Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
I'm not sure that you can really say that what transpired here is equivalent to entering a home or stealing the wallet.
|
Is it necessary to go through the photos in the phone to identify its owner?
Once the McDonald's manager has offered to store the phone until the owner can receive it (thus taking on the obligation), does the owner have a reasonable expectation that the phone's contents will remain private? Note that this isn't
"should" - not at all. Indeed, this argument really doesn't rely on the manager even knowing the phone's owner - but it's certainly stronger with that fact.
Do you think that posting the photos was harmful or damaging to the guy and his wife?
I think it's pretty clear that the answers to these three questions in combination explains the relative comparison - note that I never said "equivalent" either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
ETA: from a legal standpoint, I understand Kevin's point that if the manager said he'd protect the phone, he created an obligation, but I still don't think it's appropriate to sue because his own behavior contributed so much to the problem.
|
I mean . . . that's cool, but that's kind of a sketchy ethical or moral argument, more than a legal one. I don't think there's any doubt that the manager's actions harmed the plaintiffs, and there's really no justification for them. That's all you really need to sue, and although the guy was kind of an idiot, it doesn't mean he "earned" or "deserved" what happened. I think that's just a YMMV moment though, and likely just represents that we view things in this arena a little differently.
Threaded Mode
