www.HowToSueWalMart.com
by
Robert Paisola, Las Vegas, Nevada USA

ROBERT PAISOLA vs. WAL-MART CORPORATION....THE MAZE!
STORE 3350- LAS VEGAS NEVADA

What is this blog about www.HowToSueWalMart.com
THE FIRST THING THAT I WANT YOU TO DO IS ADD ME AS A FRIEND ON FACEBOOK. THIS WILL GIVE YOU REAL TIME CASE DATA www.Facebook.com/WesternCapital

BE SURE TO LISTEN TO THE FULL AUDIO OF MY FIRST CALL WITH WAL-MART AFTER THE ACCIDENT... THIS SHOWS HOW THEY TREAT PEOPLE AND HOW THEY SIMPLY DO NOT GIVE A DAMN ABOUT YOU,,,,, UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO GO TO WAR,,,, AND WE ARE.... AND IT IS ALL BEING DOCUMENTED HERE!

Robert Paisola's First Call with Wall-Mart Adjuster Who DENIED MY CLAIM! http://www.mycollector.com/PaisolaVWalmartCall1.wma

BACKGROUND:

Hello my dear friends, Thank you for all of your messages, phone calls and postings about my last post about the MRI. About 2 weeks ago, I stopped at Wal Mart on the way home from the office and some customer decided to change their oil in the parking lot.... and let the 5 quarts of oil drain and SIT IN THE PARKING LOT. As I was leaving the store, (I was was dressed in a suit and tie) and I FELL head first into this massive puddle of oil. (If you want the whole story and pictures, scroll to about 11-23-14 below) Now... those of you that know me, know how I reacted. With camera in hand I began to document the heck out of what happened. I took audio and video statements (Think In Depth Police Work) and filled out a claim at the store. I went to the ER and they took x-Rays and said I had compressed and fractured my spine. Yes... It hurt like hell and they gave me some bs pain medication and referred me to a specialist. I got a call from Wal Mart's claim department (An outside company who I am going to bury) and some lady with a seriously bitchy attitude took my claim information.... which I recorded.... do you want to hear it? Ok.. This is for Learning purposes only... THIS IS THE ACTUAL FIRST CALL WITH WAL MART ( http://www.mycollector.com/PaisolaVWalmartCall1.wma ) Notice How The Adjuster DID NOT WANT TO BE RECORDED- But they wanted to Record me? RIGHT!!!! If you listen to the call you can tell how they treated me from the beginning. Well about a week after this call the same lady called back and said that the cameras picked up the accident perfectly.... but they were denying responsibility, as "There was no way we could have known that this was on our parking lot" Lucky I had a statement from the manager saying that they were waiting for another hour for the parking lot sweeper to clean the lot. I caught them in so many lies and the audio never lies! So now I will be documenting everything at www.HowToSueWalMart.com and I am going to document everything for YOU! GOD HELP THEM Those of you that listened to the call can tell I was digging. This is what I do for all of my VIP Clients. and I never stop. So welcome to my world and sit back and watch as I share with the world my battle with Wal Mart. (Right Now the blog that it will be at is located at is ( http://howtosuewalmart.blogspot.com )

Again... This is the first conversation with Wal Mart's Claim Company that I am posting for my clients to see how a case is handled from A-Z at Western Capital

Robert Paisola's First Call with Wall-Mart Adjuster Who DENIED MY CLAIM! http://www.mycollector.com/PaisolaVWalmartCall1.wma

UPDATE: Three days ago we were called by the lady adjuster that you heard in the tape and were told that she does not feel that there is any liability on the part of Wal-Mart! Really? Well I am glad that I am a document hound.. because that is not how I see it. So I did some research on people in America who have sued Wal-Mart.. Lets look at the results!

What You Should Know About Suing Wal-Mart

Many lawyers already know the difficulties of litigation against Wal-Mart, but for the benefit of those who are contemplating filing suit against the company, you should understand the following.

* Wal-Mart is a formidable opponent in court. It retains some of the best lawyers in the country, who have considerable experience defending the company. These lawyers are not afraid to take a case to trial. And when they lose Wal-Mart will usually appeal, even small verdicts. Wal-Mart's lawyers are connected to their own "extranet," a kind of electronic newsletter published by the legal staff at the home office. This allows Wal-Mart lawyers to have up-to-date information about key court decisions, strategy, and such things as expert witnesses the company will face. (One of the reasons for establishing the Wal-Mart Litigation Project was to counter the built-in advantage that Wal-Mart lawyers enjoy by being electronically connected.)

* Wal-Mart lawyers are paid primarily on a per-case basis. The per-case fee keeps Wal-Mart's cost of litigation low and produces a greater likelihood that a case will actually go to trial. Wal-Mart has little trouble finding able lawyers, despite the per-case payment, because the economics of law practice dictate the need for a steady source of income simply to pay the law firm's overhead.

* Wal-Mart is very reluctant to settle cases out-of-court. It is folly to think, "Oh, they're a big company, they'll settle." The founder of Wal-Mart, Sam Walton, established the company policy of fighting lawsuits and it remains the policy today. Wal-Mart settles cases only after prolonged court proceedings (called discovery) make it clear that the company was at fault and the plaintiff has sustained serious injuries and will appear to the jury as a likeable person. Settlements are usually small compared to similar injuries in other cases where a corporation is a defendant.

