A lawsuit has been filed against Wal-Mart in the trampling death of a temporary employee, 34 year old Jdimytai Damour. It alleges that a lack of security coupled with pre-Black Friday marketing caused shoppers to go into a frenzy as they entered the store. It's a terrible tragedy that won't soon be forgotten. What do you think: did advertising play a role in the man's death?

Per AdAge: the suit "claims that besides failing to provide adequate security, Wal-Mart 'engaged in specific marketing and advertising techniques to specifically attract a large crowd and create an environment of frenzy and mayhem.'"

If true, what would such a finding mean for the industry? Well, for one that advertising actually works. Unfortunately, that's not a good thing here. Compared to other advertising ventures that have been hindered by deaths, the Wal-Mart case doesn't have much going for it. We're talking about cigarette advertising of yore. Smoking kills 438,000 people per year, or about 1 of every 5 deaths, according to the CDC. As such, cigarette advertising has changed drastically, including myriad anti-smoking campaigns. So, one death (and numerous unreported injuries throughout the years, we'd suspect) don't amount to a guilty verdict in this court.

At the root of this issue is the age-old question about the relationship between media and audience. Journalists and advertisers will say that news and advertising are a reflection of the world we live in. Accordingly, what you see on the news and in Sunday circulars (etc) is a reflection of the audience — their needs, wants, happenings and so forth. Well, that is if you're in the journo/addy camp.

Sociologists, ombudsmen, and the general public argue the opposite — that advertisers and journalists choose for the audience, effectively telling them what's important, what to buy, et al.

No matter how you look at it (and the "reality" is likely somewhere in the middle), communication is a persuasive art. By its nature, all communication, no matter the medium, is meant to be convincing. Even if its simply informative, that's the deal. Even in everyday conversations you have: I'm going to the store; I'm hungry; I need to shower — even simple messages are meant to convince someone of something. So, with that as the basis of communication (and advertising), the plaintiff's attorney would have to prove that Wal-Mart's advertising somehow told people to stampede the front doors on Black Friday.

That's an unlikely conclusion, and would be like blaming a soccer team for inciting a riot. In our opinion, the crushing mob was likely more an element of the situation at that store than the advertising that preceded it. Otherwise, wouldn't there have been dead temporary employees all over the country? Or at least, tons of broken bones and crushed spleens? Anyone who has ridden public transportation, especially the NYC subway, will tell you that when people are corralled, all bets are off.

Also consider the current economic situation, coupled with Wal-Mart's long history of great deals. By default, Black-Friday was going to be a busy day for the retailer. With the holidays around the corner and Main Street low on cash, this situation was almost inevitable. The question a court will have to answer is how prominent was Wal-Mart's advertising in the equation. Was it fuel to the fire or the spark that lit it? Use the poll below and tell us what you think.