believe it...but with all of those cans of Dust-Off in her basket I would

think addict for sure.

***we sure do live in a busy world when you can just go shopping and running your

errands and shit and no one notices the dead girl in the lot for a few days.
 
A reasonable person is going to call an ambulance if someone comes in that bad off as the result of a seizure. You know who a reasonable person won't call 911 on behalf of? A stupid junkie doing this to themselves.

Sad. I've called the police on drunks and junkies, and some girl I seen walking

down the street crying her face off, and some kid that looked like he was fighting an

adult as I was driving by a bus stop. Yo officers, check this...I'm worried about this person

he/she might need your help. It was easy as fuck to do it too.
[doublepost=1469740220,1469740136][/doublepost]
But if she went through a self-checkout line who would notice? ;)

I don't know....I'm a super noticer.
 
Sad. I've called the police on drunks and junkies, and some girl I seen walking

down the street crying her face off, and some kid that looked like he was fighting an

adult as I was driving by a bus stop. Yo officers, check this...I'm worried about this person

he/she might need your help. It was easy as fuck to do it too.

It is sad. But, a lot of people don't see an affliction when they see an addict, they see a "bad person". They see flawed morals. So, they think, "Not my problem."

This has been the prevailing opinion on the front page, for example. And, no one seems to know how Walmart could be held liable. That's a problem. If the knowledge were more widespread, maybe this wouldn't have happened.
 
Ahhh, but yet, when that young lady was determined to have contributed to her friend's suicide via telephone, folks here were calling for her head.

What is the difference between giving a suicidal person a pep talk - a metaphorical rope by which they will hang themselves - and knowingly selling a junkie the poison by which they will kill themselves?

The former is a criminal act. The latter is merely a civil liability. But, two peas in a pod, and examples that should inspire us to be better humans, regardless of financial responsibility.
 
The difference I see with your two examples is this, the girl absolutely knew what he wanted to do and talked shit to him until he did.

I can see the woman in this buying her dust off from several cashier over two days and none of them knew of the others. As for her appearance, have you seen what people deem appropriate to shop in lately? If her shirt was long and covered her butt then who would really even look at her twice? I'm sure they have homeless who have looked as bad or worse come in to shop.

I can also tell you have never put in much work as a retail associate, you mind your own business for the most part unless you are called on to help a customer. You can get yourself punched or sued for getting all up in someone's business. Right, wrong or indifferent that's the way it is.

As long as she was upright and still making sense, they wouldn't have bothered with her.
 
It is sad. But, a lot of people don't see an affliction when they see an addict, they see a "bad person". They see flawed morals. So, they think, "Not my problem."

Sure...because junkies are a dime a dozen and every other minute another one is coming

down the tube or around the corner, but I'm talking about exceptions here,

and half naked, covered in vomit, and standing in the walmart looks like the exception from

my desk and if I was standing in that store.
[doublepost=1469745498,1469745277][/doublepost]
I don't think walmart should be held responsible for her suicide.

Okay fine...because that's exactly what it is, if drug abuse is self harm and suicide it

the ultimate self harm. But Walmart should be responsible for making sure their lots are clean

from regular run of the mill shit you see there, used condoms, pop cans with holes, hypodermics

and dead bodies.
 
Ahhh, but yet, when that young lady was determined to have contributed to her friend's suicide via telephone, folks here were calling for her head.

What is the difference between giving a suicidal person a pep talk - a metaphorical rope by which they will hang themselves - and knowingly selling a junkie the poison by which they will kill themselves?

The former is a criminal act. The latter is merely a civil liability. But, two peas in a pod, and examples that should inspire us to be better humans, regardless of financial responsibility.


Oh jeez. I see where you're going with that concept but... we've designed a society that gives its members the autonomy to make its own decisions. Good, bad, or indifferent.

What's next down this rabbit hole? Is this same minimum wage(ish) cashier going to be expected to slap the Twinkies out of the hand of the morbidly obese patron rolling through the check out line on their Rascal scooter?

I mean, that person is also buying the poison by which they're slowly killing themselves, right? ;)
 
Ahhh, but yet, when that young lady was determined to have contributed to her friend's suicide via telephone, folks here were calling for her head.
Apples and orangutans.
She knew he was suicidal and her motivators were financial gain.
She set up a go fund me page and was benefiting from the money.

Expecting all Wal-Mart employees to know the dangers of each product sold at walmart is pretty high expectations.
In order to sway me, I would need to know who sold her those items and did they in fact know what she intended to do with them.
As far as I know, there is no legal limit to how many cans one person is allowed to buy at one time or a 24 hour period. So its not walmarts duty to limit how many she gets to buy. Comparing this to the girl that talked her friend into suicide= walmart was going to make the profit on those cans no matter who they sold them to and in what quantity.
The "suicide muse" had her financial gain after his death.
Apples and orangutans.

