5 ms·
Thought this part was interesting: > Throughout the ordeal, Ms. Nurse said, Walmart refused repeated requests by her lawyers for security camera footage from t
by starwind 5y ago
Thought this part was interesting:
> Throughout the ordeal, Ms. Nurse said, Walmart refused repeated requests by her lawyers for security camera footage from the store. She said that the video was critical and would have shown a store employee helping her to scan items at the checkout, some of which had to be manually entered because of a problem with the kiosk.
> “I believe that they’re so intimidating and so big,” Ms. Nurse said of Walmart. “They’ve grown to be so enormous that they feel like they can do anything to anybody. That’s not right. Shame on them.”
> During the civil trial, which lasted about three weeks, the judge criticized Walmart for the “intentional loss” of the security camera footage, according to court records. The judge, James T. Patterson, said that the court would advise the jury that the videotapes “were destroyed by the defendants with the intent” to deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of seeing them “and that the jury therefore is to presume that the content of the missing videos would be adverse” to the defendants.
- rasz 5y agoNo video, but surely Walmart has cash register logs and can pull up purchases from that day/time/lane. No word about that in the article :(
- Arrath 5y ago> During the civil trial, which lasted about three weeks, the judge criticized Walmart for the “intentional loss” of the security camera footage, according to court records. The judge, James T. Patterson, said that the court would advise the jury that the videotapes “were destroyed by the defendants with the intent” to deprive the plaintiff of the benefit of seeing them “and that the jury therefore is to presume that the content of the missing videos would be adverse” to the defendants. It really feels like the case should be decided in favor for the plaintiff, with prejudice, in cases of destruction of evidence like this.
- listenallyall 5y agoShe won 2.1 million dollars.
- listenallyall 5y agoAs you noted, the judge reprimanded Walmart and specifically told the jury to assume the videos would benefit Ms. Nurse. And yet, "on Ms. Nurse’s claims that she was falsely arrested, imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and slandered, the jurors sided with the retail giant." This was a 3 week trial, the NY Times is providing small, selective portions of the testimony. Nobody should assume that from one brief article, they know more than the jurors did. Seems there probably was some solid evidence against Ms. Nurse besides just the videotape.
- simonh 5y agoI don't think that's right. The way I read it, it seems like the employees made an honest mistake, so holding her until a deputy arrived might not be considered malicious or an abuse. However continuing the prosecution and demanding money from her after she was found not guilty was found to be an abuse and that's what was found in her favour.
- listenallyall 5y agoI don't see how you came up with that conclusion. Nothing in the article, neither party's statements, indicate anything about an "honest mistake." I'm going to point out that two NY Times articles about this situation describe Wal-Mart's actions differently: "The letters stopped coming to Ms. Nurse once her case was dropped." https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/business/falsely-accused-of-shoplifting-but-retailers-demand-they-pay.html https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/17/business/falsely-accused-... "The shoplifting charge was dropped ... but Ms. Nurse said that she continued to receive letters from Walmart." https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/walmart-shoplifting-lawsuit.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/01/us/walmart-shoplifting-la... So once the criminal charges were dropped, did Wal-Mart continue to demand money, or did they not?
- simonh 5y agoMy understanding is that they did, and that was the main problem.
- 5y ago
- codezero 5y agoThis makes me wonder if I have a case to sue Airbnb for being banned for life for refusing to pay a large fee for damages I didn’t incur, they asked me to prove I didn’t turn the gas on in a stove (that I never used) and leave it, causing the fire dept to break the door open, the cost of an emergency locksmith and the large metal door was > $1500 and I wouldn’t have used Airbnb again after that, but it really rubbed me the wrong way when I asked for things like a report from the fire dept, the bill for the locksmith, and they refused to provide it to me and asked me to provide my own evidence. Perhaps they have video of me drunkenly bumping into the stove knob, even so I have a hard time seeing how it’s my job to evaluate the safety of appliances at a rental location.
- perl4ever 5y ago>Perhaps they have video of me drunkenly bumping into the stove knob What?
- codezero 5y agoThe gas leak originated from the stove. The only thing I can think of where I might have had some involvement is bumping into the knob to turn on the gas flow. I have never owned a gas stove so maybe I am really off here but I’m trying to accept that maybe I was culpable or to see it from their point of view as a business.