Woman falls into fountain at a mall

[Cataholic]

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.

[momoffuzzyfaces]

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.

[Edwina's Secretary]

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?

[Cataholic]

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.

[Edwina's Secretary]

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."

[Cataholic]

Doesn't CA have a worke's compensation program? On Ohio, we would never address fault in that situation.

[Marigold2]

LOL What a stupid stupid women. Had I been there and seen it I would have giggled my head off. To dumb to walk. It really is funny.
She has no right to muddy go the legal system with her nonesense claim.

[kitten645]

I always say you can't idiotproof the world! I saw a funny comment on another forum: How could they help? Hand her a towel. She got out of the fountain pretty quick so she wasn't hurt. If you act foolishly and get caught on tape, you have no one to blame but yourself.
I've seen people walk into walls, walk into on coming traffic, knock into elderly and baby strollers and jump off buses into people waiting to board all while texting. Seems everyone is becoming more and more oblivious to their surroundings and obsessed with their phones. Darwinism at work I think. The ones stupid enough to risk their own and others safety, get what they deserve!
I laughed and thought "well done"! Sounds like she's a con artist to boot!

[Edwina's Secretary]

Doesn't CA have a worke's compensation program? On Ohio, we would never address fault in that situation.

Of course there is a WC program here. Fault is not the issue as to who pays - the company pays. That's true in every state. But that does not mean the company cannot - and should not - take action with employees who do not work safely.

It is possible to make the case that an accident/injury at work does not arise out of and in the course of employment - but that is extremely difficult.

But I am a believer that there should be consequences for failing to follow safey rules. Just because the company has to pay doesn't mean there shouldn't be consequences for the employee. Accidents - for the most part - don't just happen and if the accident happens because the employee didn't follow the proscribed procedure/safety rules - it is no different than if there is a violation of any other workplace procedure/rule.