When you go to the garden shop at your local Wal-Mart, you wouldn't expect to run into a rattlesnake. Unfortunately, one Washington man did and might sue the retail giant.

Mica Craig went into the garden center in Clarkston, Washington looking for a bag of mulch. He moved what he thought was a stick. That turned out to be a rattlesnake that turned and bit his hand.

Fortunately, another shopper rushed him to the hospital where he got six rounds of anti-venom that saved his life. Unfortunately, his hand may be disfigured for the rest of his life.

Reports say he is "weighing his legal options". Now that's the one statement I personally have a problem with. You got bit by a snake that you picked up. Now you are thinking about suing Wal-Mart? Why? Because they had a snake in their outdoor garden center? Seriously?

I understand that businesses have to take precautions to protect their customers. They have to make sure they are rodent free, bug free, spill free and trip hazard free. Who would have thought a rattlesnake would come into a garden center? That's the last place I would have expected to see one!

So really, this guy is going to file a lawsuit against Wal-Mart. Here's a scenario - this same guy is in his own garage and mistakes the same rattlesnake as a stick and picks it up. The snake bites him. Who does he sue? Himself? The city? Maybe the snake?

These types of lawsuits really get under my skin. They take up time in the courtroom that should be dedicated to the real offenses against mankind. Wal-Mart didn't plant the snake in their garden center. They didn't put mice out there to lure it in. I'm sure if they knew it was there, they would have called someone to come get it out immediately - which they did once this guy was bit.

Maybe I'm in the minority. So you tell me - Should Wal-Mart be held liable for his bills or is this case a waste of the court's time?