SJC throws out lawsuit in CVS stabbing case

While I feel for the parents because they lost their son, I don't think they had any right to sue either. Nobody told him to run after a shoplifter. It wasn't like he was even defending his own business -- it's a CVS store -- I'm sure if he had been lucky enough to catch the shoplifter he wouldn't have received anything from CVS for his efforts.

This is why you're always told to NOT chase robbers or be a hero.

was this young man trained in robbery procedures
I know of no employer who would encourage an employee to chase
shoplifters out the door
unfortunately the young man used poor judgement
my heart goes out to his parents

Why should these people get money for their son's death?? It is not the store's fault that a drug addict chose to rob the store where their son worked. And it is not the store's fault if their son decided to leave the store to chase down the drug addict/shoplifter. I doubt that CVS has a policy of telling its employees that they should leave the store to chase dangerous criminals rather than calling the police. This family is just greedy and looking for a big payday.. As sad as it is that an innocent person was murdered, I feel no sympathy for a family that is just trying to make money off of their son's death.

CVS baises their employee bonuses, by how much or how little theft is at the store. So more theft, less bonus. I bet that wasn't discussed in court!!!

I'm sorry the family lost their son. Nothing will replace him. But CVS is not responsible for the death in any way shape or form. Almost every retail job, new hires are told NOT to chase after a theif...to leave that up to the store detective or police officer, especially if the items being stolen are of relatively low monetary value, as it was in this instance (a couple of tubes of toothpaste, if I'm remembering correctly. If the family felt the need for a lawsuit, perhaps they should have sued the criminal himself. Maybe if we start holding the actual criminals responsible for their actions once in a while, we can put an end to frivolous lawsuits

Marshall created a remedy for proponents of gay marriage without a thought of leaving it to the legislature. I guess doing the same here wouldn't be as politically fashionable.

Even if he did not chase the robber and was stabbed at the counter the parents still would have lost under the same law. Do you still think it is right?

I'm willing to bet Norman is right. Having worked for a few different retailers, many said "don't be a hero" while at the same time adding "do everything you can to stop theft".
Truth is, most large companies would rather loose a few employees here and there rather than a monetary judgement that could cost them "good PR".

I feel very sorry for Giambrone's parents.

I could see a good deal of problems here.
It's terrible that someone died during this altercation, but no matter if the kid was right or wrong in chasing, CVS is not to blame and thus should not be the object of the lawsuit.
As the Bunny stated, the only one to blame is the criminal himself.

On the subject of the suit being blocked, part of me wants to say that the corporation should not grant workers' rights in exchange for legal immunity, but cases like these are probably the sole reason for it.

I agree CVS cannot be held liable for this young man's poor judgment. However Cathy how insentive are you I guess you don't have any children.
I am sure the parents did not think about suing until a lawyer said hey you can probably sue CVS for your son's death. Lawyers are the ones who are greedy preying on a tragic loss such as this.

Norman makes an excellent point. Management bonuses are based on profit and loss. The company undoubtedly urges safety first. However, there’s a conflict in the formula when the loss affects your wallet. It’s also important to note security methods or rather lack thereof. Police detail is frowned upon because of cost. In fact, stores are lucky to have a minimum-wage security guard at locations. Remember… everything in corporate culture is cost-analysis. And so we wait until something bad happens to get a temporary bandaid in place. The family is in my prayers

So lame that they would even try to sue the store. Sue the guy that stabbed him! DUH!

Wouldn't it be nice if CVS gave something to the parents anyway...no money then something perhaps in the lines of a scholarship or trust to fund after school activities for poorer kids.......Now that's good PR for CVS the question is will they step up to the plate? Giambrone Family :may God comfort you...Cristian you made the world a better place.

I absolutely feel for the parents, and I'm sure the court felt bad to have to deliver the bad news, but they were absolutely correct in denying this lawsuit. It is understandable for a store to encourage employees to watch for shoplifters, be alert to quickly notify the police, and properly lock up expensive products in order to reduce loss to put a bonus in place for managers who do this; however, it is also probably in the employee manual that employees should never pursue a shoplifter, physically restrain a customer even if they are expected of theft, or similar acts, since a wrongful accusation of theft could result in CVS being held liable by the accused for their being illegally restrained, assaulted, or similar torts (wrongdoings). Only if the employer had a history of firing employees who don't chase shoplifters would there be some argument, but the employee would still be better to let the theft take place then, if fired, sue CVS for wrongful dismissal (against their policies and safety).

The employee was acting in good faith and for the benefit of their employer; however, he made a lapse in judgment and, as CVS is not at fault for it, should not be found financially liable for it. Though it's a heartbreaking story, the suit against CVS had less merit than many of the lawsuits we hear about where the reaction is "no one's safe if you can sue for that." The employee acted outside reasonable operating procedures and should have foreseen the potential for violence. If this case established precedent, all employers would begin having many frivolous suits against them citing this case, liability insurance premiums would skyrocket, and the only people to really benefit would be lawyers and people making the claim. It would not help employees and would wrongfully cripple businesses.

"Sue the guy that stabbed him! DUH!" And exactly how much money damages would the family be able to collect from a drug addict who is likely going to spend the rest of his life in prison? DUH!

I agree with #14 Elizabeth, it would be a nice if C,V,S gave something in the line of a donation in memory of his name. After all he did what he thought was the right thing to do and paid for it with his life. God take good care of the Giambrone family because the pain will not go away for them.

Please do some research before making comments about the bonuses given to CVS employees. Theft is a very, very small component of it, and no store manager would ever willingly and knowingly put the safety of an employee at risk for the sake of merchandise. All employees are taught on their first day of work that chasing a shoplifter is never, EVER, acceptable. Police details are used in stores where the amount of theft is above the norm. Every store experiences theft at some level, it's just part of the business. But to put a police officer in every store is just not realistic. And the local police departments are usually on speed dial anyway and respond within minutes.

I sympathize with the Giambrone Family, and I second ElizabethN's thoughts that CVS should do something for him. But to sue CVS, who was not responsible, seems like a waste of time. I agree, it was probably a lawyer's idea.

it is against CVS policy to pursue shoplifters. he could have been fired for going after someone, i have seen it done (even prior to this 2004 stabbing)
PS NORMAN- he was a clerk and not elidgible for a bonus. only salary managers are.

"So lame that they would even try to sue the store. Sue the guy that stabbed him! DUH!"

The criminal doubtless has no assets. The lawyer is going after the deep pockets. It's cases like this that convince me that the loser should pay the costs of the winner - then the lawyer wouldn't have wasted everybody's (parent's, CVS's, court's) time...

I worked for CVS for 2 years...Their policy is to comply with robbers and certainly not run after them.

Does anyone know if this was a robbery or did the kid just see someone shoplifting and try to go confront them? CVS isn't responsible either way, but one is a little less stupid.

Does anyone know why the family was not entitled to any death benefits under Massachusetts workers comp law? In most jurisdictions, if a death occurs in the course of employment, a death benefit of x number of weeks of benefits is paid. Why not here? If no workers comp benefits in this situation, then the workers comp law should change; otherwise the victim has no remedy and I am sure the law did not intend that result

Response to #4...Cathy: you clearly do not have kids or a heart.
GREEDY? Are you out of your mind? What would you do if your son was stabbed in the neck for trying to confront a drug addict robber who stole 11 tubes of toothpaste? This family is amazing and they have gone through the worst kind of tragedy, beyond what you can imagine. They are not trying to "make money" off of C's death. The man who killed him got life in jail without parole, that isn't enough. You have no right to judge them because you don't have the slightest idea what it is like to have someone you love killed.