Walmart is a big place and I have no doubt she was helped by many different empliyees. Maybe she did self check out and no one gelped her.
Suppose she came in without her pants and said she had a seizure, the person that helped her find the dress had no reason to disbelieve her.


The former is a criminal act. The latter is merely a civil liability. But, two peas in a pod, and examples that should inspire us to be better humans,
What about her family, they are accusing walmart of something they themselves couldn't do.
intervene in her drug addiction/use.
 
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
 
Last edited:
Even on the things where you can only buy so many, like sudafed, it's only so many at the time, there's nothing to stop you from coming back in 10 minutes later and buying some more at a different register.

In a large store like Wal-Mart with anywhere between 25 and 100 cash registers and usually less than between 5 and 25 cashiers spread out amongst them (and then the totally separate self scans registers) if she went to a different cashier or used the self scans, it's unlikely anyone knew how many she was buying overall. Factor in associates coming in to work, leaving for lunch or breaks and it's really not likely she saw the same people everytime she went in.

Even in my tiny town, WM is a large store with a large parking lot in a strip mall that's never empty, there are alot of car there, always.

It really is a shame she wasn't stopped but even tho folks think you stand around with your finger up your butt while there, most of them actually do work. I know because I worked in the Garden Center and it's a damned hard job.
 
Oh jeez. I see where you're going with that concept but... we've designed a society that gives its members the autonomy to make its own decisions. Good, bad, or indifferent.
What's next down this rabbit hole? Is this same minimum wage(ish) cashier going to be expected to slap the Twinkies out of the hand of the morbidly obese patron rolling through the check out line on their Rascal scooter?
I mean, that person is also buying the poison by which they're slowly killing themselves, right?

Yes, she is buying it... incoherent, half nude, with vomit in her hair and shit on her.

This is not a rabbit hole scenario. The president is quite clear. If you're selling something to someone, and you can reasonably assume they're going to misuse it to someone's detriment, you can get in trouble for selling it to them.

You guys can disagree all you want. But Walmart's going to pay out the ass because they had a cashier who didn't give a good goddamn shit about human life.

I mean, take yourself out of the conversation for a minute. Picture yourself behind a register, with this woman coming through, speaking like she was speaking, looking like she was looking, buying what she was buying.

That cashier knew she was a junkie, and believed she deserved whatever she got.

Problem is, they didn't realize they could be on the hook. People should realize that.
 
“The sheer volume that they are providing this woman, who is undeniably mentally impaired, knowing to an almost certainty that she is going to use it in an unlawful fashion, we think that crosses the line,” said attorney Jeff Steidley.

A walmart worker is qualified to determine when someone is mentally impaired?

I hope this family loses and i hope walmart forces them to repay the court fees/costs in full. Fuck this money hungry trash family. The girl is a worthless shithead druggy and deserves no sympathy from anyone. Bunch of assholes.

God bless Walmart in this situation. A lawsuit like this is an attack on capitalism and an attack on the American justice system, fuck it it's an attack on American way of life itself.

I would love to get their side of the story,

They shouldn't even have to provide one. A walmart worker has no legal obligation in a situation like this. If anything the workers who dealt with this woman very well may be the mentally impaired ones, it'd explain why their reaction was to merely provide the woman clothing vs contacting medical help.

This should be as well.

Fuck that. People should be free to buy whatever the fuck they want. Idiots overdosing and dying shouldn't have a negative impact on my life.

A reasonable person is going to call an ambulance if someone comes in that bad off as the result of a seizure. You know who a reasonable person won't call 911 on behalf of? A stupid junkie doing this to themselves. The fact that they didn't call an ambulance strongly suggests they knew exactly why she was rolling around in that condition.

A random person on the street or working in a wlamart should not be legally mandated to seek help for a junkie shithead under any circumstances.

Even if they knew, it shouldn't matter.

Plus, the article says she bought this over a 24 hour span of time. How many different walmart workers dealt with her? You have numerous employees selling her this stuff, likely not recognizing her from past visits, yet the greedy family and lawyer are trying to single out walmart as a single entity, saying it should have known better? The fuck? this wasn't a case of a single bartender shoveling more and more drinks down some wasted dipshits throat as they stumble around talking about how they're gonna speed home as fast as they can with their fucking eyes closed. Is walmart supposed to brief every single worker at the start of their shift as to what customers to look out for, they supposed to put fucking wanted or "do not serve" posters up with customers faces on em? I don't grasp the logic behind this lawsuit nor do i grasp what they expect a store to do differently. Is walmart supposed to provide medical training now to their minimum wage, part time workers? Ridiculous.