* Verdicts against Wal-Mart are usually low. This is due, in part, to the enormous good will Wal-Mart has built up by its television commercials which show friendly Wal-Mart employees, and the ability of the company's lawyers to portray plaintiffs as untruthful or exaggerating their injuries. Isolated newspaper accounts of high verdicts do not portray an accurate account of what most juries decide in Wal-Mart cases. Juries have been known to award the injured customer only his or her medical expenses and little more.

One example will illustrate this. In the state of Kentucky in 1998, there were approximately 617 jury verdicts in civil (non-criminal) cases. Of these 29 involved Wal-Mart, the most of any single defendant. Here are the results of those cases: Wal-Mart won 9 and lost 20. Of these 29 cases, 18 involved slip and falls; the causes of the falls included a puddle (six times), leaves, lettuce, an extension cord, ketchup, ice and concrete blocks. The premises liability genre resulted in eight cases, with various items falling onto customers that included shelves (twice) and a box of diapers. In two cases, plaintiffs were struck by carts. The three other cases involved a golf-cart accident, a bad oil change on an old Mercedes, and a claim of national origin discrimination filed by a West Indian.

The twenty plaintiffs' verdicts resulted in a total of $934,910 being awarded. The average award where the plaintiff won was $46,745. Removing the four largest of these verdicts from the total drops the average to $17,888 per plaintiff's verdict. If defense verdicts are included, the average award for all cases which went to trial was $32,238. See The Kentucky Trial Court Review: The Year in Review, 1998, at p. 45.

* Most lawyers are not interested in filing suits against Wal-Mart. The company is reluctant to settle cases promptly and fairly and almost seems eager to take cases to trial. One of the goals of the Wal-Mart Litigation Project is to identify lawyers who are ready, willing and able to sue the company where a case has merit.

Walmart is one of the most well known companies in America today. In fact, it has consistently been ranked at the top of the Fortune 500 rankings, and last month was awarded the #1 spot, with $444 billion in revenue in 2012. wet%20floor.jpg

Thousands of civil lawsuits are filed every year against Walmart for various reasons. For example, earlier this year in Virginia, one Walmart customer reportedly won a verdict against Walmart for $11,250,000.00 following a slip and fall accident that left him severely disabled, and permanently in pain. The man’s injuries included numerous fractured bones in his back, his elbow, and his hand, and a rotator cuff injury. The reason for the unmarked wet floor was allegedly because an employee had left the area after mopping it in order to retrieve a warning cone.

The purpose of the seemingly large dollar amounts in cases like this one are several fold. First of all, the award sets out to cover all of the previously incurred medical expenses, and cover all those medical and related therapies and costs that may be incurred in the future. Further, it attempts to compensate the individual for the pain and suffering that they have suffered. It is also common for awards to compensate the individual for any previously lost wages, and if the person is unable to work, what they might have been able to earn. Lastly, punitive damages, which seek to punish the defendant for the wrongful conduct, are also sometimes a part of personal injury damage awards.

Slip and fall accidents like this one occur when someone slips or trips and falls, and endures some sort of injury, while they are on someone else’s property. If a person is injured due to the failure of the land owner to properly maintain or keep the area safe, there may be a potential premises liability claim. The injured person may have the right to receive compensation for the injuries and losses he or she sustained as a result of the fall. Slip and fall accidents can happen on both public and private property.

In Maryland, slip and fall cases are not easy to win, but an experienced personal injury lawyer will be able to determine the potential strength of your individual case. These cases are incredibly fact specific. The owner of the property is responsible only if the owner knew of a dangerous condition that caused the injured person to fall and failed to eliminate that dangerous condition. In addition, under certain circumstances, the owner of the property can be held responsible even if the owner of the property did not know of the dangerous condition, but failed to properly monitor the condition of the property.

Falling at Wal-Mart Makes for a Difficult Legal Battle

May 18th 2012 by Richard Console

The Pennsylvania slip-and-fall at Wal-Mart attorneys know and understand the difficulties of undertaking litigation against corporate giants such as Wal-Mart. As a company, Wal-Mart has faced hundreds of lawsuits, many of them premises liability cases for slip-and-fall injuries. If you have been injured at a Wal-Mart location and are contemplating filing a lawsuit, it is important that you understand the challenges that lie ahead.

It is critical to understand that Wal-Mart is a formidable opponent in court. The company has a high-powered team of attorneys who have considerable experience defending the company. These are lawyers who will not think twice about taking a case to trial. Remember, even when they lose a small case, it is likely that they will appeal the verdict. Wal-Mart’s lawyers are also connected by an electronic network that provides them with updated information about important court decisions, jury verdicts, defense strategies, etc. This gives them a significant advantage.

