<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss"
	xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: &#8220;5 minute after&#8221; suits and the Wal-Mart trampling	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/</link>
	<description>Chronicling the high cost of our legal system</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:01:31 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Class Action Blogojevich Weekly Review &#171; ClassActionBlawg.com		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/comment-page-1/#comment-36593</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Class Action Blogojevich Weekly Review &#171; ClassActionBlawg.com]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Dec 2008 08:01:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7956#comment-36593</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[[...] http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/ [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] <a href="http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/" rel="nofollow ugc">http://overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/</a> [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ohwilleke		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/comment-page-1/#comment-36569</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ohwilleke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:29:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7956#comment-36569</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Another &lt;a href=&quot;http://whatlawyersdo.com/2008/11/30/trampled-wal-mart-worker-a-legal-perspective/&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;commentator&lt;/a&gt; also notes that in New York, unlike most states, that there is a &quot;grave injury&quot; exception to the worker&#039;s compensation bar on bringing a lawsuit that includes an on the job death, but only if no worker&#039;s compensation benefits are received first.  This matters because under the &quot;Special Employee&quot; doctrine of New York Worker&#039;s Compensation law, there would normally be an employee-employer relationship between Wal-Mart and the worker for worker&#039;s compensation purposes, even though the employee was a temp employed for tax purposes by a temp agency.

A quickly filed suit makes the election in favor of a suit over worker&#039;s copmensation right away.  The worry is that acceptance of assistance of some form by the family, thinking it is gratituous assistance from the Company perhaps, could be deemed an election to accept worker&#039;s compensation benefits, rather than to sue.  This matters because there is a much smaller maximum award of about $56,000 available under the worker&#039;s compensation system, while the tort award would be set by a jury and could be much higher.  

A quick suit also gives the Plaintiff a choice of forum that might otherwise be available if someone else sues Wal-Mart and the cases are consolidated or there is a joinder motion.  The Bronx is a better place to sue for wrongful death than Long Island.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Another <a href="http://whatlawyersdo.com/2008/11/30/trampled-wal-mart-worker-a-legal-perspective/" rel="nofollow">commentator</a> also notes that in New York, unlike most states, that there is a &#8220;grave injury&#8221; exception to the worker&#8217;s compensation bar on bringing a lawsuit that includes an on the job death, but only if no worker&#8217;s compensation benefits are received first.  This matters because under the &#8220;Special Employee&#8221; doctrine of New York Worker&#8217;s Compensation law, there would normally be an employee-employer relationship between Wal-Mart and the worker for worker&#8217;s compensation purposes, even though the employee was a temp employed for tax purposes by a temp agency.</p>
<p>A quickly filed suit makes the election in favor of a suit over worker&#8217;s copmensation right away.  The worry is that acceptance of assistance of some form by the family, thinking it is gratituous assistance from the Company perhaps, could be deemed an election to accept worker&#8217;s compensation benefits, rather than to sue.  This matters because there is a much smaller maximum award of about $56,000 available under the worker&#8217;s compensation system, while the tort award would be set by a jury and could be much higher.  </p>
<p>A quick suit also gives the Plaintiff a choice of forum that might otherwise be available if someone else sues Wal-Mart and the cases are consolidated or there is a joinder motion.  The Bronx is a better place to sue for wrongful death than Long Island.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: ohwilleke		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/comment-page-1/#comment-36568</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[ohwilleke]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Dec 2008 23:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7956#comment-36568</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Several reasons to file swiftly:

1.  This makes it much harder for Wal-Mart corporate officials to destroy evidence related to the event in the ordinary course (such as crucial surveillance tapes).  Also, keep in mind that many Black Friday employees are likely to be seasonal workers, so the prospect of losing track of witnesses is not theoretical.

2.  The facts that give rise to a likelihood of liability are typically apparent almost immediately.  But, any additional evidence related to liability is likely to be solely in the possession of the defendants which may not be available voluntarily.  In short, there is little likelihood that waiting will strengthen the case.

3.  An uninsured client may need a prompt settlement in order to receive care, and may be in a better position to receive forebearance from medical creditors, or receive financing secured by a settlement for medical assistance, if there is a realistic prospect of a P.I. settlement which a filed suit makes credible.

4.  The sooner a suit is filed, the greater the likeilhood that defects can be cured within the statute of limitations.

5.  The sooner a suit is filed, the less time there is to devise a novel defense.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Several reasons to file swiftly:</p>
<p>1.  This makes it much harder for Wal-Mart corporate officials to destroy evidence related to the event in the ordinary course (such as crucial surveillance tapes).  Also, keep in mind that many Black Friday employees are likely to be seasonal workers, so the prospect of losing track of witnesses is not theoretical.</p>
<p>2.  The facts that give rise to a likelihood of liability are typically apparent almost immediately.  But, any additional evidence related to liability is likely to be solely in the possession of the defendants which may not be available voluntarily.  In short, there is little likelihood that waiting will strengthen the case.</p>
<p>3.  An uninsured client may need a prompt settlement in order to receive care, and may be in a better position to receive forebearance from medical creditors, or receive financing secured by a settlement for medical assistance, if there is a realistic prospect of a P.I. settlement which a filed suit makes credible.</p>
<p>4.  The sooner a suit is filed, the greater the likeilhood that defects can be cured within the statute of limitations.</p>
<p>5.  The sooner a suit is filed, the less time there is to devise a novel defense.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: John Burgess		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/comment-page-1/#comment-36098</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[John Burgess]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:28:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7956#comment-36098</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Dan for Solicitor General!]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dan for Solicitor General!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: OBQuiet		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/comment-page-1/#comment-36095</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[OBQuiet]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:25:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7956#comment-36095</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Good idea dan! 

Or at least, place them in the pool for liability for the trampling. That way, when the Jury decides it was 40% Wal-mart and 60% crowd, they will be on the hook for some of the cash.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good idea dan! </p>
<p>Or at least, place them in the pool for liability for the trampling. That way, when the Jury decides it was 40% Wal-mart and 60% crowd, they will be on the hook for some of the cash.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Dan		</title>
		<link>https://www.overlawyered.com/2008/12/5-minute-after-suits-and-the-wal-mart-trampling/comment-page-1/#comment-36081</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Dan]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 04 Dec 2008 17:34:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://overlawyered.com/?p=7956#comment-36081</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[I&#039;m not a lawyer, but how about this idea.  Everyone who self-identifies as being in the trampling crowd so they can share a jackpot for the psychological horror of it also gets put on the list of people included in a share of a manslaughter charge.  Seems like a good trade; a coupon for $10 off your next Wal-Mart purchase in exchange for a few years in prison.  Any takers?]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;m not a lawyer, but how about this idea.  Everyone who self-identifies as being in the trampling crowd so they can share a jackpot for the psychological horror of it also gets put on the list of people included in a share of a manslaughter charge.  Seems like a good trade; a coupon for $10 off your next Wal-Mart purchase in exchange for a few years in prison.  Any takers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
