Comments on: “Wal-Mart ends food donations to charity”

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:24:33 +0000

Motive? Because Walm-Mart is EEEEVVVVIIIILLLL!!! Evil I tell you!

And I am officially stealing “antifan club” for personal use! 🙂

By: Kent

Kent — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 17:01:00 +0000

Agree, Deoxy. Wal-Mart has an antifan club that the others do not.

Since the food is simply going to be thrown out otherwise, so that little or no money is saved by this change in policy, it’s hard to imagine what else the motive might be.

By: Deoxy

Deoxy — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 14:28:28 +0000

“Raley’s and Bel-Air and Albertson’s” don’t have targets the size of a small state painted Raley’s and Bel-Air and Albertson’s like Wal-Mart seems to these days.

By: Bill

Bill — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 12:13:38 +0000

I wouldn’t want to bet that a skilled member of the plaintiff’s bar could not get a jury to ignore the “gross negligence” standard.

Given the penchant for juries to dive into the nearest deep pocket in sympathy with anyone claiming injury, Walmart’s decision, while disappointing, is clearly rational.

By: Ann Obstetrician

Ann Obstetrician — Mon, 09 Jan 2006 07:10:48 +0000

… can be held liable only in instances of “gross negligence.”

Imagine….if this was the standard for torts of all kinds…