Walmart overnighting challenged in court

[US1]

Originally Posted by Gelato

money is the only language corporations speak . If you truly want to effect change you have to hit them where is hurts. Pretty simple. Unfortunately for us

I understand that. If this case was about Walmart holding a fireworks show next to a refinery, then I’d agree with you.
I should have said “frivolous” lawsuits.
Walmart had nothing to do with the fire. Walmart had nothing to do with the loving responsible mother leaving her 2 young daughters alone in the car in a parking lot of a large department store. A misfortunate set of circumstances that stacked up. Let’s lay the responsibility where it belongs.

Leaving 2 young girls in a car in a department store parking lot??? It’s been mentioned that alone is not illegal. Luckily for the mother child abduction is illegal, so she had no worries of that happening.

[Boogie_]

Originally Posted by LETMGROW

Six and nine year old children are too young to leave unattended in a vehicle anywhere. What is wrong with the mother for doing this? IMO she should be brought up on charges for her negligent actions not Walmart.
It sounds like some ambulance chasing lawyer got to her and promised her a large windfall for losing a child. I hope the tables turn and she pays dearly for her actions.
My younger children are now 48 and 50 years old. Even back when they were 6 or 9 years old neither my wife nor I would have left them alone in a parking lot anytime or anywhere.

Exactly.

My daughter is 14 and I still won't leave her in the car alone.




Also, I'm calling BS on the whole "returned the stove to his vehicle without waiting for it to cool down".

Although it is conceivable he did put the hot stove back in his rig, it is more reasonable to assume they would want to eat their breakfast hot and then put away the gear.
Of course these are just my assumptions, not a lot of details on this in the linked articles.



Sad, sad chain of events.

[Charming]

Originally Posted by Backcountry1

I think there is more of a “what Walmart allows” than a “what Walmart did” aspect here. Walmart, as being the property owner/manager and the one who sets the rules and regulations on their property, is the ultimate party responsible for those actions. It’s no different than you allowing a certain action to happen on your property, then someone getting hurt from said action, by either their own or someone else’s negligence. If and when that happens, many times you are legally liable; either criminal, civil, or insurance liable.

Walmart in this instance is the ultimate party responsible for what happens on their property in terms of legal/not legal. From a legal standpoint, Walmart allows unregulated camping/overnighting on their property (or atleast in this instance at this location they did), and as such Walmart is liable for the actions of said camper. (Kind of why campgrounds have those “Rules and Regulations” lists that you have to sign. You are signing off on them not being liable, and shifting it to YOU being liable for your actions)

Under normal camping conditions, it is reasonable to believe and have campers cooking and using stoves to make food. Since Walmart allows overnight camping without regulations (Cooking as an example), Walmart is tacitly allowing campers to use stoves and cook, thus Walmart has to bear the liability of those actions.

As for the mother letting her children sleep in the vehicle… First it’s not illegal there. Second, she should not have to bear the responsibility of others actions. At no point did she do anything wrong, illegal, or such.

And lastly, a lawsuit is not always just for monetary reasons. A lawsuit helps set precedents and guidance for future lawsuits, laws, rules, etc. A ruling in Walmarts favor… Walmart probably wont change their practices of overnighting on their property. A ruling against Walmart… Bye-Bye overnighting, or at the minimum now some sort of regulated rules.

Most likely a settlement will happen. Not because of the money, but because of the future possible precedent a lawsuit outcome could have. With a settlement, there is precedent to go off of.

Thanks for your post. Best one in 5 pages.

[Rockwood27]

I tried to read all of the posts, but I may have missed it. My question is, if anyone knows, does Walmart actually own this property or are they leasing it. If it's leased, does that push the "responsibility" to the owner?

Sent from my SM-A515U using iRV2 - RV Forum mobile app

[tcg]

Originally Posted by Boogie_

Although it is conceivable he did put the hot stove back in his rig,

The "rig" was a 2005 Caravan, a minivan.

That's the other sad part of this, a man and his wife, in their 70s, living in a minivan and then he was prosecuted for a tragic accident.

He also lost his home and then sued and prosecuted. Thier life went from bad to so much worse.

We need to do better as a society helping people.

[TandW]

Originally Posted by US1

I understand that. If this case was about Walmart holding a fireworks show next to a refinery, then I’d agree with you.
I should have said “frivolous” lawsuits.
Walmart had nothing to do with the fire. Walmart had nothing to do with the loving responsible mother leaving her 2 young daughters alone in the car in a parking lot of a large department store. A misfortunate set of circumstances that stacked up. Let’s lay the responsibility where it belongs.

Leaving 2 young girls in a car in a department store parking lot??? It’s been mentioned that alone is not illegal. Luckily for the mother child abduction is illegal, so she had no worries of that happening.

[GypsyR]

Although an awful thing to have happened I find the suit absurd. Given what happened, the choice to sue the owner of the particular piece of land where the vehicles happened to be parked can be little more than a money grab.

Otherwise owners of parking lots would require you to submit your vehicle to a safety inspection before allowing you to park it on their property and sign a waiver in case it happened to burst into flames spontaneously. I've seen that a few times. Vehicles do catch fire with no one in them and not running. Helped a lady put out her door switch electrical fire in the parking lot of our local Michael's. She said she came out of the store to see it smoking across the lot. Michael's was gracious enough to let me grab of of the store extinguishers.

