• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Arrests over China Wal-Mart death

tlmorg02

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
3,347
Reaction score
1,078
Location
Louisville, Ky
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Arrests over China Wal-Mart death

Two Wal-Mart employees have been arrested in the Chinese city of Jingdezhen, in connection with the death of a customer, local police say.

Reports say Yu Xiaochun was intercepted and badly beaten by five Wal-Mart security guards who suspected her of shoplifting.

She died in hospital three days after the 30 August beating.

Wal-Mart has confirmed the incident and said it was fully co-operating with the relevant authorities.

Horrific scene

An eyewitness said she saw four or five young men beating the woman a few hundred yards away from the Wal-Mart store, and she had even gone over to tell them off. She said the scene was horrific.

The dead woman's husband told the media that he had found a shopping receipt in his wife's pocket after he got to the scene.

The victim was 37 years old and had a young son.

The police say they are doing all they can to prevent any public anger from fomenting into a so-called 'mass incident'.

Here is the real question! What will WalMart do to prevent a repeat of this incident, and will they be liable for this? Thoughts?
 
BBC NEWS | Asia-Pacific | Arrests over China Wal-Mart death



Here is the real question! What will WalMart do to prevent a repeat of this incident, and will they be liable for this? Thoughts?

Hopefully they are held liable. If this happened in the United States, they certainly would be held liable and could be sued for millions of dollars...but I don't know if Chinese liability laws regarding employee actions are the same as the laws here.

If I was the CEO of Wal-Mart, I would be on the phone with every international branch in the world, demanding that they educate their stores in how to PROPERLY deal with suspected shoplifters.
 
Hopefully they are held liable. If this happened in the United States, they certainly would be held liable and could be sued for millions of dollars...but I don't know if Chinese liability laws regarding employee actions are the same as the laws here.

The question of whether they would be liable here is definitely not as clear-cut as you imply. The fact that they worked for Wal-Mart doesn't automatically make the company liable for all of their actions.

If I was the CEO of Wal-Mart, I would be on the phone with every international branch in the world, demanding that they educate their stores in how to PROPERLY deal with suspected shoplifters.

Agreed.
 
The question of whether they would be liable here is definitely not as clear-cut as you imply. The fact that they worked for Wal-Mart doesn't automatically make the company liable for all of their actions.

Yes, but these actions were taking while they were working, on Wal-Mart property, because they suspected her of shoplifting from the store. They are definitely liable.
 
Someone must be responsible for the training and upbringing of the security guards.
The nation ?
IMO, they created the problem.
Walmart ?
Well, who else ??, they are ones raking in the millions.
This goes right up to the top, as it should.
Boil the CEOs in oil...see, I am no better.
 
Yes, but these actions were taking while they were working, on Wal-Mart property, because they suspected her of shoplifting from the store. They are definitely liable.

Those aren't the only factors in determining liability. The actions have to be within the course and the scope of the employment, which means that it has to be something that is naturally incidental to the job requirements as well as directly related to the employer's interest.

Depending on the training policies and rules of engagement for security guards (which tend to be very restrained at Wal-Mart), they might have a very good argument that what the security guards did was in no way related to the employer's interest.
 
Yes, but these actions were taking while they were working, on Wal-Mart property, because they suspected her of shoplifting from the store. They are definitely liable.
It says they were a few hundred yards away from the store, so they were probably not on store property.
 
It says they were a few hundred yards away from the store, so they were probably not on store property.

Have you ever been to a Wal-Mart? Their parking lots are more than a few hundred yards. Either way, I see WalMart taking some major blows for this one.
 
Have you ever been to a Wal-Mart? Their parking lots are more than a few hundred yards. Either way, I see WalMart taking some major blows for this one.
I doubt they would have much of a parking lot in China, if any at all. Not enough people in cars.
 
Fascinating.

It doesn't mean that a Walmart there would have a football-field of a parking lot, though.

I cannot find anything related to the story anywhere except the BBC, so I have no way of knowing the actual size. Funny that no U.S. news outlets are reporting on the story.
 
