• New here? Register here now for access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Plus, stay connected and follow BP on Instagram @buckeyeplanet and Facebook.

Woman falls into fountain while texting

Jump to latest Follow Reply
plum diamonds buckeye planet
Sort by date Sort by votes
DubCoffman62;1860197; said:
I just saw that this woman is suing the mall because nobody came to her aid.
Click to expand...

jwinslow;1860203; said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-security-guards-laughing.html#ixzz1Bb28RJtI


Good old America. Cases like this are why we need the 'loser pays the court fees' system used elsewhere.

Is there some proof that they watched this live and refused to help her? Besides, what exactly was the danger here? Could she not swim in 1 foot of water?
Click to expand...

Buckeye89Fan;1860220; said:
In watching the video it's almost as if they are watching the tapes back. Someone asked when it happened and they said "Today at 4:20"... You know, if she wasn't so fascinated with what was going on with her cell phone, this would have never happened. It was her fault it happened, and nothing will come of this. The judge might even laugh at her as well.
Click to expand...

If you listen to the video, the guy with the prominent voice says "Pedro from housekeeping asked if she was alright, and she said 'I'm just a little wet.'"

I don't know if this actually happened, and maybe she doesn't consider that "someone immediately coming to her aid," but if someone asks me if I'm alright and I say "yeah," that's the fucking end of it. If you watch from the first angle, she gets up and reaches back down into the water, which I presume is to pick up the damn phone that probably fell out of her hand.

I saw this vid the other day and it's great, but the threat of her suing actually makes the video funnier, imo.
 
Upvote 0
I think the issue here is whether mall employees should be allowed to copy the security video with their cell phone and post said video on youtube in an attempt to publicly embarrass her, with no reprimand to the employees or apology to the embarrassed. From what I've read, the woman's issue isn't one of personal injury in a physical sense - she's admitted her lack of awareness and embarrassment, but probably something like the infliction of emotional distress from the video going viral - her point being the mall didn't even apologize to her after having knowledge of its security employees laughing at her and copying the security film to intentionally embarrass the woman. Whether it's appropriate to sue in this situation is debatable - if there are grounds for a cause of action, then it's up to the person. However, from the employer's context, I can't imagine it's appropriate for the mall employees to use security tape in such a manner.

To me, this story is equally about the poor quality of the human condition in the way many people treat one another as it is about our lawsuit culture. I feel like there was a headline recently where Bill Nye "The Science Guy" passed out while speaking at the University of Spoiled Children, and rather than coming to Nye's aid, the USC students in the audience were "reporting" the event on twitter and facebook instead.

That's the sense of what I've gotten from this story - although she wasn't hurt, she could have been, but the folks in the security TV room were busy laughing at and filming her rather than checking to see if she was okay. What if the woman sues for $100, as others in history have done out of principle rather than principal. Would that change everyone's mind about her then?
 
Upvote 0
JohnnyCockfight;1860235; said:
I think the issue here is whether mall employees should be allowed to copy the security video with their cell phone and post said video on youtube in an attempt to publicly embarrass her, with no reprimand to the employees or apology to the embarrassed. From what I've read, the woman's issue isn't one of personal injury in a physical sense - she's admitted her lack of awareness and embarrassment, but probably something like the infliction of emotional distress from the video going viral - her point being the mall didn't even apologize to her after having knowledge of its security employees laughing at her and copying the security film to intentionally embarrass the woman. Whether it's appropriate to sue in this situation is debatable - if there are grounds for a cause of action, then it's up to the person. However, from the employer's context, I can't imagine it's appropriate for the mall employees to use security tape in such a manner.
Click to expand...

1. She's in a public place and thus has no reasonable expectation of privacy. If I take a photo of you taking a dump on the street corner and post it on the web, you're shit out of luck (pun intended).

2. The security personnel weren't using the video cameras to scope out morons who fall into ponds, run into doors, trip over themselves, etc. Anything that occurs on the camera is happenstance and public. They were in no way misusing surveillance equipment.

3. No one would've known who this dipshit was until she starting whining about the video. She brought this whole fucking mess upon herself.
 
Upvote 0
That's the sense of what I've gotten from this story - although she wasn't hurt, she could have been, but the folks in the security TV room were busy laughing at and filming her rather than checking to see if she was okay.
Click to expand...
But they weren't doing that. It seems pretty clear that they are watching a tape later and humored by it, as noted by 89fan.
What if the woman sues for $100, as others in history have done out of principle rather than principal. Would that change everyone's mind about her then?
Click to expand...
I don't see what that has to do with anything.

