T Nation

Texting Woman May Sue

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

You are forgiven haha. Its just retarded how much that case gets passed around as the reason why we need tort reform when the actual facts of the case were absolutely in her favor.

PS - I am going to law school.[/quote]

Teh lingoes gave you away! Best of luck to you. I don’t have the patience for law. Rules are made to be broken, anyway. (jk. kinda.)

Based on your expierences studying cases, what kind of recompense to you forsee for Fountain Lady?

[quote]Jeffro_88 wrote:

[quote]DixiesFinest wrote:

You are forgiven haha. Its just retarded how much that case gets passed around as the reason why we need tort reform when the actual facts of the case were absolutely in her favor.

PS - I am going to law school.[/quote]

Teh lingoes gave you away! Best of luck to you. I don’t have the patience for law. Rules are made to be broken, anyway. (jk. kinda.)

Based on your expierences studying cases, what kind of recompense to you forsee for Fountain Lady?
[/quote]

I would deflect this to PMPM as she has been in actual practice for a while, though based on what I know so far, I doubt she would actually win anything here. Video evidence shows it was her own negligence to her falling in. The fountain is large and easy to see, so she couldnt make the argument that she couldnt have seen it even without texting.

Though I gotta ask, has she actually filed suit, or are we just wondering if she will?

I am guessing based on a tort like intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress or something, or perhaps - what is it when you make money off someone else’s image? that one - she would have a hard time proving damages arising from the tort itself. She’d have to show that she was damaged by the dissemination of the video, not her dumb ass falling into the fountain. Proving damages for those ticky-tacky “feeling” type torts is always difficult, and some states don’t even recognize em.

As for negligence against the mall (her own caused her physical damages, imho), she’d have a hard time proving that the reasonable person walks around a mall, texting and oblivious, and shouldn’t expect to run into something.

So her damages are caused by her own negligence. Her additional damages arising from the unauthorized publication of the video are going to be hella hard to prove. I do tend to be very conservative when looking to sue someone, so there are certainly other people who might think this is a viable case.

This isn’t legal advice, motherfucker.

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
This isn’t legal advice, motherfucker.[/quote]

Are you legally obligated to disseminate the disclaimer whenever discussing legal matters?

I think she should be punched in the face

Case closed.

Oh by the way, I raged at her sob video.

She’s also a thief, if you read the story

She’s a shoplifter.

FUCK YOU BITCH!

[quote]theuofh wrote:

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
This isn’t legal advice, motherfucker.[/quote]

Are you legally obligated to disseminate the disclaimer whenever discussing legal matters?
[/quote]

No, but I’m legally obligated to call people motherfuckers whenever possible.

It is generally my policy to not discuss legal matters on the forum. I learned a while ago that some people have boundary issues, and I don’t want someone thinking whatever I’m rambling about with no research beyond first year torts and Bar review is actually the status of the law today.

what a dumb lady! I cant believe she is actually trying to sue? I hope she gets zero dollars (which im sure she will) and I’m glad that she is all over the internet and TV embarrassing herself even further. Everyone will recognize her as the stupid lady who fell into the fountain rather than her just secretly knowing inside it was her.

[quote]pushmepullme wrote:
I am guessing based on a tort like intentional/negligent infliction of emotional distress or something, or perhaps - what is it when you make money off someone else’s image? that one - she would have a hard time proving damages arising from the tort itself. She’d have to show that she was damaged by the dissemination of the video, not her dumb ass falling into the fountain. Proving damages for those ticky-tacky “feeling” type torts is always difficult, and some states don’t even recognize em.

As for negligence against the mall (her own caused her physical damages, imho), she’d have a hard time proving that the reasonable person walks around a mall, texting and oblivious, and shouldn’t expect to run into something.

So her damages are caused by her own negligence. Her additional damages arising from the unauthorized publication of the video are going to be hella hard to prove. I do tend to be very conservative when looking to sue someone, so there are certainly other people who might think this is a viable case.

