Kroger sued over suspect's fatal shooting during robbery attempt [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Kroger sued over suspect's fatal shooting during robbery attempt


IndyGunFreak
07-19-2012, 22:30
This is interesting.

The plaintiff is saying Kroger is negligent for failing to enforce it's "no guns policy" on its employees. So if Kroger did not have a "no guns poilcy" then it would seem there should be no liability?

I doubt this goes anywhere. The amount is small enough that Kroger will likely just settle, which sucks.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120719/NEWS02/207190360/Gunman-s-mother-sues-Kroger-over-fatal-shooting-during-attempted-robbery?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

Berto
07-19-2012, 22:43
Nope. It was bad victim selection.
Policy or not, there's a fair percentage of grocery folks who simply won't give a crap about a 'no guns' policy if they are scheduled to work nights or security shifts.

Louisville Glocker
07-19-2012, 23:09
Frivolous lawsuit. But for only 75K, yes, Kroger will probably just settle and be done with it.

Because the employee acted legally, a store's internal policy should not be grounds for a lawsuit. But that would be far too logical for our legal system.

Atomic Punk
07-20-2012, 00:12
“Kroger owed Atkinson a duty to exercise reasonable care for his safety, refrain from wantonly or willfully harming Atkinson, and/or acting in a way that would increase the peril to Atkinson as a result of being on the premises. By failing to supervise its employees, enforce its own policies, and failing to properly train its employees, Kroger breached its duty of care to Atkinson.”

So even though he came in to rob the place. kroger was supposed to keep him safe? :rofl:

Drain You
07-20-2012, 01:46
The downtrodden need a hand up, leastwise she spit out a few more losers.

Caver 60
07-20-2012, 08:14
I certainly hope Kroger does not simply settle this lawsuit by paying. This one needs to be fought tooth and nail Talk about wrong all the way. To bad the poor manager had to quit his job.

State law apparently says: “No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”

SCmasterblaster
07-20-2012, 09:45
Could someone post the details of the shooting, please?

whoflungdo
07-20-2012, 09:55
I certainly hope Kroger does not simply settle this lawsuit by paying. This one needs to be fought tooth and nail Talk about wrong all the way. To bad the poor manager had to quit his job.

State law apparently says: “No person in this state shall be placed in legal jeopardy of any kind whatsoever for protecting the person or a third person by reasonable means necessary.”

They should be worried about copy cat lawsuits if they don't fight this one and just pay to have the plaintiffs go away. That would start a dangerous precedent for them.

Or here's a thought. Counter sue the family. Prove they knew he was in violation of his work release, that they knew there was a warrant out for him, and that they didn't turn him in or do everything reasonable to keep him from attempting to commit the armed robbery... Make them out to be conspirators...

lethal tupperwa
07-20-2012, 10:22
should Kroger sue the parents for emotional distress caused by their felon of a son?

Thx-1138
07-20-2012, 11:04
He didn't rob that place on his own. Somebody else did that.

bleak_house
07-20-2012, 11:18
He didn't rob that place on his own. Somebody else did that.
+ 1

I think this will never get old.

janice6
07-20-2012, 11:31
Yeah. It took a village to rob the store.

SouthernBoyVA
07-20-2012, 11:42
Kroger should seriously consider bringing a suit against the plaintiff on this one as well as their attorney(s). Turn the tables on them and make their life miserable. If I'm not mistaken, Denny's did this when they were hit with a bogus discrimination suit.

Deaf Smith
07-20-2012, 17:41
This is interesting.

The plaintiff is saying Kroger is negligent for failing to enforce it's "no guns policy" on its employees. So if Kroger did not have a "no guns poilcy" then it would seem there should be no liability?

I doubt this goes anywhere. The amount is small enough that Kroger will likely just settle, which sucks.

http://www.indystar.com/article/20120719/NEWS02/207190360/Gunman-s-mother-sues-Kroger-over-fatal-shooting-during-attempted-robbery?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|IndyStar.com

But if it had a no guns policy how did the robber get a gun in? Oh, right he didn't work there.

Thank God I live in Texas cause here no jury would give them a dime.

Deaf

Paul53
07-20-2012, 20:26
The downtrodden need a hand up, leastwise she spit out a few more losers.

A hand up or a foot up?

Paul53
07-20-2012, 20:28
He didn't rob that place on his own. Somebody else did that.

It's all Obamas fault.

unit1069
07-20-2012, 23:20
I certainly hope Kroger has the cajones to fight this all the way to the end.

IndyGunFreak
07-20-2012, 23:33
But if it had a no guns policy how did the robber get a gun in? Oh, right he didn't work there.

Thank God I live in Texas cause here no jury would give them a dime.

Deaf

I don't think its going to go anywhere here in Indiana.

I believe this lawsuit was cleverly crafted by the womans attorneys.

The amount they are suing for, in the whole scheme of things.. is very very small. When you consider what Kroger's will spend in Attorney fees, they might just cut a check to get these idiots out of their hair. I firmly believe this is what the womans lawyers want Kroger to do. They'll get some easy coin in their pocket, this 70k won't even make a dent in Kroger's bottom line and the "grieving mother" will get probably 10-13k for the actions of her miscreant son.

If Kroger fights, they will spend well over 70k in legal fees.

