Personal Injury Case: It was June 23, 2020, and just a typical summer day for Arts Rorimpandey. Typical that is, until he visited his neighbourhood Walmart. He went there to purchase …

Personal Injury Law Case: Another Great Victory for the little guy

It was June 23, 2020, and just a typical summer day for Arts Rorimpandey. Typical that is, until he visited his neighbourhood Walmart. He went there to purchase some Drano. This was located on the bottom shelf. Mr. Rorimpandey squatted down to look at the different Drano products. All of his attention was on the array of products.

Unbeknownst to Mr. Rorimpandey, a Walmart employee was moving some garbage bins.

Injury at Walmart

Walmart is a company focused solely on the bottom line. It does not ask its employees to move garbage in A garbage bin, but rather two bins at once. This saves money but makes it much more difficult for the employee to keep a safe lookout. I should note that Walmart creates a culture in which its employees are always feeling they are under the gun.

Back to Mr. Rorimpandey. The next thing he knew, his left shoulder was being rammed by a fully loaded garbage bin travelling at breakneck speed. He suffered a left shoulder joint separation. In medical terms, an acromioclavicular joint separation.
To make matters worse, Mr. Rorimpandey’s worked at a bakery, where heavy lifting was required. The joint separation in his left shoulder had a major impact on his ability to work. It prevented him from lifting. Fortunately, he had a very accommodating employer who asked the other workers to perform any lifts Mr. Rorimpandey needed done.

Mr. Rorimpandey hired me and I immediately filed a lawsuit (Notice of Civil Claim) against Walmart. Eventually, Walmart’s lawyer filed a Response to Civil Claim.

Here are some excerpts:

1. “ The Defendant Wal-Mart denies that the incident occurred as alleged in paragraph 6 of the Notice of Civil Claim.
2. If there was an accident as alleged, or at all, the Defendant Wal-Mart denies that it was negligent as alleged or at all.
3. The Defendant Wal-Mart denies that it was negligent or in breach of its duty of care owed to the Plaintiff under the Occupiers Liability Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 337 or otherwise.
4. If an incident occurred as alleged, or at all, then the Plaintiff was negligent, either wholly or contributorily, in failing to have due regard for his safety, the particulars of which are as follows:
   1. a. he failed to keep a proper lookout;
   2. b. he failed to take precaution for his own safety; c. he is the author of his own misfortune; d. he had the last clear chance to avoid the incident and failed to avail himself of that chance;
   3. e. he acted recklessly and without due care;
   4. f. he was not paying due care and attention;
   5. g. he was impaired by fatigue, medication or other substances;”

I did not dillydally. Corporate defendants do not like trials. Too great a risk of getting negative publicity. I set Mr. Rorimpandey matter down for trial for the first date available in the court’s calendar. I then ordered expert reports including one from Mr. Rorimpandey’s family doctor.

Mediation in Personal Injury Law Case

On July 13th of this year, Wal-Mart asked for the matter to go to mediation. We agreed and on August 17th, we went to mediation. It settled, but only on Wal-Mart’s condition that Mr. Rorimpandey not ever disclose the terms of the settlement.

I want to thank Mr. Rorimpandey for giving me the opportunity to fight for him. He was a wonderful client to work with. I wish him and his family the best of success.

Contact Tim Louis Today

Get the legal help you need. Contact Tim Louis for a free legal consultation at 604-732-7678 or email timlouis@timlouislaw.com .