Motor Home Travelers Attacked In Walmart Parking Lot Sue Company

Back in 2006, a Florida couple parked an RV in a Utah Walmart and shot and killed an intruder. Now the couple is suing Walmart, saying the company knew the creep was lurking about but didn’t alert authorities, the Salt Lake Tribune reports.

The couple, which says Walmart failed to call police despite being told by customers the guy was causing mayhem earlier that day, wants Walmart to cough up medical and legal costs, as well as general damages.

No charges were filed in the shooting, in which the couple said the attacker forced his way inside the motor home then wrestled the travelers for control of the shotgun they used to kill him.

Walmart is known for opening up its parking lots for weary RV travelers. If you’ve traveled by RV, what was your experience spending the night in a Walmart lot?

Family sues Walmart over intruder in store lot [Salt Lake Tribune]
(Thanks, Marty!)


Edit Your Comment

  1. Alvis says:

    Christ, what assholes. They’re going to ruin this for every other RVer.

    • Eyeheartpie says:

      They don’t care, as long as they get theirs. Typical of so many people nowadays.

    • digital0verdose says:

      Exactly what I was thinking.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      I know. It’s too bad they didn’t warn RVers. Now they might rescind their RV policy just because Walmart had to be a bunch of assholes.

    • c!tizen says:

      I’m wondering when Wal-mart is going to counter sue the couple for killing their creepy parking lot guy, who coincidentally kept out most of the vagrants.

    • greggen says:

      So.. If a company can ignore safety issues on their property if they do something like.. Offer to let RV’ers stay on their property?

      I mean, they LET RV’ERS STAY ON THEIR PROPERTY!!1 Why should they be bothered to respond to reports of some creep lurking about suspiciously? Seriously, anyone who opens their heart to teh RV should be exempt from any other hassles..

      • c!tizen says:

        In Wal-marts defense, calling the cops would have only temporarily solved the problem while letting the RV couple deal with it solved it indefinitely.

    • tbax929 says:

      This was my first thought as well. Fucking Americans always suing for everything that happens. The fact that they let RVs park in their lots is one of the nice things Walmart actually does. I bet that won’t be allowed for much longer now. Assholes.

      • Geekmom says:

        That guy could have attacked someone in a car or walking to their store just as easily as the RV, Walmart is responsible for reporting things like this.

        • Bohemian says:

          The core fact seems to be that this guy was presenting a probable threat on the property earlier in the day and Walmart ignored it. If he assaulted a customer getting into their car or the RV people parked in the lot is almost irrelevant.

      • Difdi says:

        If the deceased had mugged a guy who drove a motor scooter on his way into or out of the store, would you feel the same way?

    • twocutetx says:

      Exactly my thought! I understand their upset, but at the same time where is the line for responsibility? Doesn’t Wal Mart have signs up about “not responsible for damage” or somesuch?

    • bdgbill says:

      I was thinking the same thing but then I remembered that I hate RV’s and the people who drive them. I recently had a vacation to Yosemite ruined by people trying to drive their plastic houses up mountain passes at 12mph.

      People who drive 13mpg Hummers are constantly harangued for “Destroying the Earth” but Skip and Pat in the 6mpg Holiday Rambler get a pass for some reason.

      • digital0verdose says:

        Probably because they aren’t driving it to go to the movies, work, grocery shopping, to visit the friend’s, see the folks, take the kids to the pool, pick up something from the post office, getting some fast food, going to the mall, teaching the kid to drive, etc.

  2. Admiral_John says:

    Great… so now Wal-Mart is going to stop allowing people to park overnight in their parking lots.

    Why didn’t they call the police themselves if they were so worried? People need to take some responsibility for themselves.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      And Walmart has no responsibility for the people they invited into their home? Because that’s what we’re talking about here.

      It is the equivalent of letting someone in your home, and not telling them that you have a rabid dog in the house. When the dog bites you, isn’t it the homeowner’s legal responsibility?

      The same goes here – Walmart knew and said nothing.

      • tbax929 says:

        Swing, and a miss. Keep trying, though. They’re only suing Walmart because it’s a deep pocket. I hope Walmart’s attorneys eat these idiots alive.

        • Difdi says:

          He may be partially wrong, but you’re batting a zero on this one.

          Any property owner bears responsibility for dangerous conditions occurring on their property, if they know the condition exists and fail to act to fix it. Walmart knew the guy was prowling around, and didn’t take the minimum action to correct the dangerous condition.

          • mrstu says:

            Does a person count as a dangerous ‘condition’? And if it does… good god, if Wal-mart has to call the cops every time they have a creepy customer, they’re gonna go out of business…

          • RvLeshrac says:

            Certainly. And when Wal-Mart stops opening the parking lot’s “doors” to them, they can shut the hell up and pay hundreds of dollars to rent space at a trailer park or campground.

