Wife's nude pics on lost phone end up online

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

I have the right to keep whatever I want on my phone.

Of course, you wild man, you.

Originally Posted by CrackerBarrel

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.

And McDonalds will probably be found liable for all the obvious reasons.

That doesn't make the photos that were leaked suddenly go away or remove the common sense from the matter. When we take certain precautions, instead of running the risk of placing ourselves in compromising situations, our lives are a lot simpler. That's about victim precipitation.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by 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.

You can keep whatever you want on your phone, but if you leave your phone in a fast food restaurant, you're a fool if you assume your private photos will remain private.

So what precautions do you want to depend on? Not having compromising photos on your phone? Locking the images on your phone? Keeping up with your own damn phone? Or leaving it just as it is and hoping that the McDonald's employees will handle things for you?

Some of these seem like better options than others to me if the end goal is not being embarrassed by the photos on your phone.

But making McDonald's pay is our legal answer. yay!

ETA: I guess I should add that I've got little problem making the actual posters of the photos pay.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by Senusret I

You seem to revel in people's misfortune.

I guess that's only fair because so many people revel in yours.

I don't consider that a misfortune, it's pure stupidity. As I said, I hope they get nothing.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

But making McDonald's pay is our legal answer. yay!

ETA: I guess I should add that I've got little problem making the actual posters of the photos pay.

... but these guys only got to the position they were in (i.e. they only had access to the phone) via their employment for McDonald's, while acting as agents of McDonald's. If it were simply customers that had done this, then it would be completely different - this isn't some technicality, in my mind.

[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 KSig RC

... but these guys only got to the position they were in (i.e. they only had access to the phone) via their employment for McDonald's, while acting as agents of McDonald's. If it were simply customers that had done this, then it would be completely different - this isn't some technicality, in my mind.

All the information we have seems to be based solely on a civil complainant.
Who seems to be focusing everything on one target.
The one which is best known and has the deepest pockets. And is the easiest target.
Which is rather normal in civil cases. It is that approach or a full bore shot-gun in which you name everyone and everything and let the court sort it all out.

Nothing I have seen, so far, proves that it was the agents/servants of McDonald that caused this. Before or after the stated phone call.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,456804,00.html
"I would strongly caution anyone from jumping to conclusions without having all the facts. I believe this act was perpetrated by individuals who do not represent my organization," Bill Mathews, the McDonald's franchisee, said."

This story will most likely go on for months if not years.

And now the flip side of story:
Tina Sherman Nude Photos Story Likely A Hoax, Naked Pictures Don't Exist
http://www.postchronicle.com/news/or...12188416.shtml

Nude Photos on iPhone a Wakeup Call:
Companies can learn a few lessons from alleged smartphone incident.
"Whether the Arkansas incident bears out -- there have been some online reports it's a hoax -- companies can learn several lessons, Cross said. "
http://www.internetnews.com/security...akeup+Call.htm

Well, let see what snope.com and other fact check sites come up with now.
As well as the court system.

[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.

[Kevin]

>> It's not fair to go after deep pocket defendants... (paraphrased)

There is a good reason why in most states, we allow injured parties to go after the 'deep pockets.' The concept is called joint and severable liability, and I'm pretty sure most states still follow this, although there is a trend with tort reform to do away with this rule.

The idea behind this is that we, as a society, place a higher priority on making injured parties whole than we do protecting the liability/exposure of people who cause or have a hand in causing injuries.

How this would work is that the plaintiff sues everyone, gets the money from the easiest place to get money (from the corporation who probably has enough premises liability coverage to pay for everything). That corporation's insurance company here (McDonald's) would then in turn seek contribution from the employees.

Other systems discourage injured parties from suing in the first place because no one will represent someone who has a low likelihood of ever receiving anything other than a [worthless] judgment.

I think it's a fine system, and it's not perfect, but if we think the courts are supposed to make people whole, this is the only way folks will ever be made whole.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by Kevin

>> It's not fair to go after deep pocket defendants... (paraphrased)

There is a good reason why in most states, we allow injured parties to go after the 'deep pockets.' The concept is called joint and severable liability, and I'm pretty sure most states still follow this, although there is a trend with tort reform to do away with this rule.

Plus, there's the whole idea of having the loss fall to the person/entity with the most ability to absorb that loss. As someone who works for a big company, it's not my ideal...haha.

