Settlement In Shopper Stampede Case; Wal-Mart Avoids Criminal Charges
Wal-Mart will not face criminal charges in the death of temporary holiday worker Jdimytai Damour at its Valley Stream, NY store. Damour was posted at the front of the store when the out-of-control early morning crowd broke the door down, and he was trampled to death.
Nassau County District Attorney Kathleen Rice, who began a criminal investigation shortly after last November's customer stampede at Wal-Mart's Valley Stream store, said that if she had brought criminal charges against the retailer in the worker's death, the company would have been subject to only a $10,000 fine if convicted. Rice declined to say what charges were considered against Wal-Mart, citing the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.
Instead, she said, the company has agreed to implement an improved crowd-management plan for post-Thanksgiving Day sales, set up a $400,000 victims' compensation and remuneration fund, and give a $1.5 million grant to Nassau County social services programs and nonprofit groups.
Shoppers who recieve money from the compensation and remuneration fund must agree not to pursue civil suits against Wal-Mart.
Wal-Mart to pay victims of stampede [Newsday]
Wal-Mart pays $2M to avoid charges in death probe [AP] (Thanks, Steve!)
Photo: kelly zen
Post a comment
Comments:
hmmm
Sounds fair to me. I'd rather take $2 million from Walmart than a $10,000 fine and a corporate conviction that won't mean anything.
This is incredibly stupid. While I'm all for the Wal-Mart hating, the herd of animals that ran over the worker should be paying somehow. When objects become more of a priority than that of a life, we've lost the human race.
I wonder how long the CIVIL CASE by Jdimytai Damour's family against Wal-Mart is going to take? Perhaps, a settlement will be reached there too.
I feel very conflicted by this outcome.
On the one hand, it might possibly lead to safe holiday shopping in the future.
On the other hand, it looks like everyone who was guilty in helping cause this disaster will get away without penalty. And there's even plenty of blame to go around.
The police/security presence was proven to be inadequate.
The store managers did nothing to address the mob brewing outside their store.
Obviously the guiltiest party are the ones who did the trampling. However, mob mentality has been shown to override all logic in people; I really hate to say it, but they might not have really know what they were doing.
With Walmart and the police getting a free pass, the situation has turned into "oops! A kid gone done git trampled! But we'll throw money at the problem and everything will be better next year! Ya'll come back now, ya hear?"
No, that doesn't look fishy at all. Way to buy your way out of a mess.
How does the ethics committee even think that is okay?
@I Wear Nice Hats: I should clarify that I am not implying that there is 'Wal-Mart hating' in this article. I meant that in general I usually despise Wal-Mart and its practices.
I put most of the blame on the mob for this. For God's sake, a man was kiled, and when told they would have to leave the store because of the incident, people raged. These people had no shame. They should have been taken outside, lined up and shot.
Really, though - what good would criminal charges do? Who wuld serve the sentence?
Spelling FAIL
I'm not of the crowd that thinks Wal-Mart is necessarily to blame for this. The people in that crowd killed that guy. I know it would be hard, but they should be brought to justice.
The argument that a "mob mentality" excuses them is ridiculous and insulting. They didn't realize they were walking on another individual? Really?
Since I know they won't be hunted down and prosecuted, though, I hope in my heart of hearts that they all feel shame and guilt and horror at their actions.
@I Wear Nice Hats: The last I heard they were trying to identify people in the crowd from security footage but it's probably hopeless. Seriously the whole incident was beyond horrible, those people really should be brought to justice.
I still kinda feel like Wal-Mart got off light here. Department stores not only allow, but encourage the sort of behavior displayed by the crowd in this case. They allow crowds to start forming over 24hours in advance of the sale in some cases, which leads to tired, angry, weather-worn shoppers who will be damned if they're going to miss out on the sale they want because someone ran to the aisle quicker than they did. It becomes a rage-fueled race to see who can get to the bargains first, and the stores (not just Wal-Mart, but all retailers) put in place the conditions to ensure that things will go south when the doors open. Hell, the early morning deals are even referred to as "door buster sales".
