Shoplifter Sues Albertsons for causing childs death.
<a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134437151_albertsons16m.html"; target="_blank">http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/134437151_albertsons16m.html</a>;
She should win the case. Normally I wouldn't side with the perpetrator of a crime but the Albertson Employees went above and beyond what is called for in these circumstances. It's just sad that a 9 yr old child is now gone over a few sacks of groceries.
[quote] How far can supermarket employees go when trying to apprehend a shoplifting suspect? What if the employees have already recovered the stolen items?
Those are the key questions in a North Bend woman's civil lawsuit, which says two teenage employees at the Woodinville Albertson's chased her too aggressively out of the parking lot after she allegedly stole groceries, causing her to become agitated, drive over the speed limit and crash into a tree.
The woman's 9-year-old daughter died in the accident.
Anita Durrett, 42, has already been convicted of vehicular manslaughter as a result of the crash. She faces sentencing — up to two years in prison — on May 14.
Durrett filed the suit in Snohomish County Superior Court earlier this month, contending that three store employees were at least partly to blame for the accident last June. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
"She shouldn't have put herself in that position, to start the chain of events," said Durrett's attorney, Jim Rosenberger.
"But (the employees) had her license-plate number, her description. They could have called 911, and the cops would have showed up at her house. They decided to instigate something. This is a two-part deal. We're bewildered as to why they didn't call the police right away."
Jeannette Duwe, Albertson's spokeswoman, said the company won't comment in detail on pending litigation. Albertson's has until the end of the month to respond to the suit.
"But we believe that our employees did act reasonably," she said.
State law says that store employees have a right to use a "reasonable" amount of force to apprehend and detain suspected shoplifters while on the business premises. But it offers no specifics on what constitutes reasonable.
According to police, on June 9, Durrett left the store without paying for $266.16 worth of groceries. She was confronted in the parking lot by two teenage employees and an assistant manager, who demanded a receipt.
She didn't have one and fled the parking lot in her station wagon, leaving the groceries behind.
The manager ordered the two employees, who had a cellphone, to follow Durrett in one of their cars. They caught up with Durrett about a mile away while she was stopped at a red light.
According to the lawsuit, one of the employees got out of the car at that point and "confronted her at the stoplight, and accosted her verbally and physically." Rosenberger said the employee placed his foot on her bumper.
"Anita in her fear of their intentions drove away from the point of confrontation," the lawsuit says.
The employees began chasing her again and "realizing she was being hotly pursued, she increased her speed over the posted speed limit."
Police estimate that both cars were traveling in excess of 90 mph. The crash happened just north of the King-Snohomish county line.
Rosenberger believes the employees knew that the 9-year-old child was in the front seat. Because of that, their actions were reckless, he said. They should also have used the cellphone to call for help during the chase, Rosenberger said.
They didn't call police until Durrett crashed, about 2½ miles from the store, Rosenberger said.
Representatives of shopping centers and security companies that patrol supermarkets said they caution employees about confronting shoplifters because of the potential danger and because of the possibility of civil liability.
In one case, in December 1993, Federal Way resident Antonio Jackson stole a pack of cigarettes from a Safeway supermarket and was chased down by several store employees. One of the store employees put Jackson in a choke hold. Jackson died soon afterward.
Jackson's family later sued and won an out-of-court settlement.
<hr></blockquote>
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
She should win the case. Normally I wouldn't side with the perpetrator of a crime but the Albertson Employees went above and beyond what is called for in these circumstances. It's just sad that a 9 yr old child is now gone over a few sacks of groceries.
[quote] How far can supermarket employees go when trying to apprehend a shoplifting suspect? What if the employees have already recovered the stolen items?
Those are the key questions in a North Bend woman's civil lawsuit, which says two teenage employees at the Woodinville Albertson's chased her too aggressively out of the parking lot after she allegedly stole groceries, causing her to become agitated, drive over the speed limit and crash into a tree.
The woman's 9-year-old daughter died in the accident.
Anita Durrett, 42, has already been convicted of vehicular manslaughter as a result of the crash. She faces sentencing — up to two years in prison — on May 14.
Durrett filed the suit in Snohomish County Superior Court earlier this month, contending that three store employees were at least partly to blame for the accident last June. The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages.
"She shouldn't have put herself in that position, to start the chain of events," said Durrett's attorney, Jim Rosenberger.
"But (the employees) had her license-plate number, her description. They could have called 911, and the cops would have showed up at her house. They decided to instigate something. This is a two-part deal. We're bewildered as to why they didn't call the police right away."
Jeannette Duwe, Albertson's spokeswoman, said the company won't comment in detail on pending litigation. Albertson's has until the end of the month to respond to the suit.
