Printable View
I was shocked to hear this story on my local newscast. Thankfully Loblaw has dropped plans to sue the driver of the van in which his wife and seven students died. I've copied the story from CBC.ca:
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswi...h-lawsuit.html
But it would have been nice to know why they were out to have this lawsuit in this case what was their connection between the company and the person who owned the van and the person who drove the van.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greentires4me
it is in the story....
Atlantic Wholesalers Limited and Loblaws Inc. had filed a statement of claim on Dec. 22 against Wayne Lord and Bathurst Van Inc., which owned the 15-passenger van that collided with their transport truck
It's amazing how quickly companies backpedal when there is public outcry
:neutral:
I see how it LOOKS bad, but now Loblaws will have to "absorb" that cost (that would have eventually been paid out by an insurance company) and then pass that cost onto consumers.
Its sad, but if you were in a car accident and it was someone else's fault and they ended up dying, wouldn't you still want your car repaired and your damages covered?
The public is construing their taking court action as predatory because they are a big company.Quote:
Originally Posted by julie.leeds
My own opinion is that it's not personal, they are simply trying to mitigate their losses from the accident, that's precisely what no-fault insurance is for.
:)
Companies spend a lot of money on advertising and marketing to create a positive perception of their brand. I live in NB and so the media coverage of this accident has been quite intense. In particular the way in which the mothers of the dead boys have been trying to change regulations regarding vehicle safety for vans used to transport students. While companies have rights to mitigate losses, I don't think that the money they could gain had they been successful in this lawsuit would justify the ill-will they created by pursuing this issue. Along with the seven boys who died so too did the wife of the driver of the vehicle. I think the company made the right decision in backing down and I think that the web is such a good tool in helping companies to re-evaluate decisions that may not have been well thought out by applying public pressure. The second anniversary of the crash is coming up and I think the mayor of Bathurst summed up the sentiment of many in this quote from the Globe and MailWhile costs are eventually passed onto the consumer, in these cases I think it's best that companies absorb the costs. It's the right thing to do and failing to do so hurts public perception of the brand which they spend a lot to try and cultivate. Just my two cents.Quote:
“This is a big company. And such a pittance for them and such a hurt for us. For this to come about at this time? … Not a good thing, at all.”
Link to Globe and Mail story:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1425223/
I think you made some good points. :top:Quote:
Originally Posted by LaZonica
Lawsuits are always a slippery slope, but particularly a household name like Loblaws needs to pay a lot of attention to impression management.
:)
I think that if the driver and the company that owned the van should pay out damages if they were found to be at fault. That money that Loblaws recovered then should be donated to the fight to have regulations changed to make vehicles that are transporting students safer. I think where the public outcry came into play was that the driver, who had already lost his wife, was also sued. I think there won't have been a public outcry if it was just the company that owned the van that was sued.