Wal-Mart’s attorneys are paid on a case-by-case basis. This not only keeps the company’s litigation costs low, but also makes it more likely that a case will go to trial. You will hardly see the company show a willingness to settle cases out-of-court. If you are planning to sue Wal-Mart, it would be safe to assume that they will fight to the very end. The only cases where the company has been known to settle is when it is clearly proven during the discovery process that the company was clearly at fault for the plaintiff’s serious injuries. Even in such cases, the settlement amounts are likely to be small. When a case against Wal-Mart goes to trial and the plaintiff wins, the jury awards are also likely to be lower compared to cases against other corporations because of Wal-Mart’s positive public image built up over years of advertising and marketing.

In any premises liability claim, it is the plaintiff’s responsibility to prove that the property owner was negligent. Plaintiffs must prove that there was a dangerous condition on the property, which the owner failed to fix or warn visitors about and that the dangerous condition was the proximate cause of his or her injuries. Injured victims in such cases can seek compensation for damages including medical expenses, loss of wages, hospitalization, rehabilitation and pain and suffering. In cases against corporate giants such as Wal-Mart, it is important that victims get an aggressive, smart, skilled and tenacious lawyer on their side, who will fight hard for their rights. An experiencedPennsylvania premises liability lawyer will be able to give injured victims and their families more information about pursuing their legal rights in such cases.

If you slipped and fell at a Wal-Mart store and filed a lawsuit over your injuries, as the litigation goes on, your attorney will discuss settlement options with you. How do you negotiate a satisfactory resolution of your case with a large corporate defendant like Wal-Mart? Read on for some tips.

Strategy and Burden of Proof

Your lawyer will have advised you what it takes to win a negligence claim. You have to be able to show:

that Wal-Mart owed you a duty of care to keep their store safe for you as a customer (Wal-Mart should admit this part, as far as the existence of a legal obligation)
that they breached that duty by not keeping the area safe when you fell, and
that their failure to properly maintain the store caused you to be injured and suffer damages, such as lost wages and medical bills.

Establishing duty is usually easy, and showing that you have injuries and other damages probably is as well. What can be hard is showing that Wal-Mart failed in its duty to you, and that that failure is what caused you to be hurt.

You will also need to show that your actions didn't contribute to your fall or that, if they did, that contribution was minor compared to Wal-Mart's actions. Your role, if any, is called contributory or comparative negligence. Depending on your jurisdiction, you may not be able to win any money if your actions played an equal or greater part in the accident than did Wal-Mart's liability, or your recovery may be reduced by the amount the jury attributes to your negligence. Of course, you may not have been at fault at all, but the fact that Wal-Mart could raise this argument is something to think about as you consider settlement.

The key question in most Wal-Mart slip and fall cases, when arguing that the store failed to meet its obligations to you as a customer, is whether the unsafe condition (such as a slippery floor) that caused your fall was present long enough that Wal-Mart knew about it or should have known about it. Wal-Mart has a policy of conducting regular safety sweeps of each area in the store, which you will have learned about during the discovery process, where each side compiles its evidence. Given this, you can argue that they should've noticed the wet floor (or whatever dangerous condition it was) before you fell on it. This argument is perhaps easier to make if the accident occurred in one of the aisles as opposed to the front of the store, which is the most high-traffic area.

The answer to this question might be your most important consideration in negotiations with Wal-Mart. If you are able to obtain the evidence described in our companion article, Gathering Evidence in a Wal-Mart Case, that will improve your negotiating position.

Stick to Your Guns and Don't Settle Prematurely

Other considerations when negotiating your claim with Wal-Mart may include the severity of your injury, the length of your medical treatment, your future prognosis and the amount of your lost wages. The higher those numbers are, and the longer your treatment, the greater your damages would be at trial, which represents a greater risk to Wal-Mart if a jury ends up hearing your case.

In the past, Wal-Mart did force most of its cases to trial and was very inflexible in terms of settlement, which can explain its relatively high rate of success. It most likely did this to intimidate plaintiffs -- but today's reality is somewhat different. Wal-Mart has greater incentives to settle now that the legal landscape has shifted somewhat from cases like Lanier V. Wal-Mart

LANIER V. WAL-MART STORES INC

In 2003, Lanier v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., a landmark case in Kentucky, precipitated this shift. That decision shifted the burden of demonstrating that employees caused an unsafe condition -- or could have addressed it but did not -- to the store rather than the injured person. The court indicated that if a plaintiff could prove he or she fell and was injured due to the presence of a foreign substance on the floor, then a rebuttable presumption arises that Wal-Mart did not keep its store in reasonably safe condition. It then becomes the store's responsibility to show that it did exercise care in the maintenance of the premises.

The Lanier court recognized that the way that retail giants like Wal-Mart operate, with their method of self-service shopping, lends itself to accidents like customer falls. The court also explained that a photograph of the aisle where the plaintiff had fallen supported the idea that Wal-Mart arranges its displays in a way that draws customers' attention toward them instead of toward the floor, where hazards may be.

A case is only as strong as the facts underlying it. Plaintiffs' success rates vary widely for this reason. Only you, with your lawyer's advice, can decide whether to negotiate a resolution of your case or go to trial. But if your damages are severe, and you have a good claim for liability against Wal-Mart, don't let the fact that it is a large corporation deter you from having your day in court.