I think some lawsuits just poison society for a quick profit sometimes. Hopefully this one doesn't play out that way but it's not looking good.

[Solo_RV_Guy]

The question in this case is "are there limits, and what are they if so, to Walmart's liability for the actions of persons to whom they grant right of trespass.

By allowing parking, Walmart is expected to maintain the lot free of physical conditions that would likely result in injury to persons allowed to use the property. Things like 'free of cracks, gaps, or uneven surfaces' that could cause a person to trip, fall, etc. Does that extend to supervising a drive-by camping?

Note the distinction that bigcesar is missing - simply parking is not 'camping'. Parking does not involve meal preparation or recreational activities. An RV park or camp ground exists for more than parking; it is a place to use the RV for meal preparation and other forms of residential and recreational use.

Walmart is pretty specific in their word choice - they do not mention permission to camp, recreate, or reside; only to park overnight.

[Bigceasar]

Originally Posted by Solo_RV_Guy

The question in this case is "are there limits, and what are they if so, to Walmart's liability for the actions of persons to whom they grant right of trespass.

By allowing parking, Walmart is expected to maintain the lot free of physical conditions that would likely result in injury to persons allowed to use the property. Things like 'free of cracks, gaps, or uneven surfaces' that could cause a person to trip, fall, etc. Does that extend to supervising a drive-by camping?

Note the distinction that bigcesar is missing - simply parking is not 'camping'. Parking does not involve meal preparation or recreational activities. An RV park or camp ground exists for more than parking; it is a place to use the RV for meal preparation and other forms of residential and recreational use.

Walmart is pretty specific in their word choice - they do not mention permission to camp, recreate, or reside; only to park overnight.

While I can appreciate the distinction you are trying to make between camping and parking I believe overnighting in a Walmart lot would meet any legal definition of a campground. They allow not only parking but also allow you to sleep in the RV. There are no prohibitions against cooking and I have often seen people putting out chairs and watching the world go by.
The fact they openly invite overnighting furthers the argument against any claim overnighting is merely incidental to their business and is therefore an unseen hazard. Furthermore this is not common practice in retail businesses so their policy of overnighting does, in fact create liability beyond that of normal businesses.
The argument the attorney is likely to make is by allowing overnight stays Walmart would be well aware people will fix meals on the premises. Since the fire was the result of such meal preparation Walmart does indeed carry liability. In other words if Walmart prohibited overnight stays, which is the common practice in retail parking lots, this fire and the subsequent deaths would not have occurred. I can easily see how 12 sympathetic jurors could easily decide a mega corporation should pay to ease the suffering of grieving parents. If I ran Walmart I wouldn’t want this case to ever come to trial.

[Talloaks]

Originally Posted by Bigceasar

While I can appreciate the distinction you are trying to make between camping and parking I believe overnighting in a Walmart lot would meet any legal definition of a campground.

Well, here are a couple of municipalities' definitions:

“Campground” means any parcel or tract of land under the control of any person, organization or governmental entity wherein two or more camping unit sites are offered for the use of the public or members of an organization for rent or lease.

17.63.050 Recreational vehicle park – Definition.
“Recreational vehicle park” means a recreational park or portion thereof designed for exclusive occupancy by recreational vehicles. [Ord. 2018-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2018].

Walmart meets neither of these.

[LETMGROW]

Originally Posted by Talloaks

Well, here are a couple of municipalities' definitions:

“Campground” means any parcel or tract of land under the control of any person, organization or governmental entity wherein two or more camping unit sites are offered for the use of the public or members of an organization for rent or lease.

17.63.050 Recreational vehicle park – Definition.
“Recreational vehicle park” means a recreational park or portion thereof designed for exclusive occupancy by recreational vehicles. [Ord. 2018-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2018].

Walmart meets neither of these.

Neither does Cracker Barrel, churches, some volunteer fire departments, Sams Club and other free gratis parking spots allowing someone to park for free.

[Old-Biscuit]

Originally Posted by Talloaks

Well, here are a couple of municipalities' definitions:

“Campground” means any parcel or tract of land under the control of any person, organization or governmental entity wherein two or more camping unit sites are offered for the use of the public or members of an organization for rent or lease.

17.63.050 Recreational vehicle park – Definition.
“Recreational vehicle park” means a recreational park or portion thereof designed for exclusive occupancy by recreational vehicles. [Ord. 2018-02 § 2 (Exh. A), 2018].

Walmart meets neither of these.

Originally Posted by LETMGROW

Neither does Cracker Barrel, churches, some volunteer fire departments, Sams Club and other free gratis parking spots allowing someone to park for free.

Nor do Rest Areas on Interstates/Hwys/ Toll Roads

It is an absurd lawsuit!

[Hpozzuoli]

Nobody could have prevented that tragedy except the idiot that caused it. How could a Walmart rep/employee know the idiot placed bedding a hot stove? Nobody would know that happened.

Unfortunately it will get complicated. I believe there is rules somewhere that prohibits “camping” but allows staying over night in your vehicle. The moron that caused this was indeed camping and not staying…how the two can be differentiated and liability assessed is for the lawyers

[Coarsegold]

I guess the camper owner who started the fire has no liability insurance, so the next in line is Walmart. She obviously has guilt and maybe if she wins some money it will relieve some of that. I don't care who the lawyer is he has only one real interest.