Wife's nude pics on lost phone end up online

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And can you really say that images from an unlocked cell phone left at a McDonald's are actually private anymore? What's his obligation in keeping his own facts private?

If I leave my door unlocked, you're not allowed to simply walk in and take what you want. Similarly, if I leave my wallet on a table, you're not allowed to simply take the contents, either.

This was obviously a poor move on the guy's part, but that really doesn't excuse any subsequent actions.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If I leave my door unlocked, you're not allowed to simply walk in and take what you want. Similarly, if I leave my wallet on a table, you're not allowed to simply take the contents, either.

This was obviously a poor move on the guy's part, but that really doesn't excuse any subsequent actions.

I'm not sure that you can really say that what transpired here is equivalent to entering a home or stealing the wallet.

And actually, what is the legal obligation if you leave a wallet on a table?

Personally, I'm not taking anything out of it and I'd probably wants someone to witness me even looking for ID in it in case something else had been already stolen, but if you leave your wallet in a public place, what is everyone's legal obligation to you? I really don't know.

I don't think it was moral/ethical for whoever to post the photos or harass the wife and I don't feel that the guy somehow deserved it. But I don't think he correctly can claim that he was damaged by McDonald's when his own careless behavior was a pretty big contributing factor.

I'm still really interested to know who did the calling and posting. The poster at the website claimed to be a McDonald's employee, but I'm not sure that makes it really the case.

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.

[KSig RC]

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.

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.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.



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.

I don't think that he earned or deserved what happened. I just don't think he should be able to hold someone else responsibly financially, especially to the tune of 3 millions dollars, for this.

I think we should go back to dueling pistols.

I also doubt some of the "facts" of the case and it colors my take no doubt. (What exactly did the manager promise? What did he actually do with the phone? Who really posted the photos and made the calls? Then, there's the question of how really damaging it was. The photos were up for 72 hours according to one report.)

One of my little hang ups in life is thinking that we try to make other people responsible for our errors too frequently. It seems like the guy's complaint on some level is that a third party failed to protect him from his own error and how someone else damaged him with his own error. It makes some sense to seek redress from the actual photo poster, but not from folks pretty far removed from the actual damaging acts.

[DSTRen13]

When I worked retail, and even now, people would call all the time saying they left their crap in our store (and now in our office) and to please find it and secure it for them, which I would then do. So if someone else got to it first, I would then be responsible for lawsuits against the company??? If this thing actually suceeds, no salespeople are ever going to attempt to find anyone's forgotten items again ...

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think that he earned or deserved what happened. I just don't think he should be able to hold someone else responsibly financially, especially to the tune of 3 millions dollars, for this.

I think we should go back to dueling pistols.

I also doubt some of the "facts" of the case and it colors my take no doubt. (What exactly did the manager promise? What did he actually do with the phone? Who really posted the photos and made the calls? Then, there's the question of how really damaging it was. The photos were up for 72 hours according to one report.)

One of my little hang ups in life is thinking that we try to make other people responsible for our errors too frequently. It seems like the guy's complaint on some level is that a third party failed to protect him from his own error and how someone else damaged him with his own error. It makes some sense to seek redress from the actual photo poster, but not from folks pretty far removed from the actual damaging acts.

Yeah - I mean, I'm just going off what we're reading here, and the actual facts may be completely different from what is in the complaint. No doubt about that.

[I.A.S.K.]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think that he earned or deserved what happened. I just don't think he should be able to hold someone else responsibly financially, especially to the tune of 3 millions dollars, for this.

I think we should go back to dueling pistols.

I also doubt some of the "facts" of the case and it colors my take no doubt. (What exactly did the manager promise? What did he actually do with the phone? Who really posted the photos and made the calls? Then, there's the question of how really damaging it was. The photos were up for 72 hours according to one report.)

One of my little hang ups in life is thinking that we try to make other people responsible for our errors too frequently. It seems like the guy's complaint on some level is that a third party failed to protect him from his own error and how someone else damaged him with his own error. It makes some sense to seek redress from the actual photo poster, but not from folks pretty far removed from the actual damaging acts.

What facts do you doubt? (just wondering)
I think the manager said he'd keep the phone until the guy could pick it up. I think he looked through the phone (being nosey) and found the pictures. Showed the pictures to other employees who uploaded them to the site and then they were texting and making those calls.