This got me thinking maybe there should be some sort of protection for business owners under "Castle Doctrine" laws.. even if the business owner wasn't directly involved.

janice6
07-20-2012, 23:35
It's always about the money.

unit1069
07-20-2012, 23:45
If Kroger fights, they will spend well over 70k in legal fees.

Yes, but tort reform has to start somewhere and even if Kroger's legal fees are tripled that would still not put a dent into their bottom line, considering the principle at stake.

This convicted felon was in the act of committing another armed robbery, and if the plaintiff has a beef her lawyer should have gone after the individual hero who prevented the plaintiff's son from harming innocent Kroger employees. Corporations, to my knowledge, do not have the right to frisk employees to determine if anyone's lawfully concealing a firearm (albeit against company policy). It's not as if an innocent person suffered from the errant employee's conduct, after all.

If I was Kroger's CEO I'd begin filing counter lawsuits and turn this into a national issue. I have no doubt that with time and truth on my side the plaintiff would end up losing her fraudulent ploy for a "payday" at corporate expense. One of the chief reasons why "progressives" succeed in cowing individuals and organizations is because those entities don't have the nerve to fight back against neo-Stalinist tyranny as exemplified by the ACLU and Trial Lawyers Association.

IndyGunFreak
07-21-2012, 05:21
if the plaintiff has a beef her lawyer should have gone after the individual hero who prevented the plaintiff's son from harming innocent Kroger employees.

Yeah, but our Castle Doctrine prevents that...

Like I said, this just has greaseball lawyer tactics written all over it.

I hope Kroger runs up a massive bill and counter sues.

steveksux
07-21-2012, 09:12
So even though he came in to rob the place. kroger was supposed to keep him safe? :rofl:Just when your mind thinks it cannot become even more boggled... :rofl:

Randy

steveksux
07-21-2012, 09:14
He didn't rob that place on his own. Somebody else did that.
If the cops hadn't botched the investigation and done a proper forensic analysis of all the evidence, I think you'd find that those were NOT in fact the robbers pants that he was wearing when robbing the store.

Randy

cadillacguns
07-21-2012, 11:19
Sue the mother for spawning the robber.:dunno:

Stevekozak
07-21-2012, 12:24
the "grieving mother" will get probably 10-13k for the actions of her miscreant son.

.
Money which she will not report the the welfare agency, which means she will continue to recieve her foodstamps, which she will use to buy food to cook up for some baby daddy who will knock her up, so that she can receive even larger amounts of foodstamps, while raising more criminal children to make the world just a better place in which to live..........

unit1069
07-21-2012, 13:44
Yeah, but our Castle Doctrine prevents that...

Like I said, this just has greaseball lawyer tactics written all over it.

I hope Kroger runs up a massive bill and counter sues.

I certainly hope the Castle Doctrine would prevent the Kroger hero from legal repercussions but since he wasn't at home or in a vehicle would Castle Doctrine = Stand Your Ground in Indiana?

I think there's no doubt a reasonable person would find Kroger and the employee innocent of any charges, but Kroger would also have the right to fire the employee for violating company policy.

When I lived in Austin, Texas I had a friend who worked at Circle K. There had been a string of late-night robbery/murder incidents and one night a lone robber drew a gun and as the perp was circling behind a pillar my friend (ex-Army Pistol Team member) pulled his .25ACP and shot the man dead. Although police couldn't tie the dead perp to the other robbery/murder cases these incidents ended. My friend was subsequently fired for violating Circle K corporate policy. I'm wondering if the recent publicized incidents of fired-rehired employees who successfully prevented innocent bloodshed indicates that corporations are hearing the voice of the people instead of bending to the fear of nuisance lawsuits.

Bren
07-21-2012, 13:46
Could someone post the details of the shooting, please?

I tried to get the complaint from the District Court, but apparently the plaintiff and defendant names are not Kroger and Atkinson, because I can't find anything.

Never mind: It started with "The Estate of..." and "The Kroger Company."

The Complaint is scanned, so I can't copy and Paste the facts, but the facts section is 7 sentences long and the only ones about the event say he was "present at" the store, got into "an altercation with Kroger employees" and "Elliott shot and killed Atkinson with his firearms, the possession of which was a violation of Kroger's written policies."

steveksux
07-21-2012, 14:51
I tried to get the complaint from the District Court, but apparently the plaintiff and defendant names are not Kroger and Atkinson, because I can't find anything.

Never mind: It started with "The Estate of..." and "The Kroger Company."

The Complaint is scanned, so I can't copy and Paste the facts, but the facts section is 7 sentences long and the only ones about the event say he was "present at" the store, got into "an altercation with Kroger employees" and "Elliott shot and killed Atkinson with his firearms, the possession of which was a violation of Kroger's written policies."Wow, that actually sounds almost reasonable.... :whistling: And its all true. As long as the attorney filing the suit didn't leave out any pertinent details... :whistling: :supergrin:

Randy

IndyGunFreak
07-21-2012, 18:21
I certainly hope the Castle Doctrine would prevent the Kroger hero from legal repercussions but since he wasn't at home or in a vehicle would Castle Doctrine = Stand Your Ground in Indiana?

My mistake, I was tired when I wrote that... I meant Stand Your Ground.

http://www.usacarry.com/indiana_stand_your_ground_castle_doctrine_laws.html