I think they've got a successful lawsuit, here. And it's not a bad one, either. More people really ought to know that they can be held liable under these circumstances, and nothing gets that message spread quite like a high-profile lawsuit.

I hope to Allah you're wrong on the successful part, and the rest makes me want to vomit after reading it. What total bullshit. More people really ought to rely on personal responsibility above all else and not seek to hassle the rest of society over the personal decisions of folks who don't deserve to continue living among us. Hopefully this family losing big and being bankrupted by the lost court case gets that message spread.

Fucking GET EM Walmart, fucking get em! No mercy for these greedy pricks.

Sad. I've called the police on drunks and junkies, and some girl I seen walking
down the street crying her face off, and some kid that looked like he was fighting an
adult as I was driving by a bus stop. Yo officers, check this...I'm worried about this person
he/she might need your help. It was easy as fuck to do it too.

It shouldn't be illegal NOT to do that though, and one shouldn't be held liable for not taking action.


But, a lot of people don't see an affliction when they see an addict, they see a "bad person". They see flawed morals. So, they think, "Not my problem."

It's very often a fair assessment.

And whether you can empathize or not, it doesn't really change that last part, "not my problem.". I speak quite ill of filth like this girl, however it doesn't mean i have NO sympathy(i mean i don't in this specific case, but with other druggies, the potential for sympathy is there). I can empathize, i truly can, however ultimately it really isn't mine or anyone elses problem. If someone like this wants to huff or shoot up or whatever else until they die, so be it. Not on me to stop em, i shouldn't be legally required to help.



And, no one seems to know how Walmart could be held liable. That's a problem.

If there's a law on the book that means Walmart is in any way responsible for this, then i agree that should be brought to the public attention. The only way we can get bullshit, asinine laws off the books is if our eyes are open to them and we work to rid our justice system of it.


Ahhh, but yet, when that young lady was determined to have contributed to her friend's suicide via telephone, folks here were calling for her head.

Not me. Personal responsibility rules all.


What is the difference between giving a suicidal person a pep talk - a metaphorical rope by which they will hang themselves - and knowingly selling a junkie the poison by which they will kill themselves?

The intent is completely different. A person on the phone in this situation knows full well what theyre doing and what the result will likely be, they are striving to bring about that specific result.

Just cuz you sell a junkie a means to get high doesn't mean you're knowingly contributing to their death. Plenty of drug addicts use without overdosing and dying. It disgusts me when i hear people blame drug dealers or bartenders or in this case a walmart worker for a drug addicts death. Plus, there's no way to prove that any worker knew exactly what she was using this stuff for.

I don't see any comaparison at all to a walmart employee merely ringing up someones purchases, and that's all that occurred here. A walmart employee did their fucking job, that's it. Yet now we have a lawsuit? Pretty fucking outrageous.

The former is a criminal act

Shouldn't be.

The latter is merely a civil liability.

I see no reason to hold the latter liable, civilly or criminally.


we've designed a society that gives its members the autonomy to make its own decisions. Good, bad, or indifferent.

Have we? If what you say is true, why was this lawsuit not thrown out the second it was brought forth, why is it permitted in the first fucking place?


Yes, she is buying it... incoherent, half nude, with vomit in her hair and shit on her.

The article is slight on the details. I highly doubt she walked in lookin a mess, and some worker gave her a makeover and then personally piled some more huff cans into her cart for her before ringing her up and sending her to her death.

Some worker prob noticed this nutter walkin in and gave her something to put on to spare other customers the site. Perhaps they intended to contact authorities but lost sight of the dipshit and figured she had left, perhaps they were too busy and said fuck it, perhaps a manager or someone else told them they'd take care of it so they rinsed their hands of it. We don't know how it played out, plenty of understandable possibilities. It's highly unlikely this same person is the one who rung her up and sold her more cans. The person who rung her up may have had no idea that she earlier had walked into the store in such a state. Not ALL of these workers she came into contact with may have heard her mention her seizure.

There's soooo many potential variables here, soooo many potential sides to the story. I don't grasp why anyone would pick just one after reading an article so lacking in info/details and say, "yes, good lawsuit, walmart employees shouldn't done different and seem liable here".

Although again, not a single one of these potential explanations should matter regardless, cuz it's no ones fault but hers.


The president is quite clear. If you're selling something to someone, and you can reasonably assume they're going to misuse it to someone's detriment, you can get in trouble for selling it to them.

That's bullshit and there needs to be some sort of legal reform or law passed to stop this from being the case. And i simply don't see how they could prove that any of these employees reasonably could have assumed this would happen.
 