Sure, the people who did the trampling are responsible for their actions, but no one in that crowd was thinking "I'm gonna run over this guy, eff him" they were all thinking "I need to get back there before [insert item here] is sold out!!" I'm not saying that makes it ok, all I'm saying is that this happened because Wal-Mart
1. publicly hyped the limited quantity of their "door buster" items to ensure a large crowd of holiday shoppers
2. Allowed said crowd to line up under harsh weather conditions long before the store opened
3. Provided inadequate security and crowd control measures once the doors did open.
All of that lead to a tired, angry mob when the doors opened. The crowd did the trampling, but only after Wal-Mart lit a fire under their ass and pointed them toward the store.
The dead man's family should have received at least $2 million for their loss alone.
I'm astonished that it did not occur to WalMart before that it needed to implement this crowd-control plan. It's not like this is the first time such an incident has ever happened. Guess it took bad national publicity for them to give a rip about dead employees.
I don't see any reason why Walmart should be at fault here. They didn't kill this guy, a mob of morons who cared more about getting the best deal than being decent, civil human beings killed him. As long as they implemented what they thought would be reasonable crowd control, I think they are completely blameless. The fact their crowd control turned out to be inadequate should be irrelevant. The only thing that matters as far as I'm concerned is that they implemented what they thought would be reasonable crowd control measures (obviously there is a level of objectivity to this, too). I'm not sure they could be reasonably expected to anticipate that they crowd would literally break down the door and trample a guy to death. More effort needs to be put into identifying the individuals in the mob, rather than directing it at the deepest pockets.
@RStui: The way I see it, responsibility for this is shared. The mob shares part of it, but Walmart does as well. They allowed mobs to form in front of their store and mill about for hours. They also failed to properly control and monitor that mob. Once the doors opened, the situation was primed for a free-for-all that no employee could hope to contain, much less do so safely.
So it isn't really that mob mentality excuses anything. It's that when you have a situation where hordes of people are not properly handled, the probable outcome is mob mentality. It's very easy for things to get out of control at that point. Again, not that the actual tramplers bear no responsibility - they do. But there is a difference between an excuse and an explanation.
@I Wear Nice Hats: You can't "hold the people responsible accountable" There were hundreds of people, and if one of the first folks to pass this guy had stopped to help, we'd be talking about 2 dead folks. With hundreds of people pushing on you from behind, you have no choice but to move forward. If you think you could identify the exact one (or 10) out of that group of people, then I'd start giving some serious thought to working for CSI somewhere - your Zoom/Enhance skills must be amazing
@I Wear Nice Hats: There's no indication from this particular story that the herd of animals won't be prosecuted, if they are ever identified. In this case, it's only Walmart that won't be criminally prosecuted, but they ended up paying more than if they had been convicted.
@What The Geek: This isn't the civil case that was settled, it was the criminal case, and even though the charges were dropped, Walmart paid 200 times more ($2 million) than if they were convicted (maximum $10,000 fine). I don't see how they got off light. The civil trials are still pending.
@What The Geek: I've seen commercials where the whole idea of mobs waiting for the doors to open is spoofed and presented as funny. I agree retailers do encourage this kind of thing (not death by trampling, but the whole "let's camp out in front of a store" thing, which only makes people agitated and antsy).
It's up to people to, in the end, not behave that way, but it's not cool to encourage it either. In a perfect world people would know better than that, but as we all know, it's not a perfect world.
I find it interesting and appalling and a lack of Wally-Worlds usual corporate responsibility that (per the attached AP story) that they only agree to "improve safety at its 92 New York stores". So I guess at their thousands of other stores in other states shoppers are just SOL when it comes to their new and improved "safety" measures
Walmart is nothing short of guilty. It would be one thing if this was a situation where there was legitimately a low supply of something....say a medication in short supply or maybe the release of (insert game console here). (Now that I think about it the latter one probably isn't legitimate, considering how console makers deliberately release their systems with a low supply, most likely for the extra hype.)
On the other hand, Walmart could offer as many TVs as they want at these sales...it's not like there's a shortage of LCD TVs or anything. However, they place limits on how many they offer for obvious reasons.