"But we believe that our employees did act reasonably," she said.
State law says that store employees have a right to use a "reasonable" amount of force to apprehend and detain suspected shoplifters while on the business premises. But it offers no specifics on what constitutes reasonable.
According to police, on June 9, Durrett left the store without paying for $266.16 worth of groceries. She was confronted in the parking lot by two teenage employees and an assistant manager, who demanded a receipt.
She didn't have one and fled the parking lot in her station wagon, leaving the groceries behind.
The manager ordered the two employees, who had a cellphone, to follow Durrett in one of their cars. They caught up with Durrett about a mile away while she was stopped at a red light.
According to the lawsuit, one of the employees got out of the car at that point and "confronted her at the stoplight, and accosted her verbally and physically." Rosenberger said the employee placed his foot on her bumper.
"Anita in her fear of their intentions drove away from the point of confrontation," the lawsuit says.
The employees began chasing her again and "realizing she was being hotly pursued, she increased her speed over the posted speed limit."
Police estimate that both cars were traveling in excess of 90 mph. The crash happened just north of the King-Snohomish county line.
Rosenberger believes the employees knew that the 9-year-old child was in the front seat. Because of that, their actions were reckless, he said. They should also have used the cellphone to call for help during the chase, Rosenberger said.
They didn't call police until Durrett crashed, about 2½ miles from the store, Rosenberger said.
Representatives of shopping centers and security companies that patrol supermarkets said they caution employees about confronting shoplifters because of the potential danger and because of the possibility of civil liability.
In one case, in December 1993, Federal Way resident Antonio Jackson stole a pack of cigarettes from a Safeway supermarket and was chased down by several store employees. One of the store employees put Jackson in a choke hold. Jackson died soon afterward.
Jackson's family later sued and won an out-of-court settlement.
<hr></blockquote>
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</p>
Comments
This is true. But it's not like the employees got in their cars and chased her. She is 100% culpable. She's just trying to offload some of the incredible guilt so she doesn't feel so bad. If a guy cheats on his wife and she is so devistated that she kills her child, is the husband responsible?
<strong>It's just sad that a 9 yr old child is now gone over a few sacks of groceries.
This is true. But it's not like the employees got in their cars and chased her.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Isn´t that excatly what happened?
<strong>
She should win the case.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: hmurchison ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
I don't agree. She drove the car. She stole the groceries. She sped away from the scene. These were choices she made. Whatever harrassment she was enduring at the hands of Albertsons employees, she could have simply sat in the car and waited for the police to come.
I have a questions- was the child buckled up?
Yes, she did lose her child. No, the employees shouldn't have been chasing her. Yet, I don't see what suing Albertson's has to do with anything? For what? Damages to the car? Pain and suffering for the loss of a child? Reckless endangerment?
I guess the article states that they are suing for "reckless endangerment". If that is the case, then you could sue the police everytime a criminal who is being chased crashes into an innocent victim or the property. Sure, you're talking police vs. employees of a victimized store. Still, the principle is the same. If a lawbreaker can sue their pursuer (I've pursued a lawbreaker before for busting out a window) than who will ever want to pursue a lawbreaker.
Those employees should have called the police immediately. We did when we were chasing the car thief. I'd hate to think that if the guy saw me chasing him he could've simply swerved into a tree, broken his legs and sued me or my family for millions of dollars. <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" />
We live in a suit-happy society and Albertson's can't bring the kid back. I say place the blame where it belongs. I'm sure the mother feels guilty enough, but you can't just put the blame off on someone else like that. It's not right.
This is true also. I must have missed that as I skimmed the article. In this case the kids should get a ticket for speeding.
<strong>
I don't agree. She drove the car. She stole the groceries. She sped away from the scene. These were choices she made. Whatever harrassment she was enduring at the hands of Albertsons employees, she could have simply sat in the car and waited for the police to come.
I have a questions- was the child buckled up?</strong><hr></blockquote>
The problem here is not the crime but the fact that the Manager ordered the Employees to retrieve the Woman(even though she no longer had the groceries). Therefore he delegated power that Legally these gentleman don't possess. They are culpable for the death because they broke the Law(speeding) in their attempts to detain the Woman. I'm afraid Albersons is going to pay heavily for this. The case at the bottom about the Man that was killed over a pack of cigarettes has set a precedent that will be "pounded" into a local Jury's collective heads. Only a Bufoon of a Lawyer would lose this case...plaintiff greed or not.
[edit]
Rosenberger believes the employees knew that the 9-year-old child was in the front seat. Because of that, their actions were reckless, he said. They should also have used the cellphone to call for help during the chase, Rosenberger said.
Let's see, they physically accosted her (which they have no right to do), chased her at high speeds (with her running in fear of them after they have already physically accosted her) at the orders of Albertson's management.
