Wife's nude pics on lost phone end up online

[Kevin]

I'm not sure how much the agency relationship plays into this. In fact, I think that's a pretty weak claim as employers typically aren't liable for the intentional torts of their agents.

A bailment claim is what seems to fit best, at least if you want access to the deep pocket.

And UGA, making people pay for their wrongs isn't exactly a new thing. I guess you can continue to ignore me when I explain to you that the 3-million figure is in no way representative of what the plaintiff will probably end up with... but I guess it offends you that anyone ever has to compensate another person for a dignity tort?

[Tinia2]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm not sure how much the agency relationship plays into this. In fact, I think that's a pretty weak claim as employers typically aren't liable for the intentional torts of their agents.

A bailment claim is what seems to fit best, at least if you want access to the deep pocket.

And UGA, making people pay for their wrongs isn't exactly a new thing. I guess you can continue to ignore me when I explain to you that the 3-million figure is in no way representative of what the plaintiff will probably end up with... but I guess it offends you that anyone ever has to compensate another person for a dignity tort?

$3 million is just the starting point Kevin:
"The suit seeks no less than $1 million for outrage; no less than $1 million for public disclosure of private facts; and, no less than $1 million for casting the Shermans in a false light."
PLUS damages:"The suit seeks damages to be determined by a jury for negligence and negligent supervision."
http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/20...8fzsherman.txt

However, if this is only a hoax/shakedown, wonder what will happen?

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

I'm not sure how much the agency relationship plays into this. In fact, I think that's a pretty weak claim as employers typically aren't liable for the intentional torts of their agents.

A bailment claim is what seems to fit best, at least if you want access to the deep pocket.

And UGA, making people pay for their wrongs isn't exactly a new thing. I guess you can continue to ignore me when I explain to you that the 3-million figure is in no way representative of what the plaintiff will probably end up with... but I guess it offends you that anyone ever has to compensate another person for a dignity tort?

It offends me that we compensate people when their own idiocy was a big part of the problem, and it offends me when we hold people who were only at best indirectly involved the most responsible financially.

This guy could have taken a lot of precautions to avoid nude photos of his wife being in the hands of McDonald's employees or anyone else for that matter. Instead, it becomes McDonald's burden and that seems nutty.

As often happens in my ridiculous posting on GreekChat, I've argued myself into a more extreme position than I probably really hold. I don't mind people being compensated when they are victimized by others. But they should bear responsibility for their own actions and we should be really careful about who we make pay. Only the people actually responsible should have to pay. It should be really hard to tie in a third party simply because they have more money and yet, I think we allow it to happen pretty frequently. We allow people's sense that the victims are entitled to be compensated to override holding the people responsible responsible.

As I've said before, I'm really curious as to what exactly transpired and knowing that would play a big part in determining how much happened because of their roles McDonald's employees or exactly what kind of a bailment existed if any and who can logically be thought to be involved in it.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't mind people being compensated when they are victimized by others. But they should bear responsibility for their own actions and we should be really careful about who we make pay. Only the people actually responsible should have to pay. It should be really hard to tie in a third party simply because they have more money and yet, I think we allow it to happen pretty frequently. We allow people's sense that the victims are entitled to be compensated to override holding the people responsible responsible.

I don't think this (holding a merely tangentially-related third-party deep-pocket defendant liable to up the plaintiff's earn) actually happens very often - I think the 'ideal' of the deep-pocket defendant is much more prevalent than the actuality. That's actually why it is such a powerful defense - the reality is outstripped by the outrage. Now, the plaintiff can file against just about any party, but Kevin has already covered why that's really not a big deal from an award standpoint.

Remember, too, that the media loves to show "frivolous" lawsuits (mostly because people have a preconception that there are far too many lawsuits nowadays), so we don't exactly see a representative sample, and even then the coverage is often very cursory and incendiary.

The classic example would be, ironically, the McDonald's 'hot coffee' case, which was not only not frivolous under any reasonable standard, but the award really wasn't even that far out of line with the nature of the injury and the corporate conduct involved. However, it's pretty easy to say "holy shit what a retard, obv obv obv coffee = hot!" and so that's what people think . . . we don't hear so much about fused labia requiring reconstructive surgery, or the fact that MCD corporate refused repeated warnings to serve the coffee cooler because it would result in more refills (at the cost of fractional cents per cup).

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

I don't think this (holding a merely tangentially-related third-party deep-pocket defendant liable to up the plaintiff's earn) actually happens very often - I think the 'ideal' of the deep-pocket defendant is much more prevalent than the actuality. That's actually why it is such a powerful defense - the reality is outstripped by the outrage. Now, the plaintiff can file against just about any party, but Kevin has already covered why that's really not a big deal from an award standpoint.

Remember, too, that the media loves to show "frivolous" lawsuits (mostly because people have a preconception that there are far too many lawsuits nowadays), so we don't exactly see a representative sample, and even then the coverage is often very cursory and incendiary.

The classic example would be, ironically, the McDonald's 'hot coffee' case, which was not only not frivolous under any reasonable standard, but the award really wasn't even that far out of line with the nature of the injury and the corporate conduct involved. However, it's pretty easy to say "holy shit what a retard, obv obv obv coffee = hot!" and so that's what people think . . . we don't hear so much about fused labia requiring reconstructive surgery, or the fact that MCD corporate refused repeated warnings to serve the coffee cooler because it would result in more refills (at the cost of fractional cents per cup).

Actually, I was hoping that nobody would bring up why I felt like the hot coffee case was so different from this one because I can remember being involved with a discussion about that here too. And I do feel like that case is quite different.

Maybe it is my own misconception about how many cases actually go to trial with the deep pockets defendant still attached or even what percentage of those end up with awards. But I know that the fear of such lawsuits seems to drive a lot of goofy behavior. Maybe, as usual per my worldview, the media is to blame.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

Maybe it is my own misconception about how many cases actually go to trial with the deep pockets defendant still attached or even what percentage of those end up with awards. But I know that the fear of such lawsuits seems to drive a lot of goofy behavior. Maybe, as usual per my worldview, the media is to blame.

To be fair, it's not so much the media itself, as the demands of the people watching/reading, which the media has to be responsive to. It's kind of a negative feedback loop, to my mind.