She doesn't seem to be suing because she was humiliated by a video (which would be a pretty flimsy argument outside of a courtroom, considering she is publicizing it herself in these interviews), she is suing because the mall didn't respond fast enough to her stumble that she walked away from (at least according to her words).
 
Upvote 0
jwinslow;1860203; said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...s-security-guards-laughing.html#ixzz1Bb28RJtI


Good old America. Cases like this are why we need the 'loser pays the court fees' system used elsewhere.
Click to expand...
Sure. Great idea. Make the court system the sole province of the ultra rich. I mean, how could anyone sue - say - a doctor for malpractice for injuring or killing your kid - when if you lose the case he'll seize and sell your home? And how to you get all of the information you need to know about what was done without the ability to collect information by deposition and subpoena? You have to file a suit to even get preliminary information in many circumstances. You think people who do bad things let you know about it after the fact and apologize and give you the information for your case?

Loser pay would eliminate almost all lawsuits - and here I am talking about valid lawsuits that are not 100% slam dunks - because the off chance of a bad verdict (juries can "[censored] up" by incorrectly finding for the defendant as much as they "[censored] up" by incorrectly finding for the plaintiff) will lead to a family's total economic destruction.

Rule 11 and existing court rules are sufficient to deal with bull[Mark May] filings. Most people's knowlege of the court system is based upon more urban legend and talk radio perception than hard fact. There is nothing to gain by filing a totally bull[Mark May] suit. The lawyer makes no money, and you ruin your credibility. Do people (and corporations for that matter) file stupid stuff? Yeah. But if is hardly the epidemic that you think it is, and there will be a judge or jury (if it gets that far) that will look at the claim and kill one that has no actual damages.

And I have to tell you that the worst way to get any valid information about a lawsuit is the press. They can never figure out what the hell is going on, or the issues in play. It is very common to read about stuff in the news that had no real relation to the issues at trial you are fighting about. The falling in the pool and nobody helping her thing is a loser of an idea dead on arrival. The copying of a security tape and uploading to Youtube solely to humiliate a person without consent by the store or the woman is a different matter altogether.
 
Upvote 0
Here you go bringing facts and relevant data to the table again :shake:

stubborncatjpgscaled100.jpg
 
Upvote 0
MililaniBuckeye;1860218; said:
The sad thing is that she'll most likely win...

EDIT: Just watched the video...she immediately got up and was clearly not hurt at all. There was no need for anyone to "check on her". Fuck her. I hope she does sue and get laughed at by the jury. No way she wins anything...
Click to expand...

Have you seen some of the people who sit on juries? They'll make this dumb broad look like Einstein.

I'll bet she gets a settlement.
 
Upvote 0
Gatorubet;1860542; said:
Sure. Great idea. Make the court system the sole province of the ultra rich. I mean, how could anyone sue - say - a doctor for malpractice for injuring or killing your kid - when if you lose the case he'll seize and sell your home? And how to you get all of the information you need to know about what was done without the ability to collect information by deposition and subpoena? You have to file a suit to even get preliminary information in many circumstances. You think people who do bad things let you know about it after the fact and apologize and give you the information for your case?

Loser pay would eliminate almost all lawsuits - and here I am talking about valid lawsuits that are not 100% slam dunks - because the off chance of a bad verdict (juries can "[censored] up" by incorrectly finding for the defendant as much as they "[censored] up" by incorrectly finding for the plaintiff) will lead to a family's total economic destruction.
Click to expand...

I suspect you're influenced by the fact that "loser pays" would also put thousands of your colleagues out of work, or at least force them to do something other than chase ambulances and send letters to insurance companies.

There's a local personal injury lawyer who has made a fortune and yet hasn't set foot in a courtroom in over 10 years. Everything gets settled because of the mere threat of litigation and the prohibitive cost of it, even if/when you prove you were not at fault.

"Loser pays" may not be the best solution, but the status quo is ridiculous.
 
Upvote 0
Let me see.. A woman, who is a mall employee and whom I would expect has managed to dodge the fountain on numerous times already in spite of it's penchant to unexpectedly jump into her path to and from the hair parlor or the nacho bar, finds herself embarassed that she fell in. And then after explaining that she is "all right" then complains that no one offered to help her.
Help her how? Help her to get out of her wet clothes? I'm sure the guys would have helped do that if she so indicated. And now she wants to sue them for what?

Not enough done to prevent the incident? To Who? Does she expect that there will be others be as dumb and fall in too?:biggrin:

You can't fix stupid.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top