Wal-Mart Stampede Victim’s Family Brings Suit


The family of Jdimytai Damour, the Wal-Mart worker that was stampeded to death last week out on Long Island, has brought suit in New York, in Bronx County (where he presumably lives).

The stampede apparently occurred when a group of shoppers waiting in their cars rushed the doors when they opened, clashing with a group that was waiting on a “no-cutting” line. According to this Newsday account, an estimated 2,000 people were there.

A critical issue in the ability to bring suit was a determination of whether he was a Wal-Mart employee or not. Since he was a seasonal worker, I doubted he was employed by the retailer. If he was, then New York’s Worker’s Compensation laws would have prevented suit, as WC would provide the exclusive remedy. According to this Reuters account, however, the victim was an independent contractor, and not an employee.

I blasted Wal-Mart for the stampede as soon as the news hit for failing to have adequate security. Nassau County police made the same claim. Wal-Mart, however, claims that they had security in place.

Plaintiff’s counsel, Jordan Hecht, named Wal-Mart and the mall’s owner (Vornado Realty Trust), manager and security firm as defendants in the suit. According to Hecht in a statement he released:

“When they heard of how he was eventually killed, that he died of asphyxiation, they were visibly shaken. They are angry because this was preventable, and have therefore exercised their right to seek justice in the court”

A substitution of parties will no doubt take place in the future after a proper administrator or executor is appointed for his estate.

Ron Miller at the Maryland Injury Lawyer Blog, it should be noted, is a bit critical of the rush to suit, writing:

Do the personal injury lawyers who are trying the case lose credibility with the jury when they know the lawyer filed a lawsuit without knowing all of the facts that are the foundation for their case?

While I would ordinarily agree with Miller about the rush to suit, in this particular case I think there may be justification for doing it as long as the main parties can be identified, as it may bring witnesses to the attention of the lawyers who might not be too keen, for their own personal reasons, of approaching the police. Sometimes, a rush to suit may bring an appropriate dividend for the client.

Addendum: One other potential reason for quickly filing suit; a very angry family may have demanded it. This could be due to a hope that the publicity would hurt Wal-Mart, to see that it would never happen again, and/or to make sure the police did everything in their power to investigate. This is, of course, speculation on my part. But grief-stricken family members may be doing whatever they feel they can under truly horrible circumstances.

Updated:

Links to this post:

“5 minute after” suits and the wal-mart trampling
ron miller at maryland personal injury thinks the filing of suits only days after an event like the long island wal-mart trampling, at a point when key facts relevant to the nature and extent of liability have yet to be brought out,
posted by Walter Olson @ December 04, 2008 10:52 AM
Share

Related posts:

  1. Wal-Mart Liability in Stampede Death (Civil and Criminal) (Bumped and Updated)
  2. Michael Jackson’s Mom Brings Wrongful Death Suit (Analysis)
  3. Robert Bork Brings Trip/Fall Suit for Over $1M, Plus Punitive Damages And Legal Fees
  4. New York’s Chief Judge Kaye Finally Brings Suit for Judicial Pay Raises
  5. Prison Inmate Commits Suicide, And Family Sues

Tags:

4 Responses Leave a comment

  • Comments 2010.6.21 at 02:16 | Quote

    Thanks for the link, Eric.

    Did they call Wal-Mart about settling the case to see if they would overvalue it? Did the they call the relevant witnesses to see if they would give statements without being deposed? I don’t think this case is factually distinguishable from many complex medical malpractice cases where there was multiple witnesses and I don’t seee a lot of good lawyers rushing to file suit.

    Again, we can guess at the motives and I’m not prejudging because they could have a good faith reason for doing it. Obviously, you believe that it might be a good idea proves that. But there are so few big ticket but small media interest cases that get filed within three business days.
    # posted by Anonymous Ron Miller : December 04, 2008 4:49 PM

  • Comments 2010.6.21 at 02:17 | Quote

    Ron:

    I put the Addendum in in response to your comment.
    # posted by Blogger Eric Turkewitz : December 04, 2008 5:04 PM

  • Comments 2010.6.21 at 02:17 | Quote

    Adequate security manning the place would have prevented the stampede. An estimate of 2,000 people is a lot and having just several security guards would not be adequate.
    # posted by Anonymous Postergal : December 04, 2008 7:59 PM

  • Comments 2010.6.21 at 02:17 | Quote

    Thanks. That possibility was actually in my original post too. That’s why I say I don’t prejudge the motives.
    # posted by Anonymous Ron Miller : December 04, 2008 8:55 PM

Comments are closed.


The New York Personal Injury Law Blog is sponsored by its creator, Eric Turkewitz of The Turkewitz Law Firm. The blog might be considered a form of attorney advertising in accordance with New York rules going into effect February 1, 2007 (22 NYCRR 1200.1, et. seq.) As of July 14, 2008, Law.com became an advertiser, as you can see in the sidebar. Law.com does not control the editorial content of the blog in any way.

Throughout the blog as it develops, you may see examples of cases we have handled, or cases from others, that are used for illustrative purposes. Since all cases are different, and legal authority may change from year to year, it is important to remember that prior results in any particular case do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes with respect to any future matter, including yours, in which any lawyer or law firm may be retained.

Some of the commentary may be become outdated. Some might be a minority opinion, or simply wrong. No reader should consider this site (or any other) to be authoritative, and if a legal issue is presented, the reader should contact an attorney of his or her own choosing for advice.

Finally, we are not responsible for the comments of others that may be added to this site.