    • coren says:

      Other people telling Walmart =/= the break in victims knowing

      • Rectilinear Propagation says:

        Yeah, but the people witnessing the break-in could and should have called the police. You don’t have to be the victim of the crime to report it.

        • coren says:

          Absolutely. Of course, the way the comment was worded I couldn’t tell if it was referring to the people who complained to Walmart or the victims of the break in, but it sounded like the victims.

    • Difdi says:

      You’re absolutely right. They should have known the guy was there before they arrived, and called the police to report his misbehavior before they witnessed it occurring. Everybody has precognitive psychic powers after all, and their refusal to use them is unforgivable!

    • Owl Says South says:

      They did take some responsibility. with a Shotgun.

  3. heart.shaped.rock says:

    Walmart RV’ers are creating havoc for some people who own homes on the other side of the fence. Apparently there’s so much partying going on in one corner of the lot that the homeowners have had to call the cops repeatedly. This has resulted in their property being shelled with beer bottles, dirty diapers, and various other things. Walmart, of course, says they won’t do anything about it.

    While most of the RV folks are just passing through, there are some who practically live in the parking lot.

    • grumpskeez says:

      Wow, I totally missed all that from the article. My reading comprehension must be off today.

    • Difdi says:

      Solution: If Walmart won’t do anything about it, then return their trash to them. Load up a wheelbarrow full of the trash (and worse) that got thrown over the fence, and haul it over to Walmart, and dump it in front of their front door. Then they’ll have to deal with it.

      • Difdi says:

        Also, throwing bottles is definitely a crime if anyone is in the vicinity they’re thrown at. In many jurisdictions, just lobbing a projectile of any kind (whether by hand or mechanically) at a residence is a crime (usually a misdemeanor, occasionally a felony). Throwing human excrement at a person is (given the active biohazard factor) assault with a deadly weapon in a lot of places. Aiming a shotgun at the offender is fully justified in such a jurisdiction.

  4. dolemite says:

    Wow, so Walmart provided them with free parking, and they got away with no charges filed by the police, and they STILL want some money out of the deal?

    I don’t really think it is Walmart’s job to determine the intentions of people that happen to be wandering in its parking lot. So the family apparently wants 24/7 free security provided by Walmart in addition to free parking?

    And if they allegations are true, that the guy had been seen breaking into a car…why weren’t the police involved earlier?

    • pecan 3.14159265 says:

      Not to mention that Wal-Marts have huge parking lots – and a lot of parking lots are basically squatting grounds for homeless and other vagrants. Wal-Mart clearly can’t keep them out, and I wouldn’t expect them to be able to police the area 100% of the time.

      I’m also unclear as to how Stubbs had been observed “behaving badly” – who called in the tip to Wal-Mart? Could they provide enough information for Wal-Mart to pick him out of the crowd in the parking lot and show him to police? If Stubbs was being a nuisance, then wandered away, Wal-Mart isn’t exactly going to worry too much about some guy who may or may not have peed in the bushes.

    • coren says:

      Someone breaks in and fights with you for a gun and it’s “getting away” with no charges? I’m not sure about suing, but their lives were in danger.

      • dolemite says:

        I concur that you should be able to shoot someone breaking into your house (and I guess a mobile home counts as a house, not a car), but these days, you hear more and more people being sued or having charges pressed against them for defending their property. So, that’s why I say they were lucky to ‘get away’ with no charges, although I agree with their actions. Kind of like “don’t press your luck” when something goes your way.

        • full.tang.halo says:

          Castle law in FL, you break into a person’s home and they shoot the intruder, the homeowners are shielded from liability in civil court. None of that crazy break in, get shot, sue the people you were robbing crap.

    • econobiker says:

      Maybe he wasn’t reported because he did let the door greeter check his receipt so he was assumed to be harmless.

      As for the patrons’ cars and property Wal-Mart could care less…

    • Conformist138 says:

      I can’t say for sure, but there has been talk of places like Walmart not wanting to be associated with crime in their area so they often will try to refrain from calling the police. All police action is associated with the property itself and Walmart is sensitive to accusations of crime going up when they show up. If Walmart knew this guy was there and causing trouble, it is their property, they were obligated to do something. This slowness to respond to threats and openly allowing people to camp out on their property were bound to clash eventually.

      This is nowhere near the first time Walmart has turned a blind eye to crime on it’s turf and I doubt it will be the last.

      • MrEvil says:

        I don’t think that’s a company wide stance. The Wal-Mart in Copperas Cove Texas has a freaking Police Precinct inside it!

        I am soooo glad I didn’t have to take a job in the Ft. Hood area. I don’t know what it is but there just isn’t a nice part of that place. My sister is VERY thankful her husband is out of the army.

