Texting Woman May Sue

Off Topic
43

[quote]Jeffro_88 wrote:

[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]

I’ll agree that serving coffee at 180 degrees may be a little extreme, if that is indeed true; however, the lawsuit was based on the fact that the coffee wasn’t labeled as “hot” and that the individual was burned by putting the cup between his legs, and sued McDonalds when he got burned by said coffee.

When you order coffee, most people assume it is going to be hot (unless they specify for iced coffee,) and if they choose to avoid wearing their beverage, that it needs to be controlled in a safe manner.

His injury was caused purely by his own stupidity, and McDonalds paid out the bloody ass.

Expect similar recompense for Fountain Fail Woman, sadly.

I’m totally gonna punch that bitch in the ovaries.
[/quote]

You are wrong. This was not a labeling type claim. Everyone knows coffee is hot. What they don’t know is that it was 3rd degree scalding hot, and that McDonald’s was aware of the danger, ignored it and continued serving coffee at 185 degrees anyway - essentially accepting the risk to its customers. And someone spilling a beverage in a car is entirely foreseeable. The lady in question was served in the drive thru and most of their coffee sales were thru the drive thru if I remember correctly. Do your homework before commenting further, because your information and conclusions are just wrong.

44

[quote]biglifter wrote:
I really wouldn’t suprised if she got some money out of this. She’s playing the emotional distress card and that the video was unlawfully copied and shipped out to the intarwebz. Ironically, she supposedly worked at that same mall. Sometimes we all do something so stupid, you just need to laugh at yourself. Personally, I’d enjoy the 15 minutes of fame and hit every talk and radio show I could before the world loses interest (for profit, of course).

[/quote]

Well, that’s an interesting angle that could have merit. Regardless of her stupidity, the mall should have never released the footage. Such a release of that video CANNOT be defended. However, that said, the question is, what are her damages? She is not famous. The video does not publish her name. You cannot really detect her likeness. Unless you worked in the mall and saw the video, you probably could not identify her. The incident occurred in public, where people could see. There is generally no expectation of privacy in public.

I could go on but I won’t. So although she may or may not have a claim, I doubt she has any damages.

45

[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]

It’s probably a “viable” case, but as you pointed out, and I pointed out before I saw your post, her damages, if any, will be difficult to sustain. Mall should have never released the tape and they are likely responsible for their employees doing so, but even that has decent defenses. Her name does not appear in the video and she is not really recognizable. Liability questionable, damages unlikely. Not exactly a case most plaintiff lawyers will be lining up to take. However, if the video goes “viral” and her name gets out, it could get interesting. I’d still take a no pay position if that file is on my desk.

46

[quote]JonEightPackGuy wrote:
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]

She’s a fucking angling cunt. No one came to her aid b/c she didn’t require any and the maintenance guy can be clearly seen approaching her to check on her and he’s a mall employee too. She also left the area. There is no evidence she required any aid.

Security or mall employees will be fired for releasing the video.
She will get an apology.
She will not get paid.

47

[quote]JonEightPackGuy wrote:
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]

Wow what a piece of trash. A coworker gave her a credit card to buy something at Target, she takes the credit card, changes the billing address and proceeds to rack up more than 5k in jewelry and other shit from target. The article said she had 4 other theft charges before that. And now she’s going to sue the mall because she’s an idiot?

Fucking scum. I hope this bitch gets hit by a bus.

48

This is bullshit. If you’re in a new environment, you keep your wits open. This is like as if she blindfolded herself, then walked into the fountain.

Don’t make it so they need loudspeakers everywhere. Fuckin’ airport walkways that say “Watch your step, you are approaching the end of the walkway”. “There is a fountain in front of you. You’re a twat.”

49

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[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]

It’s probably a “viable” case, but as you pointed out, and I pointed out before I saw your post, her damages, if any, will be difficult to sustain. Mall should have never released the tape and they are likely responsible for their employees doing so, but even that has decent defenses. Her name does not appear in the video and she is not really recognizable. Liability questionable, damages unlikely. Not exactly a case most plaintiff lawyers will be lining up to take. However, if the video goes “viral” and her name gets out, it could get interesting. I’d still take a no pay position if that file is on my desk. [/quote]

Exactly. I saw her on GMA. She’s the one who went out and pushed this into the public realm. I couldn’t tell who she was from the video. While it wasn’t right for the mall employees to put this out there, I thought it was funny.

And if I saw this I would have it on youtube a minute later. As you and others said, she was in public.

50

[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]

I was taking a heat transfer course at the time of the coffee lawsuit. In class, we did an analysis of the heat path the coffee took. We ran numbers from 212* down to 160* and that combined with her polyester pants, she was burned for real. She needed skin grafts. I had their coffee around that time and it needed to be 1/2 coffee and 1/2 milk to cool it off.

51

They should have emptied the fountain before she fell in it.

Thinning the herd…

52

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
They should have emptied the fountain before she fell in it.

Thinning the herd…[/quote]

Wrong. They should have pointed her toward an intersection.

53

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
They should have emptied the fountain before she fell in it.

Thinning the herd…[/quote]

Wrong. They should have pointed her toward an intersection. [/quote]

Yes. Full of busses. And land mines.

54

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
They should have emptied the fountain before she fell in it.

Thinning the herd…[/quote]

Wrong. They should have pointed her toward an intersection. [/quote]

Yes. Full of busses. And land mines.[/quote]

A single bus would suffice nicely :slight_smile: More than enough to do the culling.

Fucking drain on society.

I’ve always said bring back dinosaurs for a year to weed out the stupid. T-rex would be lurking and this cunt would be texting and gulp…T-rex appetizer. Problem solved.

55

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

A single bus would suffice nicely :slight_smile: More than enough to do the culling.

Fucking drain on society.

I’ve always said bring back dinosaurs for a year to weed out the stupid. T-rex would be lurking and this cunt would be texting and gulp…T-rex appetizer. Problem solved.[/quote]

Lol. Nice idea but guns would kill them off quickly. Besides…you think hitting a deer with your car is bad, try hitting a 5 ton Hadrosaur.