Last edited:
You guys can disagree all you want. But Walmart's going to pay out the ass because they had a cashier who didn't give a good goddamn shit about human life.

I hope to god you're wrong. Hopefully the family is the only one who pays. I want em to get fucked over hard just like the Denver theater shooting families. And we have no way of knowing for sure if any of these workers had a disregard for human life.

Picture yourself behind a register, with this woman coming through, speaking like she was speaking, looking like she was looking, buying what she was buying.

When doing such mundane, tedious work, i pretty much go into robot mode. When i was a teenager workin in the local grocery store, i'd very often barely look at the customer or what they were purchasing. I'd offer up a quick hello and then mindlessly bag em up. I honestly may not have noticed anything if i rung this doper up. Perfectly understandable if that's what happened here. And if a walmart worker raised a red flag and contacted authorities or refused sales every time some nutty looking person came through the checkout line, it'd become impossible to shop there.


That cashier knew she was a junkie, and believed she deserved whatever she got.

Completely impossible to know. What an absurd leap.


Problem is, they didn't realize they could be on the hook. People should realize that.

The bigger, REAL problem is that they could be on the hook at all. People should seek to change that.
 
Rather than going after Walmart, why not put that effort into regulations that would set a reasonable limit on the amount of Dust-off cans that a person can purchase.
Even on the things where you can only buy so many, like sudafed, it's only so many at the time, there's nothing to stop you from coming back in 10 minutes later and buying some more at a different register.
If they regulated the Dust-off the same way they do pseudoephedrine, your lisence is scanned & your info is electronically logged into the stores system, so it wouldn't matter if she went to a different register, if the limit was reached the stores system would have denied her the purchase.

And just like with pseudoephedrine, there would be ways to get around the limits by store hopping & such- but in this particular case, it could've saved this young lady's life.
 
I can also tell you have never put in much work as a retail associate, you mind your own business for the most part unless you are called on to help a customer. You can get yourself punched or sued for getting all up in someone's business. Right, wrong or indifferent that's the way it is.
This. Having experience in retail this is so true. Hell, you get abused even when you're NOT up in someone's business.

Just a couple hours ago I was on the other side of this. I walked my dog to the 7-eleven near my house because I was craving nerds candy (what can I say, I'm a child of the 90s and will never not love fruity candy). I go up to buy my candy and some Perrier, and the guy behind the counter shakes the little box of nerds...
Him: what's in here?
Me, waiting for my change: little candies
Him: how old are you?
Me: 25.
Him: hahaha you look like you're 10!
Dude behind me in line pipes in: yeah when I came in here I thought you looked really young! What are those, sweetarts? [like what even who walks into a store and makes a mental note that a random chick "looks young" creeper]
Me: oh wow thank you I really appreciate it.
My sarcasm drips on the floor.
Him: Hahaha you're welcome! You're welcome! You really look 10.
Me: I told you, I'm 25. Do you want to see my ID?
Him: nahhh I don't want to see it, it's a fake! I know it's a fake!

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.

All this to say; 7-Eleven, Walmart... You have no idea how crazy your customers may or may not be, and as a retail associate you learn real quick to keep your mouth shut.
 
@Momzilla said

Rather than going after Walmart, why not put that effort into regulations that would set a reasonable limit on the amount of Dust-off cans that a person can purchase.

That's a good question.

It might have somethinh to do with the fact that this isn't this familys first death by drug abuse and its not their first lawsuit blaming a deep pocket.:rolleyes:
The person that filed this lawsuit is Deleese Allen AKA Deleese Williams.
If you google those names, you can read all about it.
 
Last edited:
If you're selling something to someone, and you can reasonably assume they're going to misuse it to someone's detriment, you can get in trouble for selling it to them.
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 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.
 
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...

Actually, Cubby, I wouldn't. Concert venues and bartenders both have liability to contend with. It's unfortunate that they can't tell the difference between MS and inebriation, but if they honestly thought she was dangerously intoxicated, refusing to serve her or calling 911 is the responsible thing to do. If she was dangerously intoxicated and they had done nothing, they could be held liable. Concert venues and bars are sued all the time for failing to protect individuals that they over-served.

Only this is not someone who simply might have been intoxicated. This is someone who was displaying clear signs of worrisome physical distress - distress that would have gotten 911 called, except they knew why she was like that, so they didn't really care.

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.

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.

I don't agree. The fact that she was getting high does not absolve the responsibility of those dealing directly with her in that condition, and hopefully Walmart learns a lesson from this. Their people need more training. Because, if she really was in the putrid condition described, a court is going to rule in favor of her family.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top