  5. MrsB1271 says:

    For crying out loud, if they saw someone lurking in the parking lot earlier in the day, and they felt uncomfortable, why didn’t they just call the police? They could have even left and found someplace else to stay. No common sense whatsoever.

    • Difdi says:

      RTFA. The RV people didn’t see the guy, he was sighted by other customers, not the RVers before the RVers arrived. Walmart refused to call the cops, or investigate the guy themselves, even though Walmart knew the guy was there for some time before the RVers arrived.

      • NarcolepticGirl says:

        If the guy was SO bad and doing such horrible things such as breaking into cars, why did the witnesses tell a random Walmart employee instead of calling the police?

        • MrsB1271 says:

          Thank you. That was one of the points I was trying to make, anyone could have called the police. I am still new to this posting business, so I will admit that I made a mistake with my original post, thanks for not biting my head off, lol

  6. CherieBerry says:


  7. areaman says:




  8. Putts says:

    Wow, I didn’t realize that Wal-Mart had a legal obligation to protect the people who are mooching off of their parking lot for free.

    Don’t bite the hand that feeds you, people.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      What if the hand that feeds you gives you poisoned food? Can I bit it then?

      I don’t like the phrase in this case, as they were also fed the idea there wouldn’t be a criminal in the parking lot.

      • tbax929 says:

        By whom? When did Walmart promise their safety? Park at your own risk.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        Was there was a sign in the parking lot that said, “RV’ers may take advantage of our criminal-free parking at no cost!”?

        I doubt it. Walmart is no more culpable in this case than if someone broke into a car during the day and stole the radio while the owners were shopping inside.

    • coren says:

      Wow, I didn’t realize Walmart had an obligation to protect the people who are mooching off the AC in their store for free.

    • Difdi says:

      ANY property owner is responsible for any unsafe condition of their property, that harms anyone on their property. A burglar who cuts himself on broken glass from the window he just broke while breaking into a house will win a lawsuit against the homeowner is most states.

      Walmart knew the guy was there, knew the guy was behaving strangely, had multiple reports of it from other customers, and did nothing. They are definitely at fault under the law.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        “A burglar who cuts himself on broken glass from the window he just broke while breaking into a house will win a lawsuit against the homeowner is most states.”

        Citation? Because California and New York specifically have statutes in their Civil code that would not allow such a lawsuit.

        (California Civil Code. 847)

        • AstroPig7 says:

          I have a feeling the citation will be a chain letter I’ve seen several times since 2002.

        • coren says:
          • pantheonoutcast says:

            That happened in 1982. Calif. Code 847 was updated in 1985 to make sure it never happened again. And he was hardly a burglar – he was trespassing, sure, but he was a guy trying to redirect a floodlight in order to play basketball – not break in and cause harm or steal property.

            It’s impossible to find such a citation about a burglar suing the homeowner for cutting himself on the window he broke, because it never happened, outside of an urban legend.

            • coren says:

              The way I read it, they were stealing the lights and then someone else tried to call it “redirecting them for basketball” but either way – dude was committing a crime and got hurt.

              The burglar thing though, is just exaggeration. I couldn’t even find it on snopes one way or the other.

  9. kylere1 says:

    In light of Walmart as a corporation, and with me being a good consumerist, I usually cannot back Walmart in any manner. In this case I hope Walmart wins, and the legal fees are charged to these people.

  10. NarcolepticGirl says:

    I remember growing up where Walmart allowed overnight parking. But in the last 5 or so years, I have noticed “No overnight parking” signs.
    Probably for things like this – people suing to get money over stupid shit like this.

    • mrstu says:

      From reading the article, they allow it ‘when local ordinance allows them to do so’. While wal-mart can be pretty crappy, I’d imagine in this case it’s the cities they’re located in that are causing the change, not walmart themselves.

    • LastError says:

      Big rig and RV parking is allowed IF local laws and ordinances allow it. My local Walmart does not allow it because the local town forbids this kind of thing.

      Admittedly it’s one of original 1st Gen Super Walmart conversions and has a smaller than average parking lot. A lot of trucks would kind of clog things up.

  11. slim150 says:

    i can see how these lawsuits happen. the people probably had no intention of suing.. but then a lawyer comes up to them and says…. “you knowwwww we might have a case if we went against walmart. potentially you can get thousands and thousands of dollars.. and you know what else, walmart will probably even settle with us to avoid any bad press. “

  12. Rectilinear Propagation says:

    Here’s the point I’m confused on: If the witnesses only reported the intruder’s attempted break-in to Wal-mart and not police then how did the family hear about it?

    • coren says:

      Well, if police came to get a statement (which obviously they’d be there if a gun was discharged, nevermind someone killed) that would be information that was gathered, and probably included in any police report. I’m just guessing.