Yeah, big time ****ed.
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
They obviously have been watching too much "America's Deadliest High Speed Chases" shows.
They hadn't even called the cops. What were they going to do, drag this woman out of the car and beat the shit out of her?!
I hope she milks them for millions.
<strong>
Only a Bufoon of a Lawyer would lose this case...plaintiff greed or not.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I wans't assailing the legal merit, here. Clearly, the employees went far beyond their authority. And I am sure that the store will lose and have to pay. But the woman is still responsible for the death of that child. She was not run off the road. She could have calmly driven to the nearest police station if she felt endangered by the Albertson's employees. She chose not to- she chose to speed off at 90 mph with her child in the car. She is entirely responsible for that childs death. Will she win? Probably. Should she profit from this? No.
I wish there was a way to have any judgement awarded (lawyers fees included) to a food bank. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: tmp ]</p>
How was she to know that they wouldn't just run her off the road or trap her somewhere? They had physically assaulted her and were chasing her knowing she had a kid in the car.
Sorry, tmp, Albertson's is 100% culpable here. If someone slapped you around at a stoplight you would just drive calmly to the nearest police station (assuming that you know where one was)?
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
Ah, some things are just sooo easy when you're sitting at a computer...
<strong>How exactly do you drive calmly away from people who are chasing you and have physically attacked you?
How was she to know that they wouldn't just run her off the road or trap her somewhere? They had physically assaulted her and were chasing her knowing she had a kid in the car.
Sorry, tmp, Albertson's is 100% culpable here. If someone slapped you around at a stoplight you would just drive calmly to the nearest police station (assuming that you know where one was)?
[ 04-16-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
she should have pulled over, or not run at all. ive been in high speed car chases before, and only been caught once. 90 mph is not really all that much--it wasnt so much that it was so fast, but more that she was freaked out and was driving stupid.
plain and simple, it was her own damn fault. if i run from a cop and kill myself or someone else, i am the only one to blame...
yes, they are hardly cops, but she is still running...and she is still the one w/ the throttle up to 90 mph. she instigated the whole situation. i dont give a sh*t if someone was chasing her and she was "afraid." shes supposed to be afraid!!!!!!!!! she just broke the damn law!!!!!!!!!! therefore, her crash was brought upon only by her own actions. the response of others shouldnt matter. she started the problem, and she drove the car into a tree. noone else did. just her.
if she hadnt stolen the groceries AND run away, her child would still be alive...
In the article:
"...and accosted her verbally and physically."
[quote]She had a car that could have been put in park with the windows up and waited for the police or driven to the nearest station- or just have waited in the parking lot when they stopped her.<hr></blockquote>
What police would she be waiting for, they didn't call the police until *after* she had already run into the tree.
And again, how the hell does her option to drive to a police station at all exonerate Albertson's of its culpability?
Maybe she didn't even know where a police station was or maybe she was trying to get to one, you don't know and it doesn't even make a difference.
[quote]These were gorcery store clerk, for gods sake, not carjhackers or hitmen.<hr></blockquote>
They were a threat to her safety, they physically attacked her and chased her at dangerous speeds.
<strong>
They were a threat to her safety, they physically attacked her and chased her at dangerous speeds.</strong><hr></blockquote>
no. she RAN at dangerous speeds. just because they pursued her didnt mean that she had to keep accelerating. she was gonna be caught regardless. running wouldnt have solved anything in this case. again, its her own damn fault fer pushing on the accelerator after she decided to run away.
1) they are not cops
2) she had a legitimate fear for her safety
She drove 90 to get away from others going 90 that were chasing her and had previously physically assaulted her. Sorry, the chasers lose this one.
[quote]she instigated the whole situation.<hr></blockquote>
She didn't instigate being chased and assaulted by ****ing acne-scarred grocery store clerks.
[quote]i dont give a sh*t if someone was chasing her and she was "afraid." shes supposed to be afraid!!!!!!!!! she just broke the damn law!!!!!!!!!! therefore, her crash was brought upon only by her own actions.<hr></blockquote>
So when you break the law it's fair game on you?
When you shoplift you deserve what you get, eh? If the stockers want to take a rusty pipe to you out back that's the game, right?
Gig 'em! Hyuck!
[quote]noone else did. just her.<hr></blockquote>
If I shoot you in the face, isn't it really your fault that you stopped breathing since I didn't constrict your lungs directly?
[quote]if she hadnt stolen the groceries AND run away, her child would still be alive...<hr></blockquote>
And if Albertson's employees hadn't taken illegal actions against her her child would still be alive... and that's the entire point.
To the Albertson Manager who ordered this:
That loud sucking sound sound you hear is your career going down the drain.