"Unbeknownst to Highley, Farias' fraternity brother, Kraft, was also in the room, armed with a video camera and hiding beneath a blanket on another bed. "

How can you hide under a "blanket"? Was he thin as a waif? Or was it more like pluffy duvet cover? Hmmmm.....

I'm assuming you didn't get a change to read past my first sentence because I explained what I meant. "Sometimes money is the only thing people understand and perhaps 10 days in jail and 50 hours community service did not communicate to these men that what they did was wrong." Or maybe you just didn't understand. Perhaps she didn't feel like the sentence was just. If these men had to pay money to her in a great amount they would understand better that what they did was wrong and it was possibly deter other's from trying the same thing.

There is something in a civil lawsuit called "punitive damages"
"Where the defendant’s conduct is found to be intentional or willful or wanton or malicious, the courts may permit an award of punitive damages in addition to compensatory damages.
Punitive damages are intended to punish the defendant and to discourage the conduct of the type the defendant engaged in." http://law.freeadvice.com/general_pr...s_punitive.htm

This is very common, so don't assume that all money in law suits are awards to making their life a little better. For example if a drunk driver broke a little boy's skate board he might only have to pay $50 in compensation, but that's not really going to effect him very much so he might have to pay thousands on dollars in punitive damages.

A judge/jury get to decide what warrants compensation, not you.

Not knowing anything about Florida Law, I'm assuming that this is an "invasion of privacy" suit. Depending on the law in Florida and the specific facts, this could be a very winnable case for her.

This, if nothing else, is a good object lesson for active members who might be reading it -- there are a lot of things which can get you sued which you probably didn't know could get you sued.

Her name is okay. Other details which are not already in major media sources or gleaned from court records are not okay.

How do you know that the sentence didn't "communicate" to them. Two college boys with no previous criinal history. Now they have criminal convictions on their records, did ten days in jail, community service, are on probation for a year, and have to pay a monthly probation supervision fee.

First of all, it is up to the judge to decide whether the sentence is just. Further, it is a gross abuse of the civil justice system for her to file suit just because SHE is not satisfied with the sentence. You are deluded if you think this is about justice. Her attorney doesn't care about justice. They both want the money.


Do you really think these kids will have to pay her money? Again, you have no idea what you speak of. Lawyers go after deep pockets like the national fraternity. The kids have nothing worth levying. Without question, the attorney intends to go after the faternity and the parents' homeowners insurance coverage. Shame on him! He knows full well that parents in FL are not responsible for the torts of their children. But he'll file suit anyway and hopes to cost the insurers enough time, trouble and expense that the insurers will eventually pay something.

You can get sued for ANYTHING. Whether the lawsuit has merit is a different issue.

I said perhaps, which means that no, i don't know what was communicated. Perhaps means that it's a possibility.

The law says she is allowed to try and get a different kind of justice and we should respect and honor the law. I'm not saying that any money should be awarded, I'm saying she has the right to ask. I'm not saying that everyone should think money should be awarded, just recognize that law suits like this are very common and she has the right to do it.
And how can you you criticize me for saying that I know the reasoning behind it (even though i said perhaps) when right there you are saying you know the reasoning behind it. How do you know she and her attorney just want money?


Again you are assuming you know the reasoning behind this even though you just criticized me for doing the same thing (even though i didn't).

Thank you for your insight into the American legal system. You really opened my eyes.

Why does it matter what their motivation is? If this young lady has been damaged, she's possibly entitled to compensation. Whether she wants money or some sense that she did the "right thing" is immaterial.

The issue here is whether these two did something which entitles the plaintiff to an award of money. Actual damages do enter into things and may even be an element of the tort. In other words, whether there are any "real" damages may or may not be an essential element here.

I haven't seen the pleadings, but it would seem she's suing for invasion of privacy, which often (this varies from place to place) only requires that someone intrude upon the plaintiff's solitude while she has a reasonable expectation of privacy, and in most places that the intrusion is something a reasonable person would find highly offensive. I think she can prove all of that without too much trouble.

I know nothing about Florida law or the law of any particular state. I do know that this lawsuit is probably anything but "frivolous" though.

I have one friend in common with her.

:)

Lol. My high school U.S. government teacher used to always say... "You're not an American, unless you have sued somebody for something!" :D

On a serious note... The young lady does deserve something... You can't video tape someone during a private moment (w/o their consent), show a few brothers and think it'll all be okay! Come on!

I would assume that the plaintiff is suing for intrusion. Seems to me that you could defend that she didn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy since most fraternity houses have rooms where multiple members live and the person who filmed seems to have been the roommate of the young man having sex with her. Does she have a reasonable expectation that he would not be in his own room at night? I don't think so.

That's a defense I'm sure will be raised.

But that there is an adequate defense doesn't make a case frivolous.

My counter would be that first, unless she felt she was alone, she wouldn't have become physically intimate with the defendant, that her expectation was reasonable because the door was locked, a "do not disturb sign" was hung outside the door, other facts, etc.

I would also raise the public policy argument that if such a defense was allowed, it would be like giving carte blanche to anyone in a communal living situation to videotape the intimate acts of their cohabitants.

How is that a gross abuse of the civil justice system?

And how are you connected with the defendants? ('Cause I'm betting that you are.)

Judges determine what is just and ideally, mete out punishment accordingly. The students will not pay anything in this case, the national fraternity will. Tell me then, how is this case about anything other than extracting money from the deepest pocket?

I'll take that bet. Even if I did know them or was otherwise connected, how would these messages posted under an anonymous name benefit the students or myself? Ya' didn't think about that one, did ya'?