Printable View
I really had to laugh at that one. I can't believe she would sue the mall for that. I thought one was responsible for watching where they walk, lucky it wasn't a deep dark hole she fell into. The path was clear, nothing in the way for her to trip on so I don't think she can win this one...glad texting while driving is against the law here...I can just imagine...
The basis of her suit is not the fall, it is the release of the security tape to the public.
And the fact that you can hear (at least 2) people laughing, she claims that is the security folks, who SHOULD have been moving to see if she was ok; they arrived 20 minutes later (oh yeah, we are working here, maybe we better check for the report we have to write). Except often, the security guards aren't sitting in front of the screen, they are on patrol and it is only later someone reviews the tape, when something has been reported.
But I think both can be easily dealt with. The vid, you can't identify WHO that is, if she had kept quiet no one would know it was her. And the security tape was run and taped onto a cell phone, and from there, after who knows how many steps, posted on Youtube. Those voices could have been added at a later step. Not sure she could ever prove that either.
AND . . . her other crimes, she took a co worker's credit card and rang up over $500 of purchases???
It was said in GMA this a.m., that the security person responsible for putting the tape up on YouTube, has been fired.
I'm not so sure that it wasn't staged for the purpose of a lawsuit, too. If it was, it sure backfired on her. Hey - she deserves it..........:mad:
It looked like a scene from "Dawn of the Dead" where the zombie falls into the fountain at the mall.:p Glad she wasn't a "twitcher":D
LOL! Dont know whats funnier the moron falling into the fountain or the Zombie "twitcher" reference!:D.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cat Daddy
:p I will aggree.. I did have to laugh & at the same time shake my head of that is just too sad..
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonny
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freedom
Right.:) Wonder what she was texting that was sooooo important it
couldn't wait?
Someone from her church, needed birth dates for her and her husband. :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by lizbud
The mall should sue her for contaminating their fountain. :D
I think it is silly to sue the mall. And, it doesn't seem that she was suing the mall for the fall, but from the conduct after the fall.
But, I am amazed at the number of people that have no issue with a stranger videoing this, and posting it on the internet. What if I video'd your child at a mall, or your teenage daughter making out with her boyfriend, and posted it on the internet?
What if you got into an auto accident, and had a bloody nose, was crying, whatever, and the police did nothing but take a video and upload it.
What if someone came into the hair salon while you were getting your hair highlighted, and you looked as silly as you did, and someone uploaded it?
The woman's conduct- texting while walking- isn't really the issue. She had no legal duty to not do it. She exercised poor judgment- no doubt about it, but, that's about where it stops- from a legal perspective. I suppose one could argue that her own poor judgment led to the result...but, again, that wouldn't be accurate, from a legal perspective.
I heard someone mention the situation with another person texting on a public street, and this person fell right into an open manhole. People sought to blame the person that was texting. From a legal perspective, that is a tough one. The city has a bigger duty to make sure there aren't dangerous conditions- like open manholes, and that duty would trump the duty of a person to watch where they are walking. I am sure there will be arguments made that there is comparative risk...as there should be, but, really the City would have a bigger burden than the texter.
Back to the mall texter. The conduct afterwards....that is open to interpretation. Was there a duty owed by the mall? Was the conduct of the mall "reasonable" when it posted the video (mall employee=mall). Should the wall of the fountain have been made higher? Think of a situation where it is a crowd of people walking, and someone accidently jostles someone else, and that person trips backwards over the fountain, strikes his/her head and drowns. This could very well happen at Christmas time, or, if the mall sponsors some big event. Would a higher wall have prevented that?
It is easy to discount the events, either because there was no real trajedy, or the texter is a very easy mark. But, from a legal perspective, it is a little bit more involved than it seems.
Again, I don't think it is a suit, but, really...it seemed kind of mean to do it. I was also surprised to see how easy it was for her to fall int to that fountain. We have fountains at our malls, and I have to life J up to throw coins in them, the walls are so high.
Well, no one would ever have know who she was if she hadn't broadcast it all over!!! If you are acting or doing something funny in public these days, you are fair game since half of the population have camera phones. Just need to watch what you do in public. :love:
I don't know how anyone could recognize her from that distance but...Cataholic...I think this is an instance where the internet just means a wider audience.
When my sister was 15 she was in an auto accident. She was the passenger in a convertible that was hit broadside. It flipped with her in it (the driver was thrown out) and she landed on her head - then her back. Her head was split open, her back broken in three places and her pelvis was broken.
The next day on the front page of the local newspaper was a photo of her laying on the ground. She was a mess (most odd to me was a very proper woman with her 8 year old daughter with blonde braids standing over her looking "with concern" at what must have been a horrible sight and sound.)
Should my sister have been able to sue the newspaper? Should Gabby Giffords - whose photo - pantyhose clad legs, skirt all messed up and bloody head has been seen a million times be able to sue?
Why did she have to say "that's me!" Especially since it seems there are some warrants for her arrest that have been oustanding and now will be served.
I don't think you can make the world "safe" for people who don't want to do their part. If she ran into a wall because she was not watching where she was going - does it mean the wall should not have been there? If it had been a bench - and she did a flip over the bench because she was not watching where she was going -- is the bench a hazard?
ES- what a horrible thing to have happened to your sister. I would hope the paramedics/police were actively involved in attending to her. To think that they would have just stood around, gawking, taking photos, would be difficult to imagine.
While this woman at the mall was not injured, seemingly, the mall personnel did nothing. I would hope if she laid face down in the fountain, or fell to the floor on the, likely, marble like surface, they would have responded differently. In either event, including your sister's, I do think it in poor taste to publicize these photos/videos.
Again, as I stated in my earlier post two times, I don't think it is appropriate litigation. BUT, from a legal perspective, I can understand it completely.
As to making the world a safe place, when others might not do their part, I can only tell you there is a whole body of law on this issue: premise liability. It isn't as cut and dried as some might think.
Professionally - I deal with the other side of it. A couple weeks ago - a client called me - an employee was hurt while moving a bookcase. The heavy brass casting that sat on the bookcase fell and hit him on the head. He was taken for three stitches in his head and released to return to work.
My first question was - why were they moving a bookcase that wasn't empty? My second question was who will be receiving disciplinary action? (including the supervisor.)
The response was - "it was just an accident - they were in a hurry and careless."
About 99% of accidents are the result of not paying attention, being careless, being in a hurry, taking chances, shortcuts - or walking while texting.
"Multi-tasking" is the greatest myth of the 21st century. It is not possible to concentrate on more than one thing at a time. That is why it is called "concentrate."
It is difficult to protect people from their own stupidity - so instead we often hold accountable whoever owns what they use to hurt themselves.
I understand the system but I don't have to like it...;) In this case I would just think she would be too embarrassed to admit - "Hey see that really stupid woman? That's me! And my feelings are hurt."
Doesn't CA have a worke's compensation program? On Ohio, we would never address fault in that situation.