Mom Sues Wal-Mart Over Daughter's Suicide

[jazz lady]

DALLAS - Near the end of her short life, Shayla Stewart, a diagnosed manic-depressive and schizophrenic, assaulted police officers and was arrested for attacking a fellow customer at a Denton Wal-Mart where she had a prescription for anti-psychotic medication.

Given all those signs, her parents say, another Wal-Mart just seven miles away should have never sold her the shotgun she used to kill herself at age 24 in 2003.

The Bracys said Wal-Mart's gun department could have checked Wal-Mart's own security files or the pharmacy department's prescription records before selling her the weapon.

BUT...

But pharmacy prescription records are confidential under a 1996 federal law, so stores cannot use them when deciding whether to sell a gun.

Also, Wal-Mart did a background check on Stewart, as required under federal law, but through no fault of its own, her name did not show up in the FBI database. The reason: The database contains no mental health records from Texas and 37 other states.

Texas does not submit mental health records because state law deems them confidential, said Paul Mascot, an attorney with the Texas Department of State Health Services. Other states have not computerized their record-keeping systems or do not store them in a central location for use by the FBI.

Federal law prohibits stores from selling guns to people who, like Stewart, have a history of serious mental illness.

Would-be buyers must fill out a form that asks about mental health. Stewart, who had been involuntarily committed to an institution and declared dangerously mentally ill by a judge, lied on that form, according to her mother's attorney's office. Wal-Mart ran a background check anyway, as required by federal law.

So Wal-Mart should have KNOWN she was lying? I don't get it. They can't check her mental health records, but somehow should just KNOW she had a history of mental illness.

Click here for the entire story

 

[Penn]

BUT...

So Wal-Mart should have KNOWN she was lying? I don't get it. They can't check her mental health records, but somehow should just KNOW she had a history of mental illness.

Click here for the entire story

That is just nuts. By the facts, if true in the story, Wal*Mart could not have known the girl was disturbed.

I'm no fan of the Wal*Mart chain, but I have sold firearms in retail myself, and if nothing arises from the ATF Background check, there's no reason not to sell that person a firearm. Oh yeah, visual clues, but they are not mentioned here.

If the Pharmacy records are confidential, then the clerk selling the firearm has nothing to further prevent him or her from completing the sale.

I think this is another frivolous lawsuit, and Wal*Mart isn't liable from the facts stated in the story.

Yes, it's a darned shame that young girl took her own life, but how could it have been prevented, given the set of laws in place?

 

[virgovictoria]

I post this delicately, but I do hope the parents are "just" expressing their anger and will drop the suit if and when they come to their senses. Death is hard, unexpected death is harder and suicide is a just a son of a biatch to deal with, especially if it is your own child. In addition, she suffered from one of the toughest mental illnesses that a person can have, well two of them and that, in and of itself, can be a nightmare when dealing with a loved one. Bipolar disorder has the highest suicide rate among all mental illnesses and although you may think of one as "crazy", a chemical imbalance will not prevent one from getting what they think is the absolute only answer (for example the gun and then death). If it weren't WalMart, it would have been the neighbors, or a friend, or another means to the end, or their end as they see it.

 

[jazz lady]

but how could it have been prevented, given the set of laws in place?

Ding! Ding! Ding! The parents need to work to change the laws, NOT sue Wal-Mart, who followed the letter of the law.

 

[vraiblonde]

Some people will do ANYTHING to make a buck.

 

[Penn]

Whoa! Hold on here!

Reading for content now...............was the young lady sold the firearm before or after the incident with a fellow shopper and the police?

If it was afterwards, the family might just have a case.

Noone seriously thinks this issue would not have been reported throughout the regional stores in the area, to each store manager, then down to the sporting goods department?

Yes, they would have known.

 

[geminigrl]

I post this delicately, but I do hope the parents are "just" expressing their anger and will drop the suit if and when they come to their senses. Death is hard, unexpected death is harder and suicide is a just a son of a biatch to deal with, especially if it is your own child. In addition, she suffered from one of the toughest mental illnesses that a person can have, well two of them and that, in and of itself, can be a nightmare when dealing with a loved one. Bipolar disorder has the highest suicide rate among all mental illnesses and although you may think of one as "crazy", a chemical imbalance will not prevent one from getting what they think is the absolute only answer (for example the gun and then death). If it weren't WalMart, it would have been the neighbors, or a friend, or another means to the end, or their end as they see it.

Very well said VV. I personally know how Bipolar can affect a person, very sad.

 

[vraiblonde]

Very well said VV. I personally know how Bipolar can affect a person, very sad.

Okay, but is it Wal-Mart's responsibility to keep this person from killing herself?

 

[geminigrl]

Okay, but is it Wal-Mart's responsibility to keep this person from killing herself?

No it's not. I said nothing of the sort, just saying that I know how bipolar can affect a person. The lawsuit to me is uncalled for. JMO

 

[vraiblonde]

No it's not. I said nothing of the sort, just saying that I know how bipolar can affect a person. The lawsuit to me is uncalled for. JMO

Okay, nevermind. I mis-read VV's post.

 

[virgovictoria]

Okay, nevermind. I mis-read VV's post.

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZNskw006' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_2_10.gif' alt='It's All Good' border=0></a>

 

[Penn]

Okay, nevermind. I mis-read VV's post.

Did you all miss something??