  13. econobiker says:

    Wal Mart security is only to protect the store and its goods. It has been proven that they could care less about the safety of the patrons – if anything they want to avoid responsibility to avoid lawsuits.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      Oh good, then that means I can do whatever I want on their parking lot right? Because Walmart doesn’t own or lease their own parking lot, right?

      Wait, yes they do.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        Doesn’t mean that they are responsible for your actions.

        • Difdi says:

          If it’s their property, then they have at least partial responsibility. Their refusal to patrol it doesn’t change the law.

          • pantheonoutcast says:

            If I am parked in a Walmart parking lot, and my car is broken into, and my radio stolen, guess how much responsibility Walmart bears?


            If I am parked on 78th St. and 2nd ave, and my car gets broken into, guess how much the city of New York is responsible?


            If I am parked in my driveway, and someone breaks into my car, guess how much my mortgage company is responsible?


            Get it? Ownership of a property does not always imply responsibility. They are responsible only if one can prove negligence, and an anecdotal account of a “creepy guy” is not enough proof. I will concede that the entire story is not yet known, nor is the extent to which this “creepy guy” was dangerous, or if Walmart was indeed aware of this danger.

  14. Verdant Pine Trees says:

    Didn’t Walmart lose a case recently over something similar … only in that case, one of their own workers was raped and murdered after being kidnapped in the parking lot? They had known they had a problem with safety and still forced their people to park at the far end of the lot where video cameras could not see properly.

    I’m leaning towards supporting the couple as more than being greedy. They saw this guy publicly urinating and trying to break into a car, and Wal-Mart did nothing after they reported it. Pretty shady towards all of their customers, who could have been harmed. On the other hand, though, with two kids in the car, if it were me, I would tail the hell out of town the minute I figured out that Wal-Mart was doing nothing – and I’d call or visit the police myself. .

    • d0x360 says:

      If i saw someone doing those things first i would call THE POLICE, then I might call Walmart.

    • ellemdee says:

      Sometimes stores set up dangerous parking situations for employees. When I was 16, I worked at Best Buy. It was a brand new building with a relatively small parking lot (often full ot the point that customers couldn’t even park), so they didn’t want employees to park in their lot, but didn’t have alternative place for us to park. The issue was that Best Buy was a stand-alone building with no public parking nearby. We could have parked in the nearby Target parking lot, which would have required us to cross a five lane road with heavy traffic in the dark in the middle of winter, and risk getting towed. They actually required that we park in the alley behind one of the businesses a few doors down (and hope we didn’t get towed/carjacked/mugged), as if none of the local businesses would notice an entire store full of BB employees trying to park in their alley. One day security actually caught me parking in the store lot (all the way at the far end by the road) and yelled at me, but I refused to go park in a dark alley. Call me crazy, but I just didn’t think it was a great idea for a 16 your old girl to be walking alone through a dark alley every night at 11pm because they squeezed the store onto a lot too small to provide adequate parking.

      • Verdant Pine Trees says:

        I notice that often the people who are most at risk (younger women) are the ones who seem to be pushed into unsafe parking and commuting practices. I’ve known two women who were the only ones on their staffs and scheduled to work alone on the less safe “night” schedule, and not by desire/design.

  15. NarcolepticGirl says:

    ” been observed that day “behaving badly” in the parking lot, urinating and even trying to break into a vehicle”

    Why don’t they sue the police for not arresting the guy for breaking into a car if that’s what he was doing? Why not sue all the witnesses that reported it?
    Why not sue the guy himself for attempting to rob/shoot them?
    Why not sue the manufacturer of their RV for failing to provide safety in case of a break in?
    Why not sue the manufacturer of the gun because if the gun wasn’t made, this wouldn’t have happened?

    Hm. They probably will try all of the above.

    • NarcolepticGirl says:

      “Why not sue all the witnesses that reported it?”

      I meant ‘why not sue all the witnesses that didn’t report it” [to the police]

    • BDSanta2001 says:

      The intruder was killed, that’s why. Actually click the link and read the article.

      • NarcolepticGirl says:

        Sorry, I was on a role and did not notice the mistake I made.
        Perhaps they should sue his parents for bringing up a criminal, though,

    • Applekid ┬──┬ ノ( ã‚œ-゜ノ) says:

      I read the story. Now I’m afraid I might get sued, too. :(

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      It still comes down to the fact that Walmart knowingly invited them into an unsafe area.

      Why is the fact that it occured in the parking lot and that Walmart provided a free service change their level of responsibility?

      Imagine it had been inside the store. There’s a dangerous person in there that Walmart knows about and doesn’t call the police or have their security deal with. The person attacks other patrons. Is it still not Walmart’s responsibility to inform customers that there is a dangerous individual on the premises if they know about it?

      The fact it’s not inside doesn’t change the lever of responsibility.