@Jakuub:
I can't agree with that. The primary actors at fault here are the hoards of mindless idiots that Americans (probably all humans) are - dangle low prices in front of them, and the life of the person in front of them well and truly becomes worthless.
People suck. And the larger the group of people you have, the greater the per-capita rating of suckitude.
"if she had brought criminal charges against the retailer in the worker's death, the company would have been subject to only a $10,000 fine"
Yeah, but if Walmart was a convicted felon, it wouldn't be able to buy guns or vote anymore.
;)
@YouDidWhatNow?: The primary actor is Wal-Mart, who had a poor crowd management strategy and put the employee in danger.
There's no way to hold anyone in the crowd responsible. The nature of large crowds is that they behave collectively: no single raindrop caused the flood. It takes coordination and planning on the event (here Wal-Mart) management level to make sure that nobody gets hurt when you have hundreds of people amassed in some common purpose.
This is why there's an industry and scientific research dedicated to crowd dynamics.
@RStui: Ever been in a really crushing, pressing mob where you don't want to move but literally have no choice, and are shoved along on the tide against your will?
I have. Not at a Black Friday sale or at a Wal-Mart, but on public transit systems. It's scary as hell being carried along in a literal mob like that, not least because unless you are 6'6" and over 400 pounds, there is not a single thing you can do about it. Digging in your heels doesn't work. Elbowing people doesn't work. And if the mob is really determined, shouting doesn't work. The people in the front shouldn't have shoved the guy, but they were being pushed from behind. The people in the middle trampled over him too, but they probably literally did not have a choice over whether or not to surge forward.
The real issue, I think is that a mob of that nature was allowed to form in the first place. It shouldn't be. And it's one thing when it happens on a transit system, but it's another entirely when it happens in a big box store -- which has a parking lot, and ground space, which means it has queuing space. The people in the mob should have known better than to behave that way, and the store causing the mob should have handled it better.
The problem with that line of reasoning is that just about every major retail store does the same thing for Black Friday. Also this is the first publicized case (that I'm aware of anyway) where someone was actually trampled to death during one of these events. I think it came as a shock to everyone and I'd be surprised if most stores didn't take some additional precautions this year. I really don't see any reason for criminal charges against WalMart here. (civil is another matter) It's not like this event could have been easily predicted and that having him do his job was egregiously negligent. Am I missing something here?
@YouDidWhatNow?: So, you really meant "I agree with that", since all of your supporting statements agree with what you replying to?
@Michael Belisle: I mean the first time someone was killed in a Black Friday stampede. Obviously people die on Black Friday all the time.
@_NARC_: "give a $1.5 million grant to Nassau County social services programs and nonprofit groups." Seriously, how is this not a bribe?
I see this like OJ. They couldn't get him for murder, so they got him for armed robbery (but really murder).
Walmart does all sorts of awful things to it's customers, suppliers, workers, towns, and the environment. If someone can get them on SOMETHING, even if it's unrelated to any of the above issues, they deserve it.
@Esquire99: Wal-Mart absolutely should have anticipated it. Here, someone more lawyerly than me has a good explanation about why it's legally Wal-Mart's fault and it's impossible to prosecute anyone in the crowd.
From a mathematical perspective, I say it's not the crowds fault because you can model crowd dynamics without modeling the thought of anyone in the crowd. What anyone is thinking or what the crowd or what objective is doing there is irrelevant.
All that matters is that there was a crowd, it was amassed by Wal-Mart, and they failed to have a sufficient crowd management strategy to handle it, and they put an employee in fatal danger.
@Michael Belisle:
That's one TV Judge's, plaintiff-slanted opinion, and it's not terribly substantive. To a point, my argument is more policy oriented rather than legally oriented. There may indeed be a law under which Walmart could be prosecuted for this; I simply don't think there should be. Also, it's complete BS to say that this wasn't the crowds fault.
And the mere fact that they didn't provide sufficient crowd control isn't dispositive of the issue. Making a decision and having it be wrong doesn't make you liable. As long as their crowd control measures were reasonable when enacted, even if they ultimately were insufficient, Wal-Mart shouldn't be liable. If they did what they reasonably that was sufficient, the fact it wasn't shouldn't subject them to criminal or civil liability. I think it's ridiculous for the store to pay because people trying to get into the store lost all civility and trampled a guy to death.