This isn’t legal advice, motherfucker.[/quote]

I think I’m in love. Need a clerk this next summer?

Well fuck. She’s what would be considered a local lady. Turns out she was in court today answering for 5 counts of felony including theft by deception and accepting stolen items. http://www.wfmz.com/berksnews/26558179/detail.html

Perhaps she was texting about stolen property when she walked into the fountain which caused the deal to fall through. Can she sue for lost wages?

[quote]on edge wrote:
She should be suing Apple not the mall. Those Iphones should have sensors that beep when an obstacle is ahead. The inherent nature of such a devise is such that a catastrophic event should be expected without such a warning system.[/quote]

The pockets are deeper too! Sounds like the beginning of a class-action to me.

This happened 60 miles south from me. When they said Reading , Pa. I went over to the TV and watched. She was asked what the message was about and immediately went into this lady from my church, hahaha!. Seemed the women needed her and her husband’s birthdays. Like this is so distracting that she couldn’t see the fountain. She ever hear of a phone call? On a cell phone?

They do do that you know.

I have friends who were working at that mall the day it happened, i’m like totally famous.

[quote]dnlcdstn wrote:
That bitch is trying to sue? If it works I’m gonna take off running full speed right into a cop car. Soon as I come to I’m gonna fucking sue the city. [/quote]

I’ll just quote this so when they do a background on you they see your motivation.

[quote]WormwoodTheory wrote:
I have friends who were working at that mall the day it happened, i’m like totally famous.[/quote]

Can i has your autographz?

I used to go to that mall (Berkshire Mall) when I was a kid. I loved the fountains they had there.

That bitch will not see a dime from this. Her case (not to mention her list of “what ifs”) is weak, and her criminal record will prevent her from winning anything.

If it does go to court, I hope the judge throws her out, saying “thank God you weren’t driving, moron.”

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
If it does go to court, I hope the judge throws her out, saying “thank God you weren’t driving, moron.”[/quote]

I wish. They should throw in a fine for wasting everyones time (and money).

[quote]Iron Dwarf wrote:
“thank God you weren’t driving, moron.”[/quote]

This is what the interwebz says would have happened.

The mall should sue her for polluting the fountain and getting the floor wet.

[quote]Jeffro_88 wrote:
Vid got disabled sir. :frowning:

I saw the clip on the news though. It’s like the McDonalds/hot coffee lawsuit some years ago; people want money for being clumsy and incompetent.

If you’re too busy texting on your phone to notice that they’re a big-ass fountain in your way, and then try to blame someone else, then you deserve to get punched in the ovaries to ensure that you can’t reproduce little fuckers as dumb as you.[/quote]

It is NOTHING like the McDonald’s hot coffee case. The “hot coffee case” was meritorious. You surely do not understand the legal issues and you have been lead astray by media reports dumbed down for the masses. As for the OP, this lady has no basis whatsoever for a lawsuit. In fact, the video would pretty much preclude her from making any false accusations. There is no lawsuit here.

[quote]clockworkchad wrote:

[quote]Jeffro_88 wrote:
I saw the clip on the news though. It’s like the McDonalds/hot coffee lawsuit some years ago; people want money for being clumsy and incompetent.
[/quote]

the mcdonalds suit wasnt as stupid as it sounded. Do a little research on it. Serving coffee hot is one thing, I think they were serving it at 180-190 degrees, which was much hotter than their competition. At 190 degrees the coffee gives a 3rd degree burn in 2 second if there is a spill, at the normal 140 degrees its much much safer. [/quote]

THIS.

And, among other things, they were aware of the dangers of potential spills to drive thru customers, were on notice of prior incidents and the dangers associated therewith and, ignored their own internal loss control reports. All in all, McDonald’s was not only liable for the burns, they were viewed by the Court to be grossly negligent and subject to punitive damages. The awarding of punitive damages is an extraordinary finding, and I assure you something that is not reserved for “nuisance” claims.