Jury orders Giant Eagle to pay man $2 million arising from GetGo shooting |

Jury orders Giant Eagle to pay man $2 million arising from GetGo shooting

Giant Eagle must pay an Arlington man more than $2 million for injuries he suffered during a shooting in the parking lot of a GetGo convenience store in the South Side, an Allegheny County jury ordered this week.

Jonathan Stapas, 24, sued the grocery store in Allegheny Common Pleas Court in November 2009 for injuries sustained when he tried to protect the store’s employees from a gunman in the early morning hours of July 18, 2007.

Stapas’ lawyer, Gary Ogg, said Giant Eagle, which owns GetGo, knew the gunman had been banned from the store, but the company failed to take any action that would have prevented the shooting, such as provide better security.

The jury said Giant Eagle was 73 percent negligent and Stapas was 27 percent negligent for being overly aggressive, Ogg said. Jurors deliberated for about three hours.

Giant Eagle spokesman Dick Roberts declined comment.

Police charged the gunman, Brandon McAllister, 28, of West Homestead with attempted homicide, aggravated assault and carrying a firearm without a license.

He pleaded guilty to aggravated assault in July 2008, and a judge sentenced him to five to 10 years in prison.

Ogg said his client owes about $30,000 in medical bills.

McCallister shot Stapas in the chest, stomach and neck, Ogg said. He required several surgeries.

Adam Brandolph is a Trib Total Media staff writer.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.