Speaking of Frivolous Lawsuits...

[peregrinerose 0]

What do ya'll think of this one?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/21/gun.lawsuit.ap/index.html

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[markd_nscr986 0]

I'm not a fan of Wal-mart,but it does sound like a bullshit lawsuit.They complied with all laws in effect in the sale of the shotgun

Marc SCR 6046 SCS 3004

[PhillyKev 0]

That's fucking lame, regardless of how you feel about guns. I sure as hell don't want a precedent set that your medical records should be reviewed by Walmart before you make a purchase of ANY kind.

[EricTheRed 0]

The lawsuit is frivolous.

The fact the Texas and 37 other states want to let people with serious mental illness own guns is also a bit funny.

Quote

Stewart, who had been involuntarily committed to an institution and declared dangerously mentally ill by a judge...
...Wal-Mart did a background check on Stewart, as required under federal law, but through no fault of its own, her name did not show up in the FBI database. The reason: The database contains no mental health records from Texas and 37 other states.

illegible usually

[EricTheRed 0]

I agree with you there. Medical records should be private.

A person that has been found incompetant or insane, however should have a bit more problem with it.

I'm actually OK with her killing herself (her choice) and am glad she didn't decide to off anybody else in the process.

illegible usually

[Paulipod 0]

I think that the parents are looking for someone to blame due to their distress / loss... after all, would they sue walmart if she had took a paracetamol overdose? - Same outcome.

On the flip side - it is a little stupid that once someone has been declared mentally unstable they are allowed to buy weapons. I dont think confidentiality would be an issue by adding people to a 'not allowed to buy a gun' list

Bodyflight Bedford
www.bodyflight.co.uk

[PhillyKev 0]

That's already the case "Federal law prohibits stores from selling guns to people who, like Stewart, have a history of serious mental illness."

This is another instance of existing laws not being enforced. Usually used as ammunition for people to try to pass more laws, when they would be better off pushing for better enforcement of those already in place.

[BIGUN 1,488]

Quote

"We know that if they had so much as said, `Why do you want this?' we would not be having this conversation because Shayla would have had a meltdown," said her stepfather, Garrett Bracy.

I wonder if Mom & Dad had said, "Honey, why are you going to WM? if

Quote

...we would not be having this conversation because Shayla would have had a meltdown.."

Nobody has time to listen; because they're desperately chasing the need of being heard.

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

That's fucking lame, regardless of how you feel about guns. I sure as hell don't want a precedent set that your medical records should be reviewed by Walmart before you make a purchase of ANY kind.

Agreed.

Maybe it should be the parent's responsibility to keep an eye on their daughter??

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Quote

"We know that if they had so much as said, `Why do you want this?' we would not be having this conversation because Shayla would have had a meltdown," said her stepfather, Garrett Bracy.

That is lame. Do you think she would have told the clerk "I'm planning on killing myself" when asked? This is why she went to another WM instead of the one she worked at.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[peregrinerose 0]

With the HIPPA laws that were passed, it is illegal for any medical professional of any type to share any information of any kind with anyone unless having written consent from the patient. So even if there was a way for docs to put people on a 'not allowed to buy guns' list, it would be illegal for them to do so based on privacy acts.

The girl would have bumped herself off another way if not with a gun, so it is doubtful that having a gun or not would have prevented her suicide.

I wonder if the parents see this as a way to make a buck?

Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda

[AndyMan 7]

Every time the discussion of frivolous lawsuits comes up, the example cited is ALWAYS the case of a person suing a corporation. Ever wonder about why all frivolous lawsuits are people against corporations? Answer: They're not.

Most sucessful trial-lawyer consider marketing and "press management" a big part of their responsibility. Many corporate lawyers write the press releases that end up heavily quoted in articles like the this one. www.groklaw.org had a great article discussing this last week, but I can't get the clicky because they're down.

Not surprisingly, any talk of "tort reform" tends to revolve around the issue of stopping people from suing companies. That disturbs me.

If you ever dig into the issue of frivolous lawsuits, by far the worst cases are almost always businesses against businesses.

Here's a great example, Allstate sues Kraft because a toaster strudel caught fire while being (over) heated, and did significant damage to the house... Because somehow Kraft is responsible for a dumb-assed person over-cooking a pastry. http://www.record-eagle.com/2003/mar/31toast.htm.

Here's another one: Caterpillar sues the Walt Disney Company for portraying bulldozers in a negative light in their movie "George of the Jungle 2." http://www.boycottriaa.com/article/8472

A third: Mattel also sued the recording label MCA when musical group Aqua released the song "Barbie Girl." Mattel claimed that the song defamed Barbie becuase her name was used as a sexual innuendo. Both suits were dismissed. http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ip/mattelmca72402opn.pdf

I have no idea if this above lawsuit is merritted. I DO know that the press article attached would have been largely quoted verbatim from a press release written by the defending attorney. We, as consumers of media, are horribly ill-equipped to judge the merrits of the case. I do know that judges are very well equipped to "judge" the validity of the complaint. That's their job. Let's leave it to them to judge, then we can all arm-chair quarter-back after the game is over.

Corporations are using the notion of "Frivolous lawsuits" to get out of very legitimate lawsuits every day, while launching countless ones of their own.

A good primer on this notion is here http://www.atla.org/homepage/bizvsbiz03.aspx.

__

You put the fun in "funnel" - craichead.

[bch7773 0]

the parents deserve nothing. thats stupid that they expect a bunch of walmart guys to somehow read the minds of their customers.

but I think the dilema is whether or not texas and those 37 other states should tell the FBI that a person has been institutionalized or declared insane. because i personally think no crazy person should be able to buy guns, unless a period of time has passed since they were unstable (like 5 years)

MB 3528, RB 1182

[kelpdiver 2]

no one gets declared "insane," so institutionalization is usually the standard. But privacy concerns would make it difficult to implement a system beyond the current one that relies on the person signing the purchase DROS. This sort of automatic 'penalty' for seeking medical care would serve to discourage people from doing so, which is not in society's interests.

Legislation could be written that would stay boundaries, but history shows that our government can't be relied to stay within them, esp when it comes to gun purchase records that were supposed to be destroyed. The same concerns came out over HIV testing amid talks from some about quaranteeing.