It could be extremely damaging. If your boss found nude pics of you online or found that you were even involved with a scandal like this then they could fire you or it could make working conditions so tense that you'd quit.

I think that even though he left his phone on the table because the pictures were on his phone (a private device not something public like facebook) there was an assumption of privacy (a privacy that you would assume would be protected when someone says they'll keep the phone safe for you). If his phone had been picked up by someone random guy then he'd sue the random person. Since his phone was picked up by the manager of the McDonalds he is suing McDonalds. The reason he can sue the company is because these people were acting as representatives of McDonalds when they did this. Thats why there are typically strict rules for most companies as to what you can do in your uniform. When you have the uniform on and are at work you are not just you. You're a rep for your company.

His complaint doesnt seem like he's blaming a third party for not protecting him from his own error. His error was losing the phone. He is not blaming them for his losing the phone. He's blaming them for taking private images from his phone and using them to harass and disgrace him and his wife. Unfortunately for McDonalds these employees are guilty of exactly that.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I don't think that he earned or deserved what happened. I just don't think he should be able to hold someone else responsibly financially, especially to the tune of 3 millions dollars, for this.

Don't get too hung up on the dollar amount. There could be perfectly legitimate reasons for this.

In some jurisdictions, you have to plead a certain level of monetary damages to get on a certain docket. While I've never heard of something as high as $3 million, with all the tort reform crap flying around the southern states, I wouldn't be completely shocked.

The number could also be based upon the number of hits on the website. Our libel statute in Oklahoma (not sure about publication of private information) allows statutory damages of as much as $1,000 per publication -- and each viewing of the website could be a publication.

At any rate, I'm sure $3 million is just a jumping off point. I'd be shocked if the jury returned a verdict that high. Even more shocked if a judge allowed it.

Remember -- you're just reading off of the Plaintiff's Petition. They're always going to ask for all kinds of crazy relief. That doesn't mean they're going to get it, nor does it mean that there's even a remote chance of them getting it.

I have doubts that this case is worth more than a few thousand dollars. Maybe the wife really does need therapy for this. I think her image has definitely been tarnished. What's all that worth? I doubt we'll ever know as this'll probably settle for some undisclosed amount.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by I.A.S.K.

What facts do you doubt? (just wondering)
I think the manager said he'd keep the phone until the guy could pick it up. I think he looked through the phone (being nosey) and found the pictures. Showed the pictures to other employees who uploaded them to the site and then they were texting and making those calls.

It could be extremely damaging. If your boss found nude pics of you online or found that you were even involved with a scandal like this then they could fire you or it could make working conditions so tense that you'd quit.

I think that even though he left his phone on the table because the pictures were on his phone (a private device not something public like facebook) there was an assumption of privacy (a privacy that you would assume would be protected when someone says they'll keep the phone safe for you). If his phone had been picked up by someone random guy then he'd sue the random person. Since his phone was picked up by the manager of the McDonalds he is suing McDonalds. The reason he can sue the company is because these people were acting as representatives of McDonalds when they did this. Thats why there are typically strict rules for most companies as to what you can do in your uniform. When you have the uniform on and are at work you are not just you. You're a rep for your company.

His complaint doesnt seem like he's blaming a third party for not protecting him from his own error. His error was losing the phone. He is not blaming them for his losing the phone. He's blaming them for taking private images from his phone and using them to harass and disgrace him and his wife. Unfortunately for McDonalds these employees are guilty of exactly that.

His error, as I see it, wasn't just losing his phone; it was keeping photos that were this embarrassing in a form this accessible to other people with data about his name, address and phone number. And then he left this self-destructive time-bomb unsecured in a McDonald's. He had an obligation to protect himself before anyone else had an obligation to look after him.

In a perfect world, the store employee would have turned off the phone and locked it up until the customer came to get it, I agree.

But I don't think he's entitled to monetary damages from McDonald's.

The facts I doubt: that the manager actually promised to "secure" the phone in a way that guaranteed the guy's privacy, rather than just the phone wouldn't be left where it could be stolen, that no one else had access to the phone other than McDonald's employees, that the family really had to move because the woman had stalkers based on the information being posted for a couple of days. There's part of me that kind of thinks they may have manufactured this themselves.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Don't get too hung up on the dollar amount. There could be perfectly legitimate reasons for this.

