This is just pathetic….why doesn’t she sue her dead sister for letting her get involved with such a dangerous guy? Why not sue her family in general for not helping her learn how to make better decisions about whom she surrounds herself with. Heck, why not sue the ex-spouse’s parents for raising such a violent person.
This is the kind of thing that makes me sick. Retail establishments have no duty to provide personal protection against every piece of human garbage that crawls the streets. If anyone should have known of the threat level, it’s the plaintiff herself. She could have found another job that afforded more security. No degreee of security could have protected against the assault on the sister, and no reasonable methods could have prevented the plaintiff from getting shot either. The only mistake that was made here was by the police taking the husband alive. Now he’ll become the taxpayers burden.
But,since it’s all about money and ex-husband has no assets, go after the deep pockets. I only hope B.J.’s doesn’t cave in and pay this woman anything.
Come on, leet’s be fair, how can you sue someone that doesn’t much assets and their homeowners would just deny.
What atatorney would take that case. At least this way you some a slight chance of getting some what I call Shut up and go away money.
What a great world we live in.
Here’s a final idea, we should all sue I.J. for print such violent stories that gives us nightmares, scares us to no end so we just can’t go to work and must go on disability. I’m sure we could find an attorney some where to handle the case.
If it was the local stop-n-rob where they were shot, I’d bet the suit would include them. I must have missed the comment about it not being about the money in the article.
There is a fairly recent Virginia Supreme Court ruling that consolidated two similar cases that supports BJ’s position.
Let’s hope they stick to their position and don’t cave. Enough of this bull.
If I were B.J.’s, I wait until the suit gets tossed, then I’d fire her greed ***. I’m convince people like this file lawsuits not just to make the money they lack the talent to earn, but to try and exhonerate themselves for being stupid. Her first mistake was using poor judgment by marrying a lunatic. Her second mistake was getting her sister involved and exposing her to injury. Her third mistake was not carrying her own gun.
If BJ did not about the situation, I think the employee should be put on unpaid leave until she or he works out their personal problems. Why danger the other employees because of a family dispute. I would hope the company I work for would do this for me. I want protection at my employment so people like this
gee, where are the warm and fuzzy liberals who want to defend the merits of this frivously lawsuit? is everybody out there logical today? looks like it!
My understanding is that a premises owner has no duty to protect its invitees from the unforseable and random acts of unknown third parties. If the Claimant was an innocent, non-party to the conflict between the ex-spuses, and BJ’s received a threat that the perp. was coming down to shoot everyone, then I would say that it would be possible that a jury finds BJ’s at least contributorily liable, if they did not at least warn its’ employees and call the cops to investigate the threats. Another critical question would be how much “protection” can an employer offer to its employees, especially in stores/places that is openly accessed by the public. I wonder if the Claimant received the threats directly. If so, did she notify management? Did she notify her sister? Did she call the cops if she felt the threats were real? If she didn’t, why would she expect her employer to exercise a higher degree of “look-out” and protection?
I once heard of a case out of NY, in which a McDonald’s patron was shot by a robber. the Claimant’s argument was that the robber would not have carried a gun, if Mcdonald’s did not have an armed security guard in this inner-city location. In other words, the robber knew he had to bring fire-power to make it a successful robbery. If I am not mistaken, a jury bought the allegations and awarded the claimant. I know I digress, but just goes to show you that the defenses to liability are so riddled, that any “B-school” attorney can take a shot at winning the big one.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
An employee with an angry and potentially violent ex-spouse lurking around….at least she did not lose her job over this guy’s creepy actions.
This is just pathetic….why doesn’t she sue her dead sister for letting her get involved with such a dangerous guy? Why not sue her family in general for not helping her learn how to make better decisions about whom she surrounds herself with. Heck, why not sue the ex-spouse’s parents for raising such a violent person.
This is the kind of thing that makes me sick. Retail establishments have no duty to provide personal protection against every piece of human garbage that crawls the streets. If anyone should have known of the threat level, it’s the plaintiff herself. She could have found another job that afforded more security. No degreee of security could have protected against the assault on the sister, and no reasonable methods could have prevented the plaintiff from getting shot either. The only mistake that was made here was by the police taking the husband alive. Now he’ll become the taxpayers burden.
But,since it’s all about money and ex-husband has no assets, go after the deep pockets. I only hope B.J.’s doesn’t cave in and pay this woman anything.
Come on, leet’s be fair, how can you sue someone that doesn’t much assets and their homeowners would just deny.
What atatorney would take that case. At least this way you some a slight chance of getting some what I call Shut up and go away money.
What a great world we live in.
Here’s a final idea, we should all sue I.J. for print such violent stories that gives us nightmares, scares us to no end so we just can’t go to work and must go on disability. I’m sure we could find an attorney some where to handle the case.
If it was the local stop-n-rob where they were shot, I’d bet the suit would include them. I must have missed the comment about it not being about the money in the article.
There is a fairly recent Virginia Supreme Court ruling that consolidated two similar cases that supports BJ’s position.
Let’s hope they stick to their position and don’t cave. Enough of this bull.
If I were B.J.’s, I wait until the suit gets tossed, then I’d fire her greed ***. I’m convince people like this file lawsuits not just to make the money they lack the talent to earn, but to try and exhonerate themselves for being stupid. Her first mistake was using poor judgment by marrying a lunatic. Her second mistake was getting her sister involved and exposing her to injury. Her third mistake was not carrying her own gun.
If BJ did not about the situation, I think the employee should be put on unpaid leave until she or he works out their personal problems. Why danger the other employees because of a family dispute. I would hope the company I work for would do this for me. I want protection at my employment so people like this
gee, where are the warm and fuzzy liberals who want to defend the merits of this frivously lawsuit? is everybody out there logical today? looks like it!
My understanding is that a premises owner has no duty to protect its invitees from the unforseable and random acts of unknown third parties. If the Claimant was an innocent, non-party to the conflict between the ex-spuses, and BJ’s received a threat that the perp. was coming down to shoot everyone, then I would say that it would be possible that a jury finds BJ’s at least contributorily liable, if they did not at least warn its’ employees and call the cops to investigate the threats. Another critical question would be how much “protection” can an employer offer to its employees, especially in stores/places that is openly accessed by the public. I wonder if the Claimant received the threats directly. If so, did she notify management? Did she notify her sister? Did she call the cops if she felt the threats were real? If she didn’t, why would she expect her employer to exercise a higher degree of “look-out” and protection?
I once heard of a case out of NY, in which a McDonald’s patron was shot by a robber. the Claimant’s argument was that the robber would not have carried a gun, if Mcdonald’s did not have an armed security guard in this inner-city location. In other words, the robber knew he had to bring fire-power to make it a successful robbery. If I am not mistaken, a jury bought the allegations and awarded the claimant. I know I digress, but just goes to show you that the defenses to liability are so riddled, that any “B-school” attorney can take a shot at winning the big one.