If the young lady was sold a firearm after the incident with the police and another customer, there would have been inter-store memos being sent throughout the region of stores.

To all store managers, and especially the warning would have gone down to the sporting goods sections where firearms are sold. It is that sensitive an issue with firearms sales, believe me.

There is a good chance, maybe that this sale, and eventual suicide might have been prevented, no?

 

[geminigrl]

Did you all miss something??

If the young lady was sold a firearm after the incident with the police and another customer, there would have been inter-store memos being sent throughout the region of stores.

To all store managers, and especially the warning would have gone down to the sporting goods sections where firearms are sold. It is that sensitive an issue with firearms sales, believe me.

There is a good chance, maybe that this sale, and eventual suicide might have been prevented, no?

Penn, this is a touchy subject for me, so I won't go into it too deep. If this girl had bipolar I doubt there is much that could have prevented it, if it wasn't Wal-mart it would have been somewhere else. Maybe with a little more parent involvement it could have been prevented. JMO

 

[ylexot]

there would have been inter-store memos being sent throughout the region of stores.

I doubt that.

 

[FromTexas]

She wasn't trying to buy a gun the first time, so they had no reason to tell other stores not to sell her a gun. They had an incident where police were called (just like drunks, etc...) that I am sure happen on a daily basis at Walmarts around the country. I doubt they sit and send out memos and details on each person. It wouldn't make sense. No one would read all the massive reports they have coming out, for one, and two, its not something that has a legal or requirement from necessity. GG is right also - if not Walmart, it would have been another place or another method.

BTW - That Denton Walmart ... (cry) ... that was my WalMart before moving here. It actually had a grocery section (cry). It was so big in comparison (cry). It wasn't filled with SMIBs after 9pm (big cry). It was a very nice Walmart... (hehe)

 

[Penn]

Folks, remember I said I sold farearms in retail earlier?

Alright, it was at the California Wal*Mart here on RTE 235 where I sold them.

People, if you pass a bad check at Wal*Mart, it gets distributed to other stores in the region.

Why?

Because they figure you'll go to another Wal*Mart and try it again.

Now firearms are a whole 'nuther issue. If a customer were cited for a public disturbance, involving the Police, and that she had to be restrained and escorted out of the store, I am reasonably sure the word would have gone out to other stores in the area.

I ask you to trust me on this. Where firearms are involved, they take it real serious there, or they did when I worked there.

 

[Lenny]

Did you all miss something??

If the young lady was sold a firearm after the incident with the police and another customer, there would have been inter-store memos being sent throughout the region of stores.

To all store managers, and especially the warning would have gone down to the sporting goods sections where firearms are sold. It is that sensitive an issue with firearms sales, believe me.

There is a good chance, maybe that this sale, and eventual suicide might have been prevented, no?

The answer is no. You're pretty hung up over this. But if you read the article it specifically says the prescriptions and assaults took place in one store and the purchase of the firearm took place in another. Even if she was placed on an "APB" (all points bulletin) list (which is DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD IDEA in this day and age of PERSONEL PRIVACY demands) there's no proof the firearms section would have received it. It would probably have been given to the folks who watch the security cameras to watch for her to assault another customer somewhere else.

But is it irresponsible to invent the requirement for individual Target stores to send out such a warning in the first place (that's what personal injury lawyers (read John Edwards) do to get their immoral verdicts - create irresponsible requirements that aren't there in the first place).

 

[Club'nBabySeals]

Call me old fashioned----but it wasn't that clerk at Wal-Mart who took the shotgun, stuffed it in that girl's mouth, and pulled the trigger.

Personal accountability, people. She made a choice.

Those parents---even despite their grief---should get their heads out of their @zzes and tack the blame where it really lies: with their daughter. That case should be thrown out of court.

 

[Penn]

The answer is no. You're pretty hung up over this. But if you read the article it specifically says the prescriptions and assaults took place in one store and the purchase of the firearm took place in another. Even if she was placed on an "APB" (all points bulletin) list (which is DEFINITELY NOT A GOOD IDEA in this day and age of PERSONEL PRIVACY demands) there's no proof the firearms section would have received it. It would probably have been given to the folks who watch the security cameras to watch for her to assault another customer somewhere else.

But is it irresponsible to invent the requirement for individual Target stores to send out such a warning in the first place (that's what personal injury lawyers (read John Edwards) do to get their immoral verdicts - create irresponsible requirements that aren't there in the first place).

I will not fight with you on this matter; all I can tell you is that our department manager usually gave us a brief on who, by name, would not be allowed to purchase a firearm at Wal*Mart sporting goods, because some questionable incident had taken place. The name(s) were kept on file in a refusal folder in a lock-up cabinet.

We had the right to refuse to sell firearms to an individual - if we were given sufficient reason, ie., visual instability, or sometimes even oral statements that were made while discussing the use of a firearm prior to purchasing one.

One fella asked me - if the fact that he was a convicted wife-beater/abuser - would that disqualify him from buying a firearm? : He didn't even get to see the FFL form he normally would have had to fill out!

I could be wrong on this case, but I have a feeling if this went down as described, it's just not that cut and dry an issue as I first thought it looked.

 

[ylexot]

Ok, let's assume that her name was on a list at the Wal-Mart. It still isn't Wal-Mart's fault. In that case, they had a procedure in place that the clerk didn't follow.