Page 1 of 1

Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 3:43 pm
by jbrewer8
The bad guys mother is suing Kroger because they failing to enforce their no firearms policy "resulted in the company breeching its duty of care to Atkinson."

How does a company (or individual) have a duty to care for someone trying to rob them?!?! :evil:

I hope this is dismissed quickly. At least in Ohio, they couldn't sue at all because of the immunity clause in our law. I don't know how it is in Indiana, but they need that.

http://www.fox59.com/news/crime/wxin-mo ... 321.column" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 5:13 pm
by djthomas
jbrewer8 wrote:At least in Ohio, they couldn't sue at all because of the immunity clause in our law.
Not true. She absolutely could sue in Ohio. How long before the court would dismiss it as a matter of law remains to be seen.

She's looking for a settlement. She's only asking for $75k. It would be cheaper for Kroger to offer her half that and a confidentiality agreement. If she asked for a million they'd be more inclined to let it play out in court.

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 6:00 pm
by SeafoodGuy
It's not remotely possible for Kroger to enforce their no gun policy. What do they expect Kroger to do, pat down everyone before they come into work, and shop at the store?

And IIRC, isn't it in ORC that an employee with a CHL that uses it regardless of while at work or not, the employer isn't held liable?

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 7:23 pm
by djthomas
SeafoodGuy wrote:And IIRC, isn't it in ORC that an employee with a CHL that uses it regardless of while at work or not, the employer isn't held liable?
Yes, but this hasn't been tested in court that I'm aware of. Until there's precedent on the matter I would fully expect a trial lawyer to attack the statute from every angle - unconstitutional, unconscionable, etc. That means a longer, more expensive trial. Thus comes the inducement to settle rather than deal with the uncertainty and press exposure as the appeals drag on.

Then there's the other wrinkle that this lawsuit is in federal court. Whether the federal courts would entertain jurisdiction I don't know, but if they keep the case they would not be obligated to follow state law concerning tort liability. I would like to think that the federal courts would look at this and see that it's a tort situation between private actors and say that the case needs to be resolved in state court.

Another thought, perhaps she filed in federal court because Indiana (like many states) already has precedent for barring tort actions when the "victim" was committing a felony.

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Thu Jul 19, 2012 9:19 pm
by rDigital
She should be laughed out of court and made to pay for this mockery.

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 3:36 am
by MyWifeSaidYes
Wow. I mean, mother-of-the-year, wow.

I only hope that her lawyer is working on retainer and not on contingency.

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 4:42 am
by deanimator
She's probably the reason why he's dead.

I'm sure that he was infected with that way of "thinking" from birth.

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:36 am
by sodbuster95
deanimator wrote:She's probably the reason why he's dead.

I'm sure that he was infected with that way of "thinking" from birth.
Harsh. But probably true.

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 7:50 am
by Ray
jbrewer8 wrote:The bad guys mother is suing Kroger because they failing to enforce their no firearms policy "resulted in the company breeching its duty of care to Atkinson."

How does a company (or individual) have a duty to care for someone trying to rob them?!?! :evil:

I hope this is dismissed quickly. At least in Ohio, they couldn't sue at all because of the immunity clause in our law. I don't know how it is in Indiana, but they need that.

http://www.fox59.com/news/crime/wxin-mo ... 321.column" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
I didn't know that Kroger's had a "No Firearm Policy" I haven't seen any Kroger's in the Dayton area that's been posted. All I have seen is some parking lots posted.....
It must be just for the employees..............

Ray

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 8:05 am
by deanimator
Ray wrote:I didn't know that Kroger's had a "No Firearm Policy" I haven't seen any Kroger's in the Dayton area that's been posted. All I have seen is some parking lots posted.....
It must be just for the employees..............

Ray
Unless he TOLD them he was carrying, how WOULD they enforce it (assuming that it's actually a policy at all)?

Metal detectors?
Daily strip searches?

The son was a cur.

The mother's a cur.

The judge needs to dismiss the suit and sanction her as a vexatious litigator.

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:00 am
by djthomas
A small bit of irony here but could this situation point out the follies of having a "no weapons" policy in the handbook if you don't have any meaningful way of enforcing it?

The fact that her son was robbing the joint aside it is an interesting legal question. Does establishing a policy create a duty to police it, and if so, to what extent? In my opinion this is why it's better to let the legal system handle criminal issues rather try to take them on as company policy.

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:50 am
by Tweed Ring
Kroger's might settle with the mother to make her go away.

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 9:54 am
by Chuck
From the story:
Authorities said Atkinson forced a female employee in the store’s office and placed her into a headlock, before Elliott shot Atkinson three times.
And,,,,
“As a direct and proximate result of Kroger’s negligence, Atkinson is deceased and the plaintiff has suffered harm…,” read the suit in part.
All I can do is laugh in disbelief

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 10:41 am
by Beskar'gam
jbrewer8 wrote:The bad guys mother is suing Kroger because they failing to enforce their no firearms policy "resulted in the company breeching its duty of care to Atkinson."
Is this a joke that I'm just not understanding?
Ray wrote:I didn't know that Kroger's had a "No Firearm Policy" I haven't seen any Kroger's in the Dayton area that's been posted. All I have seen is some parking lots posted.....
It must be just for the employees..............
Posted or not, most companies have a policy in place prohibiting the carry of any weapon by employees. I used to work for Drug Mart back in school as a stockboy and was taken to task for carrying a spring assisted knife. My response was to inquire as to how my manager suggested that we open boxes without being provided box cutters by the store :roll:

Re: Remember the Kroger store shooting in December...

Posted: Fri Jul 20, 2012 11:34 am
by Rhino
Krogers doesn't allow employees to carry firearms. Customers are a different story.