5280 Busa

Did anyone hear about AutoZone firing a guy for defending himself and his co-worker?

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/auto...-armed-robber/

moosejaw

I wouldn't say necesarilly WTF

Yes I've checked with local authorities and they feel defending your place of work is the same as defending your home. However it is Autozone policy which dictates this. Every single retailer does not condone employees acting as vigilantes on their behalf. What would happen if this employee shot the perp?

Headline reads "Nationwide retailer has a employee that saves the day by shooting robbery suspect".
Six months later, suspect attorney contacts Autozone to discuss monetary compensation for loss of work, emotional distress, hospital bills, etc....

Doesnt matter what the intentions of either party were at the time. It will go to court and will cost big. Autozone's insurers will negotiate a payout, and the employee gets sacked anyways.

You can sue in this country for anything.

Example...Family in my townhouse complex (im on the condo board) drove their car onto our docks and into the intracoastal waterway. Our docks and right of way were properly constructed to code with a full curb and bollards placed throughout. The daughter was underaged, no license, and at the wheel of her Dad's Cayenne Turbo S. Lost control killed her and her mother. Only lived her parents for two months out of her life since she had lived with her grandparents in france her whole life.

Anyways TV stations come out, ambulance chasers abound, six months later our insurance company for the property sends our renewal notice for the year with a major increase. The father was awarded $1.5 million for the incident which had nothing to do with us. We didnt even know about the amount/litigation until we inquired.

So end of story as with any business owner, I would have to side with Autozone
Sucks a baby is on the way and its Thanksgiving.

BerBer63

i have to agree with autozone. Family of dead robber or injured robber sues autozone, not the employee. Robber cashes out. It's happened before. I don't agree with it but just the way the cookie crumbles...

ocapella

Point me to a story where the robber is able to sue for getting injured while a robbing store with a fu*@ing gun. That makes no sense, wtf would you sue for? There has to be more to this.

moosejaw

Yes it can happen
It wont even make into court or in front of a judge. It will get settled way before that point.
This is whats wrong with our legal system.

The same argument applies to the idiot who spills Coffee on themselves and then sues McDonalds because the coffee was too hot.

Here are those links btw....
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_1...69-504083.html

http://www.wibc.com/news/Story.aspx?ID=1741886

Here is a list of crazy lawsuits where judgement was rendered in favor of the plantiff
http://www.2spare.com/item_65657.aspx

There are 15 million frivolous lawsuits filed each year in the united states.
Google "tort reform" and you will have a better understanding of what happens in our civil common legal system.

The Autozone employee should have not taken the law into his own hands, its not his business to defend. He has no ground.

Das Geld 2

I'm never going to autozone again. I actually hope the lawyers one day are in a life and death situation and are forced to die because they aren't HYPOCRITES RIGHT!

BerBer63

Employee chases supermarket thief with personal car. Employee and thief get in accident with other people. Thief and other people sue employer that employs employee. That's a personal story. Every company will pay out before it goes to court, so thief wins. Pay 50k to move on or waste 200k and time/stress going to court.

Bully Medic

It isn't really a fact of fear of a lawsuit. However, the employee knowingly violated a Company Policy by bringing the weapon to the workplace (at AutoZone, even the parking lot is considered the workplace). By not punishing the employee, they send the message that violation of policy is OK if it benefits the Corporation.
Granted, anyone can sue for anything. However, most of these cases never meet litigation. Not due to out of court settlement, but because the Judge thows it out. For the cases that do make it to court, it is usually due to excessive use of force (like the first link MooseJaw provided. In that case, the employee had no due diligence to protect person or property since the perp had fleed the premises. Also, the perp had a KNIFE. The employee shot him (as he was running away). This does not meet the "lforce of like kind" criteria of most states. Then, the employee beat the perp (who had 3 GSW's) until Police arrived (making for an illegality during a citizens arrest). Most people who have taken a Concealled Carry Course can pick that case apart, as the employee was a wrong as a (insert your favorite pun here).

Peter_02AMG

I got a fu*king story..my sister family living in florida while they were on vacation a robbery broke into her home through the sky light. He fell and broke both of his legs. He was able to call 911 on her land line and the cops and EMS boken through the front door to save his sorry asses.

They have to cut their vacation short and come home, later that evening my 7yr old nephew at the time found a gun stuff under the cushion of the couch. They call the cop and turn it over. Month later the robbery sued her for his broken legs and medical bill. They went to court and they robbery won! WTF is wrong with our legal system?!!

chrono12

While I do think it is ridiculous to sue in 99% of those instances, I would like to correct the McDonalds one. I had to read up on it in college and McDonalds had been settling out of court for hundreds and hundreds of cases. The old lady who the law suit was filed on behalf of, had suffered second degree burns over the majority of her thighs and afterwards McD's wanted to pay 1/10th of her hospital bills and have her sign a confidentiality agreement so she couldn't say anything negative about the company.

Her family lawyer requested records and saw the ridiculous number of cases of injury due to hot beverages and improper employee handling and improper labeling.

So the case was merely done to have the company change it's operating proceedures (it worked) because they obviously weren't learning their lesson. There is a pretty good video about the whole situation and the kind elderly lady just paid off her hospital bills, put a little aside for her grand-kids college and then donated a boat load of her money to charities. She isn't living large at the sake of the company or anything.

TheOtherDodge

moosejaw, keep in mind that is ONLY a list of people who are suing. It doesn't mean they won.

Everyone understands that WE are the reason for these lawsuits right? WE are the ones awarding the lawsuits in court....

TheOtherDodge

And too add/clarify to this, McDonalds knew thier coffee was dangerously hot and way above the industry temperature but wanted to keep it that way so thier coffee would taste better longer.

chrono12

And I think they had lied multiple times about intent to change policy previously.

moosejaw

Note that a fair number of those settlements are are already determined by third parties....ie Insurance Companies, the home corporate office, etc.....
These bogus filings know it will never see a judge, but they will sure milk the system to cost the defendant and their atty every dollar they have.