      • NarcolepticGirl says:

        First, are there signs that say “WELCOME RVers! COME PARK HERE OVERNIGHT IN OUR MASSIVE PARKING LOT! We will provide you with 24/7 security right outside of your RV!” ?

        Second, no one mentioned if the “witnesses” called the police themselves- and if they did – maybe the police DID come out and saw nothing. I mean, if a witness saw someone supposedly breaking into cars, wouldn’t they call the police? I know I would. Most people with brains would. Why tell a random Walmart employee about something SO SERIOUS instead of calling the police?

        No one mentioned how descriptive the “witness account(s)” were. They could have said, “there was a white guy with a black shirt pissing in a bush and he looked in a car window, I think”
        or they could’ve seen a guy walking around, didn’t see him doing anything wrong, and left it at that.

        My car was stolen and torched in a gated apartment complex. Should I have sued the apartment complex because they failed to keep my car safe? Or should I sue my friend because he said he thought he saw some kids looking cars the night before and called the police- I mean, he failed to tell me about that and “welcomed” me to park there. Or perhaps I should sue the police – because there was a report of car break-ins – and they failed to find/arrest the suspects but continued to let people park?
        Actually, most Americans probably would sue all three, I guess.

  16. EverCynicalTHX says:

    I always wondered why Walmart allowed people to use their parking lots for camping with all the sue happy folks in this country,

    I’m sure this will end that policy and wouldn’t blame them a bit – same reason there are so many restrictions in America now, no sense of personal responsibility left in this country,

    You reap what you sow..

  17. Mr. Pottersquash says:

    Walmart is responsible for maintaining a certian level of safety on its property, including its parking lot. Usually cases hinge on notice, be it implied or actual. But as many commenters are stating, yes the RV-ers are right that Walmart probably was in the wrong for not being proactive when they were told BUT perhaps they should consider that Walmart may respond by banning all cars which are not currently/reasonably shopping which is well within there right to do. I remember when Walmarts in our area banned semi-trucks from overnight parking when a guy who was arrested for prostitution tried to bring a claim agaisnt Walmart.

  18. sp00nix says:

    I live across the street, i cant imagine being in its parking lot.

  19. balthisar says:

    Since when is it illegal to be a creepy guy? C’mon, Wal-Mart has a duty to protect their public areas, but short of a crime actually being witnessed and reported, what cause was there for Wal-Mart to be responsible to call the police because of a creepy guy?

    And what’s creepy? I look normal by all respects, but what if I’m in the parking lot with my camera taking pictures of people going into the store? That’s perfectly legal, but some of you people with creepy ideas are likely to call legal photography “creepy” and expect Wal-Mart to call the police.

    • Loias supports harsher punishments against corporations says:

      People have been commenting the person did in fact commit illegal acts prior to breaking into the RV. That’s the arguement here – Walmart knew a criminal was on the premises.

      • Elcheecho says:

        so Walmart might have to pay for any damages resulting from him breaking into their RV. but not from them shooting him. that’s their own problem.

      • NarcolepticGirl says:

        Nothing is “fact” in the article.
        There is no further information on if they found cars that were broken into.

      • dolemite says:

        I’m not sure what is expected of them.

        #1. Was the guy convicted of something? Until he is, he isn’t a “criminal”.
        #2. Even if the was convicted, are they supposed to announce over the PA every 5 minutes: “Attention shoppers: a known criminal is afoot. Please be wary.”

        • Difdi says:

          While the courts and police are required to treat someone as innocent until proven guilty, if you witness a guy committing criminal acts, then to you he is not an alleged criminal until he’s convicted, he is absolutely a criminal right then and there, for purposes of your reaction to him and his actions.

          If everyone were required to maintain an attitude of innocent until convicted in court in all things, then all pleas of self defense would be automatically invalidated, if no assault or battery exists until a conviction!

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      It would be interesting to know what the legal obligations would be if something like this happened on a city street. If suspicious behavior was reported but the police failed to respond and somebody was ultimately assaulted, would the city be liable?

      • NarcolepticGirl says:

        good question

      • Difdi says:

        No. Because police have no responsibility to protect citizens whatsoever. Their duties are to maintain order and investigate crimes, which means if you get robbed/assaulted/murdered they will investigate and try to catch the criminal responsible, but 100% of the responsibility to defend a citizen lies with that citizen. This is one reason why the Constitution of the United States mandates the right to own and carry weapons: Every other law in the country assumes an armed populace who are responsible for their own defense.

        If you fail to possess the means the defend yourself, or refuse to use them, then only you are at fault. The police have no responsibility to defend anyone except government officials, and then, only inasmuch as doing so is part of maintaining order.

        On the other hand, civil law does permit lawsuits against property owners for unsafe condition of their property, which includes knowing there’s a crazy person or criminal prowling around, and doing nothing about it (not even warning customers over the PA). But while you can sue a fellow citizen (a corporation counts as a citizen legally speaking) you cannot do the same to the police for failure to protect you from a criminal.

