Walmart Watch is raising funds to help pay for the ongoing care of the woman who was hit by a semi. [Walmart Watch]


Edit Your Comment

  1. mopar_man says:

    Another wonderful fine print clause and more proof that Wal-Mart is more evil than the RIAA.

  2. homerjay says:

    The other way they could raise money for her is by suing her less. Just cuz they can doesn’t mean they should.

    That being said- the guys lawyer should have known to sue for the cost of care even though it was covered by insurance.

  3. homerjay says:

    Oh wait, sorry. Walmart-WATCH, not Walmart, is raising funds. Yeah, Walmart wouldn’t want to be helpful in any way….

  4. EtherealStrife says:

    Oooh lets hate on walmart for not allowing double dipping!

  5. homerjay says:

    They weren’t double-dipping. They were trying to make themselves whole. This woman all but died. Paying her medical bills far from makes them whole. They were seeking financial support that insurance doesn’t cover when you lose a contributing family member. Like I said, in my opinion, this isn’t WalMart or the family’s fault. Its the guys lawyer who should have known better than to not sue the trucking company to cover medical bills paid by insurance PLUS what they really wanted.

    WalMart doesn’t HAVE to destroy this family for a second time, they’re just doing it because they only care about their bottom line- which I guess is their prerogative as a business but its also my prerogative to hate them a little more for it.

  6. crypticgeek says:

    @homerjay: You are trying to have it both ways with your opinion. First you say it’s the lawyer’s fault, but then you place blame with walmart because they don’t HAVE to sue. Well yeah, they could take a loss…but they have the opportunity to recover these costs from this money that she’s not even really entitled to. Oh boo hoo, she almost died. Yeah, we know. That doesn’t mean she somehow DESERVES the extra cash from being paid for her medical bills twice. Walmart is legally in the right, and personally I think they are right to recover their costs.

  7. homerjay says:

    @crypticgeek: I hear your point, but I think the bottom line is will it be as painful to WalMart if they don’t recoup the money that they’ve already written off as it would be to the family who can’t afford to live?

    See, WalMart management is made up of something call “PEOPLE.” Often times people are capable of compassion. The family wasn’t suing WalMart so WalMart has no reason to be vindictive. They’re doing it because they just don’t give a shit how their actions affect people. If your company decided to stop contributing to your 401K because they wanted to keep more money for themselves, would you be saying “Well, they’re fully within the law to do that so good for them.”

    Just because they CAN doesn’t mean they have to sue. It would not affect their bottom line in the least to push this aside.