The sad thing is they'll end up paying out a huge civil settlement to the family, which will ultimately just result in higher prices for the rest of us.
Wal-Mart really should compensate the family of the "temporary" employee. He was a human being after all, small paycheck or not; if it were a Wal-Mart executive that got trampled, of course things would be on a whole 'nother level...
@Riff-Raff: If any of the mob were tried in this death, it would be easy to claim "temporary insanity"...Gather lots of foolish people together with a common goal (saving money) and an obstacle (entrance to Walmart), and watch the obstacle meet its destruction...
@Jakuub: Ive been in enough giant mosh pits to know that 100+ people slamming in to each other if very difficult to hold back, but not impossible. What usually happens in cases like this is that the people either dont see the guy on the ground, or assume he is ok and keep going. If 1 or 2 people were to stop and help the person, it creats a chain reaction of people stopping, or moving around them, not through them. In addition, even if 2 or three more people did fall becasue of the crowd, it would likely cause a large reaction of more people tripping and falling on one another, not just getting stomped on, and the guy probabaly wouldnt have died.
@Esquire99: The sad thing is they'll end up paying out a huge civil settlement to the family, which will ultimately just result in higher prices for the rest of us that shop at Wal-Mart. There, fixed that for you, because I'm guessing this blog is not a hotbed of WalMart shoppers.
Also, as far as your argument that WalMart's crowd control measures were reasonable and they should not being liable, on a criminal level I agree with you, but on a civil level not so much. WalMart was responsible for the safety of their employee / contractor.
@humphrmi:
I totally agree that they are duty-bound to protect their workers, but only within reason. Really it comes down to foreseeability. Could WalMart reasonably foresee that the measures they put in place would be so insufficient as to result in the trampling of an employee? If the answer is yes, then they are liable. If the answer is no, they are not liable. Further, the employee may bear some risk, particularly if he took the temporary job knowing he'd be doing crowd control. I doubt a bouncer at a club would have much luck suing their employer if a drunk club-goer punched him in the face. It really all comes down to the facts, most of which we don't have.
I suppose I take issue mostly with the (very prevalent) attitude that regardless of the circumstances, this is WalMart's fault, and not the animal-like crowd that trampled this poor guy to death.
@xtc46: It's not a great analogy; the people at the front of the crowd in a mosh pit are at their "destination" - most don't have any desire to go further; the people going into Walmart did, and would have continued pushing until they reached their goal - whatever Walmart crap they so badly needed. I think you fail to realize that this is more people than were in your 100+ mosh pit, moving through a space that's maybe 20 feet wide, total. There's no "stopping" with 100's of people pushing you forward, and no 'chain reaction' of people stopping.
@xtc46:
That's not true. Read the article. Walmart setup a $400k fund to compensate any and all of the victims that were involved in the incident (others were injured). How much each person gets from the fund is likely up to the fund administrator. Either way, this $400k isn't going directly to the family. In fact, the workers family may not draw a penny from it, as doing so would require them to waive their right to sue.
I really hope that retailers tone it down a bit for this black friday. With all due respect to the victim, is it really necessary to have these fire sales where a mob will form just to get a couple material goods you could get any other day of the year on sale? People are going to buy stuff during the holiday season no matter what. I think all retailers should look at this case and if they are going to have a sale, make sure that they have proper security and policies in place for the event. If we are so desperate for material goods as a society that we have to compromise the safety of the general public and the safety of the retail workers then something needs to be examined with the whole system.
People are going to act like douchbags on BF no matter what is done, but what can be done is having proper security and policies in place so that a small problem does not turn into someone getting killed or injured because a retailer is having a sale. If a mob is forming it should be broken up early before it turns into a very large mob that cannot be controlled. There are signs that a mob is forming and its entirely possible to diffuse one before it gets out of hand. With that being said, any person trying to start trouble should be ejected from the site immediately.
I don't mean to excuse Wal-Mart, their failure to anticipate this was definatly a major factor in the man's death... but seriously, how about some charges against the people who actually did the TRAMPLING?