        • smo0 says:

          If only the rest of America knew this….
          switch some key words, this can be applied to any lawsuit or action of accountability.

        • Andy S. says:

          Which begs the question, does the Wal-Mart store actually own the parking lot? Or is that under the ownership of the shopping center to which Wal-Mart pays their rent?

    • sajid0015 says:

      Many people prefer motorhome hire to enjoy a great holiday well within their budget. You must think of buying motorhomes only after serious deliberation. To see if you like the idea of having a motorhome, you can rent a motorhome from a reputed company and gain a better understanding of the pros and cons of the same. In this way, you can also get a better grasp of how your motorhome can take care of the holiday needs of your family.Motorhome Hire

  20. pantheonoutcast says:

    Yeah, how dare Walmart not personally investigate every “creepy” guy who may or may not be on their property as determined by third-hand anecdotal evidence before letting people park overnight in their lot for free!


    • Rectilinear Propagation says:

      as determined by third-hand anecdotal evidence

      For all we know there’s a policy in place that prevents employees from calling the police over things happening in the parking lot unless someone is physically in danger. Maybe they don’t want people accidentally calling the cops on someone who’s just locked out of their own car.

      Wasn’t there a story a long while back where someone complained that a store would not allow them to call 911 on their phone?

      We also don’t know what exactly got said to which Wal-mart employees when. For all we know someone only told the greeter or a cashier who isn’t allowed to move from their post instead of going to Customer Service, who’d at least have a phone, or ask for a manager.

  21. Elcheecho says:

    you’d think the damages were due to them shooting a guy, not the guy forcing himself into their RV. they didn’t have to shoot him, and I don’t think they should have.

    • pantheonoutcast says:

      No, they should have invited the meth-head in for some lemonade, gave him $20, and then sent him on his way with a care package of freshly baked oatmeal cookies. That would have made more sense.

  22. skakh says:

    Why is it every time I go to Walmart, some organization is trying to get my money at the door? On more than one occassion, I simply drove away and went to Target! Last week it was some Church group looking for money for Jesus this week some kid’s group trying to get me to let them wash my car. Other stores don’t allow this. I go to stores like Walmart to shop not to contribute to some charity, or maybe charity!

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      I get the exact same thing at Target. It’s annoying but a simple “no thank you” always works.

  23. Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

    Ultimately, I suspect that Wal Mart is at fault unless they explicitly have signs saying they aren’t liable for overnight guests or make them sign a liability waiver.

    That being said, in my younger years I was an independent contractor who jumped from contract to contract performing environmental consulting. I slept in the back of my truck in many parking lots, farmer’s fields & barns (with permission), public camp sites, rest stops, etc. Being at risk is just one of those things I accepted — living out of your truck (or RV, or tent, or under the stars, or a motel with room doors to the outside) is potentially very dangerous.

  24. bdgbill says:

    I was thinking the same thing but then I remembered that I hate RV’s and the people who drive them. I recently had a vacation to Yosemite ruined by people trying to drive their plastic houses up mountain passes at 12mph.

    People who drive 13mpg Hummers are constantly harangued for “Destroying the Earth” but Skip and Pat in the 6mpg Holiday Rambler get a pass for some reason.

  25. consumerd says:

    To the RV’ers: You parked in an open parking lot. You would get about the same level of security from a roadside stop. Think about this next time you go RV’ing.

  26. BoredOOMM says:

    Seems KOA is much more appealing than Walmart Of America for camping.

  27. SubPrimeLender says:

    I really dont understand RV people . You pay 50K or more for this monstrosity + insuance + storage fee when not using it ( if you cant park it at home )

    You end up parked in a walmart parking lot – it does not make sense

    take 50k put it in a bank account – use the money to travel the world and stay in mid priced hotels, use rental cars and airplanes and you will have seen more places and stayed in nicer accomdations and spent less money . And you probably wont be assaulted in a walmart parking lot

    • Southern says:

      I used to think that way too, but several things changed my mind.

      Sure, they only get 6-7MPG. So if you drive 500 miles, it’ll cost you $1500 in gas.

      But once you get there, you can stay a week. 2 weeks. 3. You have no “schedule”. You have no “Well we have to be out of this hotel today, we’ll have to fight to find another one because it’s a busy weekend and there’s a convention in town”. Hotels can cost $400 a week (or more). You have to “eat out” for all your meals. You have to deal with Air Conditioners that NEVER work. You have to constantly worry about bedbugs. You have to rent a car (another $200-$300 a week) to do your sightseeing (whereas most people just utilize a tow vehicle)


      Aside from the cost of Gas, Insurance, and the occasional repair, the cost of RVing can be MUCH less than plane tickets, rental cars, hotels, eating out, etc.