I agree that the public's understanding of tort cases are almost always going to be the big ones with the big payouts. There's no reason for the media to report on the smaller cases, or even on defendants' verdicts (to a certain extent) because those stories aren't fascinating to anyone outside of the legal community. Like anything else, the media won't care if it's not an interesting story, and big-money lawsuits/settlements are interesting.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by Kevin

>> It's not fair to go after deep pocket defendants... (paraphrased)

There is a good reason why in most states, we allow injured parties to go after the 'deep pockets.' The concept is called joint and severable liability, and I'm pretty sure most states still follow this, although there is a trend with tort reform to do away with this rule.

The idea behind this is that we, as a society, place a higher priority on making injured parties whole than we do protecting the liability/exposure of people who cause or have a hand in causing injuries.

How this would work is that the plaintiff sues everyone, gets the money from the easiest place to get money (from the corporation who probably has enough premises liability coverage to pay for everything). That corporation's insurance company here (McDonald's) would then in turn seek contribution from the employees.

Other systems discourage injured parties from suing in the first place because no one will represent someone who has a low likelihood of ever receiving anything other than a [worthless] judgment.

I think it's a fine system, and it's not perfect, but if we think the courts are supposed to make people whole, this is the only way folks will ever be made whole.

It makes more sense to me to go after deep pockets defendants for the reasons you mention when there are real, somewhat objective damages or costs to care for the injured person although I still think it's more of a mistake than you do*. But in a case like the subject of this thread, what would it mean to make people whole? I have less faith than you do that a jury will make an appropriate determination.

*I think we might be better off having some sort of general insurance pool to cover real damages rather than expecting the nearest deep pocket to pay. I think there's societal harm in the belief that if you perceive yourself as injured, the best thing to do is magnify your injuries in a court case and seek payment from whomever you can get it from. But honestly, I don't sit around thinking about this a whole lot.

I do know there are a lot of auto accident suits that occur or escalate beyond settlement that seem to reflect a desire to get more money than one probably really deserves. While people need to be able to seek relief from their injuries, injuries shouldn't be regarded as a lottery ticket and I don't think the whole personal injury law phenomena is totally made up.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

It makes more sense to me to go after deep pockets defendants for the reasons you mention when there are real, somewhat objective damages or costs to care for the injured person although I still think it's more of a mistake than you do*. But in a case like the subject of this thread, what would it mean to make people whole? I have less faith than you do that a jury will make an appropriate determination.

Take it up with your state legislature. They could abolish dignity torts if they wanted to. And for the umpteenth time, just because a plaintiff asks for $1 million doesn't mean that they're going to get anything close to that. In fact, if this thing goes to trial and I'm the defense attorney, I'm going to ask the plaintiff to justify to the jury exactly how they came to the $3 million number. In fact, a good defense theme might be 'although the plaintiff arguably suffered a wrong, it does not mean she has hit a gold mine.' (or something to that effect). My point is that again, there doesn't have to be any basis whatsoever for requesting certain relief... it's just words on paper.

*I think we might be better off having some sort of general insurance pool to cover real damages rather than expecting the nearest deep pocket to pay. I think there's societal harm in the belief that if you perceive yourself as injured, the best thing to do is magnify your injuries in a court case and seek payment from whomever you can get it from. But honestly, I don't sit around thinking about this a whole lot.

We do that with our cars. Just about every state requires you to carry insurance. I know some are starting to require folks to carry major medical. I don't think, however, for intentional torts, that those should necessarily be insurable. If you attempt to murder me, on purpose, I ought to be able to sue you for everything you're worth. It only seems fair that it should be you, the party who injured me that has the burden of making me whole rather than some general insurance pool. Would it be fair, since your sentence is 10 years that 3,650 people be chosen at random and have to each serve a day of your sentence?

I do know there are a lot of auto accident suits that occur or escalate beyond settlement that seem to reflect a desire to get more money than one probably really deserves. While people need to be able to seek relief from their injuries, injuries shouldn't be regarded as a lottery ticket and I don't think the whole personal injury law phenomena is totally made up.

As someone who handles personal injury cases (we don't actively seek them out, but I get saddled with the ones that come through the door), I have yet to see someone get rich in a personal injury settlement. In fact, more often than not, the injured party has to either take the insurance company's check (and take a hickey) or take his chances with a jury which might award him nothing... not to mention have to put up with the difficulty of a defendant who has no assets or exempt assets to go after with a judgment.

Personal injury law, quite honestly, is a huge pain in the ass for everyone involved. The insurance companies always somehow manage to turn a profit.