For example.
A freind of mine was threatened with a lawsuit yesterday by a vendor who copies other manufacturer's products. His exact words were......"Just to Defend yourself alone without a Legal Case is going to cost you the equivalent in attorney fees of some Renntech go fast goodies"

PM me if you want more info.

efiftyfizzle

I understand both sides of the story, but being a victim of a in-home robbery in the past, I have no sympathy for these gutless cowards. If you are going to break in to someone's house with a deadly weapon and pose the threat to shoot, then anyone posing the same threat against you should not be held accountable for violating the law.

moosejaw

I think we need to make clear
A lot of us are reacting to what we feel is "Criminal Justice"
However my comments reflect "Civil Justice"

Its important to differentiate the two.
We're smart guys here, but Criminal law is intended to punish those who are guilty.
Civil law such as the ones talked about here is admittance of liability. In a civil case, the burden of proof is not on the plaintiff but also on defendant to refute the evidence. If the plaintiff can successfully show harm, loss, or injury to himself, the defendant is deemed responsible. No one is punished or rendered guilty of a crime. Its just a issue of liability.

BTW i didnt know that McDonalds intentionally overcooked their coffee so that is was impossible to drink. 190* is way too hot. You have to dig deep for that info.

ocapella

Sorry didn't mean to get all worked up. Moose, thanks for the links...looks like the first one was a knife and the second might have been as well. Regardless, I understand your point.

Peter not sure what grounds the robber could have sued on, but that's a sad story.

Peter_02AMG

What I was told was as a home owner or business owner if anyone fell or get hurt on your properties than you are responsible even if that person is trying to rob you.

It could of been worse, my nephew could of shot himself or his sister by accident not knowing it a real gun but does that matter to the court? NOPE!

My family was shocked! My sister was so upset she switch major from doctor to law. Now she is a lawyer and she tell me stories of how people sued each other for anything even the people that try to save their life.

TheOtherDodge

"What I was told was as a home owner or business owner if anyone fell or get hurt on your properties than you are responsible even if that person is trying to rob you."

I don't believe this to be true. There are plenty of cases where people are shot trying to rob someone's home and there are no lawsuits.

Most of the time, there is more to a story than is reported. Ever hear of the guy that is suing because he had the wrong foot amputated? You wonder how and the heck this could happen! I worked in a hospital for 7 years and this came up in a news report while I was working there. I asked one of our doctors about this and he explained.... In that particular case, both feet were to be amputated (frost bite), but they were going to do it during 2 different surgeries at 2 different times (few days apart). Both feet were horrendous. The patient signed to have the surgery to have the left foot amputated, and yes, a goof up occured and the right foot got amputated. And yup, by law, the patient had a right, and did, sue. It wasn't like the other foot was perfect and they cut off a perfect foot. But the story doesn't report that little tidbit of a fact!

moosejaw

There are good samaritan laws in place in all states to protect those who aid a person in distress. However some states have better laws than others. Most states protect medical personnel/doctors but leave the general public exposed. Eg... a doctor who renders medical aid on a plane in mid flight cant be sued, but the same doctor doing the same procedure in his place of employment can.

I wonder know when that drugged out guy started eating that homeless dude taking a nap under the tree on the Rickenbacker Causeway (the Miami Beach Zombie), there were all these people were taking video yet no one stopped to render aid or call 911. Pretty much all states and western countries have a law where bystanders are required to render aid(if able to do so) and at the very least report the crime. But these people were too busy taking video to bother reporting it.

TheOtherDodge

And moosejaw, because of all the threats of law suits a lot of people are scared to get involved! There is less chance to get sued if you don't do anything than if you get involved! Pretty sorry state of the country we live in huh?

Das Geld 2

The good thing is you don't need to pay **** and they can have fun collecting all their life. Looks at OJ Simpson he didn't pay a dime of the 33 million payout yet.

Street Justice is the only justice, the courtroom is for suckers. Clint Eastwood proved that in dirty harry already.

Bully Medic

is this a "story", or a "true story"? I have heard several versions of the skylight "story", stemming back to my College Tort Law classes. Typically, most of these suits hinge on a "duty to warn". I am surprised that insurance would have paid out, since there was no "duty to warn", or "reasonable person standard".

For instance, you own a grocery store that you are renovating. You have dug a 12 foot deep ditch outside the exit, but failed to close the exit, or to post rails or warnings. A man robs you, and as he is running out the door marked "exit", he in turn falls in the 12 foot ditch, breaking a leg. In this case, the commision of his crime would be negligible, as he could have fallen in the ditch regardless of the crime, due to business owners negligence in his "duty to warn".

Bully Medic

Most States protect untrained rescuers to some degree (usually covering CPR). However, there are some States I would suggest you keep on moving (Alabama and Oklahoma), and call 911.

While good Samaritan laws were created for medical practioners, it is not very clear cut. If a Dr. licensed in California intubates a car accident victim in Ohio, his license could come under scrutiny. Or he could be charged with practicing medicine without a license.

This happened to me in 2007. As a Combat Medic, I am trained to treat traumas that Civilian providers may never see, using methods that some Paramedics never have done. When responding to an accident in front of my NC home, I performed an Emergency Cric. This is something I am trained/authorized to do as a Combat medic, however as a Licensed EMT, I am not. Even though I was not working for any State or Local EMS provider, and my license is held solely by the Military it was suspended for 90 days. Reson: practicing outside of my licensed scope of practice. What saved me in the investigation was that the driver was a Soldier, and the roadway was still considered to be part of the Ft. Bragg Reservation.