      It all depends on how much you DO it. If you buy an RV and only use it 2 weeks a year, then I’d agree with you. If you’re like (some) retirees that live in their RV 6+ months out of the year (or longer), then the RV is much more cost efficient.

    • Nigerian prince looking for business partner says:

      They make more sense for retirement when you can spend most of the year traveling. Even cheap hotels add up if you’re doing it for months on end.

  28. atomoverride says:

    didnt you read the sign? not responsible for lost or stolen property. and if you park in a parking lot you are inviting people to attempt to break in.

    • Difdi says:

      Just having a sign up doesn’t make it true, or alter the law. If it did, then no law would apply on private property, providing the owner posted a sign accordingly. Want to rape children or shoot guns at the cops? Just post a sign on your property, stating that you reserve the right to do so!

      Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, just posting a sign doesn’t actually grant any rights the property owner didn’t already have, or alter laws in any way. Property owners are responsible for dangerous conditions on their property, whether they post a sign or not. Even if they post a sign claiming they aren’t liable, whether they are liable (for whatever) or not depends on local laws, not what the sign says.

  29. dennis says:

    causing mayhem at Walmart? They would need a police substation at every location if bad behavior got reported

  30. RxDude says:

    If Walmart was obligated to call the police on every scummy person in their parking lot, there would be an endless stream of police cruisers and very few customers making it to the door.

  31. Link_Shinigami says:

    All of Wal-Mart is private property. Parking lots and all. Anything that happens on wal-mart’s grounds is wal-marts problem. That’s my view. So yeah, they are responsible for it.

    • NarcolepticGirl says:

      So, if my car gets broken into at the mall, should I be able to sue them?
      Or if I get assaulted on the sidewalk in the city, could I sue the city?

  32. Destron says:

    Well, first of all, Walmarts corporate policy it not to allow overnight parking in their parking lots but also add that it may be allowed at the store managers discretion. Walmart as a company does not want people spending the night in their parking lot but they are willing to let the stores do it if they want to.

    As far as Walmart calling the police, unless they are 100% sure without a shadow of a doubt that there is as reason to do so – they won’t. The main reason is that the law enforcement in Utah will charge a business for coming out if they do not have a reason to be there, so if the police showed up and found nothing, they would charge the store a fee. Another reason is that they still risk a lawsuit if they call the police on someone based on what a customer told them and they were wrong. Perfect example, when I was an a AP associate for Walmart a couple was arguing in the parking lot – screaming – yelling – death threats all that stuff. Someone somewhere called the police and when the police showed up the couple claimed all was good and someone over reacted. The couple then attempted to sue the store for embarrassing them for calling the cops. They lost of course, but there is still a lot of money involved in this sort of thing. Another example of why Walmart is they way they are – a car caught on fire in the parking lot, straight combusted throwing flames from under the hood. An associate grabbed a fire extinguisher and put the fire out before the fire dept arrived.The customer attempted to sue the store stating that the chemicals from the fire extinguisher caused irreversible damage to his car.

    And don’t expect a Walmart associate to call you an ambulance either – they are trained NOT to – you guessed it – because of a lawsuit. If an ambulance is called, the injured person is responsible for the tab. An associate called an ambulance for someone that had a seizure once and the person sued because they had to pay the ambulance ride.

    The thing is, almost 95% every time a Walmart associate ventures outside the building to help with something – Walmart gets slapped with a lawsuit, so yes, they pretty much just give you a nice big fuck off when you ask them to help with something like this.

    Likely, this lawsuit will result in Walmart amending their policy and removing the ability to allow the store manager to let someone sleep on the parking lot, and just say don’t do it.

  33. Southern says:

    So who do you sue when you pull into a Rest Area on the Interstate and are mugged?

    What about if you’re mugged in a park?

    How about in your home (the kind WITHOUT wheels & an engine)? Do you sue yourself?

    What about in front of your house, on the city street?

    You can be mugged ANYWHERE. The guy had the right idea, have a gun, and shoot anyone who attempts to break in. There’s no more “expectation of security” in a WalMart parking lot than there is in your on home, especially when there are usually signs of “Park at your own risk”, “Secure your valuables, [Company] is not responsible for anyone breaking into your car”, etc.

    Lawsuits like this make me ill. I see them in the same light as “I tripped over a pinecone on your sidewalk and broke my ankle, I’m now suing you for 1 million dollars”, or “yeah, I jumped the fence into your backyard and broke my leg, I’m going to sue you”

    I’m with Walmart on this one. (Funny how most people are, too, considering most Walmart threads are of the “this company is evil and should burn in hell!” variety). :-)

    • Difdi says:

      There’s a key difference between your examples and a Walmart parking lot. Since you seem to be oblivious to it, I’ll point it out to you:

      Your examples are all public areas, which a privately-owned parking lot, much like the store itself, is not. A property owner is always liable for any dangerous conditions that exist on their property, that injure any person. The Walmart store personnel knew there was a guy urinating in the parking lot, attempting to break into cars, and so forth, and did nothing about it. They didn’t send security out to ask him to leave, they didn’t warn customers over the PA, they didn’t call the police. They just ignored the dangerous condition. And when it became a life-threatening condition for some of their customers, Walmart became liable for the condition.