Last edited:
The question of whether they would be liable here is definitely not as clear-cut as you imply. The fact that they worked for Wal-Mart doesn't automatically make the company liable for all of their actions.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the United States businesses are generally held liable for the actions of their employees as they relate to their job duties. I think it would be very difficult to make the argument that the actions of these security guards was unrelated to their employment as security guards. If they were just random people in Wal-Mart rather than employees, would they have acted the same? Almost certainly not.

But like I said, Chinese law might be entirely different.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the United States businesses are generally held liable for the actions of their employees as they relate to their job duties. I think it would be very difficult to make the argument that the actions of these security guards was unrelated to their employment as security guards. If they were just random people in Wal-Mart rather than employees, would they have acted the same? Almost certainly not.

It's all about agency, which has many factors. Being an employee on company time doesn't make the company liable if the employees exceeded the scope of their agency, including company policy. Don't know if they did or didn't, only that there's more to it than that.
 
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in the United States businesses are generally held liable for the actions of their employees as they relate to their job duties. I think it would be very difficult to make the argument that the actions of these security guards was unrelated to their employment as security guards. If they were just random people in Wal-Mart rather than employees, would they have acted the same? Almost certainly not.

But like I said, Chinese law might be entirely different.

Walmart company policy probably doesn't permit its security guards to beat people to death. Just a thought.
 
It's all about agency, which has many factors. Being an employee on company time doesn't make the company liable if the employees exceeded the scope of their agency, including company policy. Don't know if they did or didn't, only that there's more to it than that.
how do we know WHAT it's about in china?
 
Walmart company policy probably doesn't permit its security guards to beat people to death. Just a thought.

I don't think that necessarily matters, at least in the United States. If it was that simple, then it should be relatively easy for companies to shield themselves from all agency-related lawsuits. All they would need is an employee manual that basically said "Don't do anything stupid" and provided examples of such.

It's not that easy in this country for corporations to shirk their duties to keep their customers safe.
 
I don't think that necessarily matters, at least in the United States. If it was that simple, then it should be relatively easy for companies to shield themselves from all agency-related lawsuits. All they would need is an employee manual that basically said "Don't do anything stupid" and provided examples of such.

But a company policy of "no physical contact" could do it, especially if there's a documented record of enforcing that policy.
 
It would appear that this is a very complex case. From the links Coronado provided it appears that the employees took their smocks of before chasing the woman down. Whether this was a done in order to avoid making Wal-Mart liable is another question. Regardless, Wal-Mart is handling this very carefully and aiding law enforcement in everyway in the investigation. I would say from my research of China, Wal-Mart will indeed be shouldered with some of this burden.
 
I don't think that necessarily matters, at least in the United States. If it was that simple, then it should be relatively easy for companies to shield themselves from all agency-related lawsuits. All they would need is an employee manual that basically said "Don't do anything stupid" and provided examples of such.

It's not that easy in this country for corporations to shirk their duties to keep their customers safe.

Okay, but do you think they should be held liable? I don't see how Walmart is responsible for the actions of these specific employees. Even if they gave the guards the most basic of guidelines (guard the store) that does not translate into tacit approval of irrational and excessive violence. Does Walmart have to include a beating clause in its security policy?

Walmart Security Policy.

Section 1: Walmart security guards are not permitted to-

a. hastily and wrongly accuse people of stealing and
b. proceed to beat them to death before conducting an investigation which would confrim or disconfirm the veracity of their accusations.


I don't think Walmart (or any company for that matter) should be held liable for what they don't tell people to do; only what they do tell them to do.
 
It would appear that this is a very complex case. From the links Coronado provided it appears that the employees took their smocks of before chasing the woman down. Whether this was a done in order to avoid making Wal-Mart liable is another question. Regardless, Wal-Mart is handling this very carefully and aiding law enforcement in everyway in the investigation. I would say from my research of China, Wal-Mart will indeed be shouldered with some of this burden.

Hmmmm...an interesting detail. I wonder if Orius will pop in here and give us a bit of perspective on this case. I'd be interested in hearing what he has to say about it.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom