McGinn & Carpenter, Campbell, Montoya & Love, P.A

Eldridge v. Circle K Corp., 123 N.M. 145 (Ct. App. 1997).

New father Paul Salazar was shot and killed while working alone on the graveyard shift at a Circle K convenience store with inadequate security. The New Mexico Court of Appeals held that his surviving daughter would be allowed to bring a claim for his death outside the Workers' Compensation Act in state district court. The case settled for enough to take care of his daughter for the rest of her life. Paul’s family later testified before the New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board and helped establish state wide regulations requiring convenience stores to enact numerous security measures, including having 2 clerks on the graveyard shift or placing lone clerks behind bulletproof enclosures.

Past successes cannot be an assurance of future success because each case must be decided on its own merits.

 

Rummel v. Lexington Ins. Co., et al., 123 N.M. 752 (1997).

As a clerk for Circle K convenience store, Ken Rummel was required to work alone on the graveyard shift and confront and attempt to apprehend shoplifters.  Three shoplifters beat him and kicked him in the face until he suffered extensive brain damage.  After the jury gave Mr. Rummel a substantial verdict against Circle K, including punitive damages, this New Mexico Supreme Court case allowed us to pursue Circle K’s insurance carriers for bad faith in failing to protect the company by paying a reasonable settlement offer before trial.

Past successes cannot be an assurance of future success because each case must be decided on its own merits.

 

center

State Convenience Store Regulations

As a result of working with many employees and families who have been victims of violent crime including sexual assault at late night retail establishments, the firm has been a pioneer in promoting and lobbying for legislative and regulatory change to make these stores safe.  Randi McGinn began championing this cause over 20 years ago, beginning with the Rummel case.  In many our premises liability cases, we have been successful in making security improvements (such as interactive video) a term of the release.  In 2004, following a State of New Mexico administrative proceeding in which the firm’s attorneys and clients testified about the danger posed to employees and customers from lax convenience store security, the New Mexico Department of the Environment passed regulations that will require convenience stores to have two clerks on staff during the late night shift, to provide real security training to employees, to improve lighting, to provide meaningful security surveillance, to provide panic alarm buttons to all employees, and to provide other safety measures that have been proven in other states to dramatically reduce the incidence of violent crime in convenience stores. We look forward to the day when late night retail establishments like convenience stores simply do not pose a risk of injury, sexual assault, or death to New Mexico citizens.

Past successes cannot be an assurance of future success because each case must be decided on its own merits.

 

center

 

Garcia v. Allsup’s Convenience Stores, Inc.
tried to jury April, 2008, First Judicial District (Santa Fe, New Mexico)

After experiencing over a dozen slain clerks, at least as many raped clerks, and over 1200 violent attacks on clerks, the Allsup’s Corporation in 2002 was still refusing pleas from employees, law enforcement, and other government officals to institute at least minimal measures such as video cameras and double staffing to protect its workers from criminal attacks; attacks that its stores experienced in volumes far surprassing that of other convenience store operators. Not knowing that Hobbs Allsup’s stores were some of the chain’s most dangerous in the state,, Liz Garcia (a student enrolled at the New Mexico Junior College to become a teacher and mother of three beloved children), accepted a job working working for Allsup’s. Allsup’s immediately scheduled Liz to work alone on the graveyard shift of its most remote Hobbs’ store. On her second graveyard shift, at 3:00 a.m. the store was targeted, the cash register emptied, and Liz was abducted, raped, and murdered by the Allsup’s robber. In the aftermath of discovering the news of Liz’s death, coping with the grief, and making arrangements for the children to be raised by their grandmother, having heard nothing from Allsup’s – not even a condolence card - the Garcia family inquired as to whether Allsup’s would at least pay for Liz’s funeral. Allsup’s informed the family that since the death occurred “off our property” Allsup’s had no responsibility under the Workers’ Compensation system to cover even this expense.

Following the precedent set by MCML’s lawsuit in Delgado v. Phelps Dodge Chino allowing in limited circumstances, suits against employer’s whose acts of indifference towards employees amount to reckless disregard for worker safety, MCML brought suit against Allsup’s for the death of Liz Garcia. The case went to trial in April, 2008, exposing the tragic history of violence and misery that Allsup’s operations have invited into the lives of countless employees. Numerous Allsup’s survivors told the jury their stories, shared the promises Allsup’s had made to correct its operations, explained how Allsup’s had broken those promises, and described the pain and loss experienced because of Allsup’s refusal to take any responsibility for the danger it’s indifference caused its workers.

It was not until the conclusion of the two week trial and while the jury was nearing conclusion of its second day of deliberations that Allsup’s agreed to resolve the case in a mutually acceptable manner, which at the Garcia family’s insistence included an agreement by Allsup’s that it would cease its efforts to dismantle the New Mexico safety regulations which the Garcia family and MCML had assisted in becoming law in 2005 and which require convenience stores to provide security precautions suh as double staffing on the graveyard shift. Allsup’s agreed to this provision as a term of the settlement and the case was resolved for a confidential sum.

The jury, an essential driving force in reaching this positive result for the family, informed the media after being discharged that they had reached agreement and were prepared to announce a verdict of $51 million dollars against Allsup’s. This would have been one of the largest verdicts of all time in the state of New Mexico for a case of this kind. The news of the potential verdict sends a loud message to employers that the justice system will intervene to alter the economics of calculated decisions that exclusively benefit the company while exposing workers to unacceptable levels of risk.

Past successes cannot be an assurance of future success because each case must be decided on its own merits.