Couple suing Wal*Mart because their bag broke

**Calliander** · 16 Jan 2004, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by frostwolf ex

their customes tend to coem from the frivolous lawsuit set

You mean the fat, lazy white trash set, of course.

God, I hate Wal-Mart.

**SapphirePhoenix** · 16 Jan 2004, 04:58 PM

Fat, lazy, white-trash set? Um, not to be prejudiced but...it's not about the colour of their skin, ethnicity or even their tonnage. It's about being cheap. People go to Walmart, because it's cheap. Oh, but they SUE because they are American. Americans sue for everything.

**Calliander** · 16 Jan 2004, 05:03 PM

They sue because they're too fat and lazy to get a good job. It's not skin color or anything like that, but the people who shop there are 99% FAT and 99% LAZY. You would think the energy and brain power they expend thinking up these asinine lawsuits would be spent on something worthwhile, like... I dunno... BETTERING THEMSELVES?!?

Fatasses.

**SapphirePhoenix** · 16 Jan 2004, 05:10 PM

Hee hee hee, ass-inine. Hee hee hee, bettering themselves.

**Drewbacca** · 16 Jan 2004, 05:28 PM

Originally Posted by Master

"I would have double bagged it"

Words taken all too lightly, I'm afraid.

In many ways the American dream was shattered as that large tub of Miracle Whip snapped the ankle of its owner.

Two things shattered with one tub of creamy delight.

**Kenshin** · 16 Jan 2004, 05:31 PM

I was down in Massachusetts last month, and there were a Wal-Mart and Target practially right next to each other.

The Target was 100x tidier, and far more appealing.

The only time I ever shop at the Wal-Mart in my town is for socks and underwear, and the occasional household supplies.

**gameoverDude** · 16 Jan 2004, 09:22 PM

Wal-Mart should settle for payment of the medical bills and probably some loss of consortium (a broken ankle takes around 2 months to heal), but I would not give the Sagers anything near the whole amount they're asking for. Over $30,000 apiece? Phhhfft.

Though no one deserves to have this happen, the Sagers didn't help matters by not supporting the bag at the bottom as a precaution considering that it had heavy things in it. If the bag is rated at 10-15 pounds, then the groceries should've reasonably fit considering they were around 7.7 pounds total. How do we know they weren't somewhat negligent?

Loss of consortium is not just about the lack of nookie, although that is a big part of it. Daily family stuff is just as important.

Originally Posted by Gerald R. Stahl, Trial Lawyer

http://www.geraldrstahl.com/personal...consortium.htm
Generally speaking, Loss of Consortium is the value of the loss of services and affections resulting from an accident or injury to one's spouse. In other words, consider the fact where the man and woman are a team and essential figures in a family unit. And, let's say the wife is severely injured in an accident. The wife can no longer assist with the bathing and caring of small children. The wife may, as a result of the accident, deprive the husband of the attention, care, affection, comfort and sexual relationship that they possessed during the marriage. This love and affection and help with the daily functions of a family is the nature of a Loss of Consortium claim. In personal injury cases, Loss of Consortium damages should generally be claimed by the victim's spouse.