In some jurisdictions, you have to plead a certain level of monetary damages to get on a certain docket. While I've never heard of something as high as $3 million, with all the tort reform crap flying around the southern states, I wouldn't be completely shocked.

The number could also be based upon the number of hits on the website. Our libel statute in Oklahoma (not sure about publication of private information) allows statutory damages of as much as $1,000 per publication -- and each viewing of the website could be a publication.

At any rate, I'm sure $3 million is just a jumping off point. I'd be shocked if the jury returned a verdict that high. Even more shocked if a judge allowed it.

Remember -- you're just reading off of the Plaintiff's Petition. They're always going to ask for all kinds of crazy relief. That doesn't mean they're going to get it, nor does it mean that there's even a remote chance of them getting it.

I have doubts that this case is worth more than a few thousand dollars. Maybe the wife really does need therapy for this. I think her image has definitely been tarnished. What's all that worth? I doubt we'll ever know as this'll probably settle for some undisclosed amount.

Yeah, but her image was mainly tarnished by her own action. She took the photos and she sent them to a phone. Sure, she may have thought they'd be only for her husband to see but she took no precautions to ensure that.

ETA: in some of the articles there are claims that they had to quit their jobs and move based on harassment about the pictures and info that was up for 72 hours. Why wouldn't they be seeking redress from the harassers?

[Kevin]

As KSig pointed out, that's a moralistic argument [one I disagree with], not a legal one. The issue here is bailment --was there one when the pictures were uploaded to the internet? (google the word if you don't know what it is).

If there was bailment, there is going to be liability (assuming there are no other mitigating facts). It's really not a tough issue.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

As KSig pointed out, that's a moralistic argument [one I disagree with], not a legal one. The issue here is bailment --was there one when the pictures were uploaded to the internet? (google the word if you don't know what it is).

If there was bailment, there is going to be liability (assuming there are no other mitigating facts). It's really not a tough issue.

Did I seem to be trying to making a legal argument?

ETA: I think that I've been trying to say what I think ought to be true, rather than making any claims about what legal is true.

[DrPhil]

Well, this sucks...idiots need to keep compromising photos off of cellphones, email, etc.

DUHHHHHHHH.....

[CrackerBarrel]

I have the right to keep whatever I want on my phone. Even if I leave it laying somewhere that doesn't give you the right to publish what's in it. Pretty clear cut in my mind.

I guess you could argue that there was contributory negligence on the part of the man who owned the phone (if the claim was that McDonalds was negligent in not taking actions to stop this from happening, doesn't work if you're claiming that McDonalds DID it) but to me even that doesn't seem like a compelling argument and in any case McDonalds had the "last clear chance" to stop it from occuring.

[sugar and spice]

Bottom line: if the guy with the lost cell phone talked to the McDonald's manager, the manager said they'd found the phone and would hold onto it for a few days until the guy came to claim it, and then he let his employees have it instead and the pictures got out--then yes, McDonald's bears some legal responsibility here. But the victim would have to be able to prove that the phone was, at some point, in the manager's possession (or at the very least in some employee's possession), and I'm not sure that's true. To me, it sounds like a case where the guy left his phone behind, the manager never knew about it, and now the victim is trying to pin the blame on somebody else so he can make some money off of it.

The gray area here is if an employee really did find the phone, take it home, and distribute the pictures (without the manager ever having knowledge of the phone or the pictures' existence). Is this McDonald's fault or just the individual employee's? (Well, it's the individual's, but McDonald's can probably still get sued for it.)

Most restaurants have specific rules about employees turning over left-behind belongings to the manager as soon as they find them. If you get caught taking any of that stuff home--even, like, a pair of plastic sunglasses that have been in the lost-and-found for six months--you'll likely be fired. Any well-trained manager knows the possible consequences of not protecting any belongings that are left behind and brought to their attention. Then again, this is McDonald's, who allows 18-year-olds to become managers, so their maturity may be suspect. But in general, the idea that a manager would turn over a phone like this to his employees is pretty ludicrous. They know that's likely to end in a lawsuit. Even going through the phone to look for pictures could set them up for a lawsuit, so they'd probably avoid doing that unless the phone's owner called and they were given permission to look through it for identification purposes. I'm surprised at places here that allowed their employees to call names on cell phones that were left behind, because at every corporate place I've worked, that was a big potential violation of privacy. (The independent places worried less because they weren't rich enough that anybody would bother suing them over something that small.)