JOPLIN, Mo. (AP) — The wife and daughter of a man killed inside a Walmart store when a massive tornado hit Joplin have filed a wrongful death lawsuit against the company.
The Joplin Globe (http://bit.ly/QjEeTY ) reported that the suit against Wal-Mart Stores Inc. was transferred Friday to the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri. It initially was filed in Jasper County Circuit Court.
The suit alleges Stanley Kirk, a 62-year-old aircraft engine technician, wasn't allowed to leave the store and was directed to "an unsafe/improper location." Court records said Kirk lived only three miles away, "or a seven-minute drive," in an area that was not hit by the May 22, 2011, tornado. Of the 161 people killed, at least three died in the Walmart.
The lawsuit also claims that the store was "not constructed properly" given its location in an area at risk of violent storms and tornadoes.
Kirk's wife, Janice, and his daughter, Jodelle, are seeking an unspecified amount in damages. Their lawsuit cites pain and suffering, the loss of Kirk's income, and funeral and medical expenses.
Wal-Mart spokesman Randy Hargrove said in a written statement that the Bentonville, Ark.-based company stands behind its employees and how they handled the disaster.
"We extend our deepest sympathy to Mr. Kirk's family," the statement said. "This was a horrible tragedy for Joplin. Walmart is committed to this community, and we have worked hard to help rebuild after this tragic event. We have protocols in place for severe weather, and the safety plan our associates implemented helped save lives. "
A store manager also was named in the suit, but he said in a court filing that he wasn't working the night of the tornado.
___
Information from: The Joplin Globe, http://www.joplinglobe.com
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press.
Comments (17)
Add commentwow this is just unreal. It
wow this is just unreal. It was a tragic death via mother nature. I guess Wal-Mart should not build any stores in tornado alley using this ambulance chasing lawyers logic. Just pathetic.
I don't know about that
"The suit alleges Stanley Kirk, a 62-year-old aircraft engine technician, wasn't allowed to leave the store and was directed to "an unsafe/improper location." Court records said Kirk lived only three miles away, "or a seven-minute drive," in an area that was not hit by the May 22, 2011, tornado. Of the 161 people killed, at least three died in the Walmart."
That to me is the key factor. I'm not sure what all they did to "not allow" them to leave, but if that's true, then they are taking responsibility for their security at that point.
A different read....
...sounds to me like Wal-Mart was trying to avoid a lawsuit with their actions.
I get the sneaking suspicion that had Wal-Mart allowed Mr. Kirk to leave and his vehicle been blown off the road, hit by flying debris, etc. that Wal-Mart would have gotten sued for that as well.
Just looking for a quick buck
Did Wal Mart restrain him from leaving? Did They just say, "Sir, the tornado is coming, please don't leave." We don't know. It does not say here what other customers heard or were told. If I were to go to court for any reason, court records would show I live 23 miles from conway, or a 30 minute drive. It really has no bearing on the procedings.
While we are at it, why don't we sue Kimberly Clark for giving our kids diaper rash. We can sue carrot growers because I love carrots but still wear glasses. This country is sue happy. Today, nobody will accept that crap happens, and it is nobody's fault. This wal Mart case is no different.
I think the biggest issue is
Did Wal-Mart lock the doors as reported?
If so, I see this being a valid case.
if the doors were locked ok,
if the doors were locked ok, maybe a case, but part of the arguement about the store not built to withstand a tornado. Really what building can withstand an F5 tornado, hardly any. Wal-mart was probably the safest place to be at the time rather than on the road.
Imagine this family would have sued the hospital if he had been there and died after the tornado hit citing the hospital should have been built to withstand mother nature's wrath.
irrelevant
I didn't see where the complaint was about the building code, it was the fact that the man was locked in the store and unable to chose his selected place of safety.
Google wal-mart tornado and you'll find several videos of people complaining about being locked in a store.
I take issue with that myself.
What happens if someone phones in a bomb threat during a tornado warning? Just a hypothetical...
fire exits
Don't the doors on most businesses say "these doors must remain unlocked during business hours" for safety reasons? What if the building had been struck by lightning and caught fire while the doors were locked?
If they locked the door and wouldn't let anyone leave, I'd call that illegal detaining or something to that effect. I forget the word I'm trying to think of . . . held hostage? Illegal captivity? Entrapment? Someone help me out here. Something that means you can't detain someone against their will without just cause or a warrant or something similar.
Simple case
First, the part about poor building construction is laughable, and won't even begin to hold up in court.
As to the part about them not allowing him to leave, it's just a matter of whether the family can show that they actually forced him to stay inside. If they can show that, then Walmart will lose the case, as they have no legal right to force someone to stay inside the store just because there is a tornado. However, if they just strongly recommended it and the guy took their advice, it's on him. He's a grown man and if he wasn't physically forced to stay in (either by people holding him or Walmart locking the doors) then it's not Walmart's fault.
Like I said, simple case, just depends on what the family can prove happened.
hmmm
Actually I've read that Home Depot may be sued for use of tilt-up construction for their stores.
An entire wall fell on shoppers in the Home Depot.
I do not think that Wal-Mart uses this technique however.