      There have been incidents where a burglar has successfully sued a homeowner for cutting themselves on glass from the window they broke and entered through. If the law covers even such an absurd occurrence, then Walmart absolutely should have carried out their duty as a property owner, and secured their property.

      Kudos to the RVers who understood their duty to their own private property and persons, even as Walmart shirked.

      • pantheonoutcast says:

        “There have been incidents where a burglar has successfully sued a homeowner for cutting themselves on glass from the window they broke and entered through.”

        Still waiting on that citation. “I read it ten years ago in my AOL inbox” is not the proper form of a legal citation, BTW.

  34. Southern says:

    BTW – 4 years? It took them *4 YEARS* to decide to sue?

    Someone else posted in this thread that a lawyer probably approached them and told ’em this was going to be an easy way to make a few thousand $$$ (and probably make the lawyer considerably more).. I think after 4 years, I’d have to agree with that assesment.

    • Difdi says:

      Psychological trauma, such as the trauma the RVers are suing Walmart for, often takes quite some time to become acute. People repress things. Then years later, they start having flashbacks, nightmares, inability to sleep, etc. The fact that it took them so long to sue doesn’t invalidate their claim, it actually strengthens it, for anyone who actually knows anything about psychology.

  35. ishootfriendlies says:

    My family and I RV often for vacations and stay at Walmart of a truck stop for about half of the nights. I always appreciate that Walmart let’s us stay for free, and we always have our first night in a Walmart so we can load up on supplies (we usually travel one way, fly out and drive back). We have never had a problem, but this is why I always travel with a (legally carried and stored) firearm. Thieves like to prey on RV’s, and I don’t want to be prey.

    • Difdi says:

      Kudos for knowing your duty as a citizen. Far too many people are too caught up in the rights and perks of being a citizen, to care (or even know) about the duties and obligations that come with it.

  36. The Lone Gunman says:

    IIRC, Walmart has a long history of not wanting to acknowledge anything that happens in their parking lots unless it directly has something to do with the store itself.

    The theme one attorney stated was “once you made your purchase and are out the door, you’re on your own as far as Walmart cares.”

  37. timcriton says:

    By suing Walmart these people are just going to cause Walmart to ban all RV drivers from parking in their stores overnight.
    Yes bad stuff happens but but suing someone just because you can doesn’t make things better for anyone.

  38. HighontheHill says:

    They’re alive to RV another day, got the fun of blasting the shit out of some worthless scumbag, LEGALLY, and now they feel inclined to sue? Bad form. I could see them suing the thugs next of kin for cleanup costs related to his bodily fluid and parts adorning their rig, but suing the mart is too much.

  39. sopmodm14 says:

    while its on their property, they might have limited liability over individual self protection

  40. FrugalFreak says:

    Great, end the free parking for all.

    Wonder how many RVers can find their house and park in their yard?

  41. lawgirl502 says:

    the untold story is that the intruder was the door person checking receipts of purchases….he he he… the renegade Rv’ers refused to show one

  42. conformco says:

    I’m not an RV traveler, but I did work at Wal-Mart for a number of years during high school and college. One summer I had the job of working outside putting together lawn furniture and watering plants after the store had closed. Once during my “lunch break” at 2am, I was sitting in my car to get away from the mosquitoes and I saw really old beater Lincoln Towncar pull into the lot with its lights off. It whipped around the receiving area and then backed into an area behind the garden center. Two gnarly-looking rednecks got out, popped the trunk and pulled shovels out. At this point I slid down in my seat convinced I was about to witness them burying the evidence of a recent murder or some incest-produced manimal abomination. Instead they proceeded to shovel loose dirt from the broken-open bags we sometimes received from the warehouse, into their car. They worked for about 10 minutes and then drove away.

    So, no murders but I did witness people stealing dirt.

  43. Zwaaa says:

    Yes, the end result of this will be that Wal Mart will stop allowing RV owners to camp to avoid liability.


    Clearly these people did not get the message that the universe is not made of Nerf.

  44. sajid0015 says:

    Many people prefer motorhome hire to enjoy a great holiday well within their budget. You must think of buying motorhomes only after serious deliberation. To see if you like the idea of having a motorhome, you can rent a motorhome from a reputed company and gain a better understanding of the pros and cons of the same. In this way, you can also get a better grasp of how your motorhome can take care of the holiday needs of your family.
    Motorhome Hire