Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins
Forum Rules and Guidelines

I'm suing: Shopper who fell in mall fountain while walking and texting hits out against laughing security guards

Henry

By Henry
in The Tailgate

Which QB do you take with the #10 overall?  

214 members have voted

  1. 1. Which QB do you take with the #10 overall?

    • Blaine Gabbert
      114
    • Jake Locker
      175
    • Ryan Mallett
      54
    • Cam Newton
      89
    • Other QB not considered 1st rounder at this time (please specify)
      40

Recommended Posts

Tulane Skins Fan

Tulane Skins Fan

Posted
Posted
I understand firsthand what a large organizations' response is to negative media coverage, threat of lawsuits, and idiots. Which is what I am speaking to.

As for litigation, you're right. I'm not a lawyer.

I do know I was sued personally by someone I happened to piss off in 2002. He had absolutely no case. I brought it to a lawyer, who told me he had no case, but only after I paid him $1200 to do the research, and then stand in court with him while we waited for the plaintiff, who was a no-show.

You don't need legal grounds to sue, apparently. At least in the dollar amount I was being sued for (iirc it was somewhere around $20,000).

And when you are sued, basically being ****ed with thru the legal system by someone who doesn't like you, you can do nothing in return. "Malicious prosecution" requires years and hundreds of thousands of legal fees in order to prove. I was advised by 7 different lawyers not to go there.

So please, don't come to me and tell me that frivilous lawsuits don't occur. And that organizational (over)reaction doesn't occur. I know firsthand, personally, better than you on both.

So there. :)

There is absolutely no incentive for any lawyer to take a case in which the chances of winning are not significant, and the damages at issue are not significant.

This case that thread is based on will not be filed because it is not worth anything and it is not clearly winnable.

But, keep complaining that this person has filed an unfair lawsuit, when she hasn't even done so.

Oh, and the attorney who represented you, should have moved for sanctions and asked their your attorneys' fees be paid by the other party.

Edit: also, I like your thought that you no more about litigation because you've been involved in one lawsuit personally, whereas I deal with ten a day. Makes sense. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madison Redskin

Madison Redskin

Posted
Posted
And when you are sued, basically being ****ed with thru the legal system by someone who doesn't like you, you can do nothing in return. "Malicious prosecution" requires years and hundreds of thousands of legal fees in order to prove. I was advised by 7 different lawyers not to go there.

So please, don't come to me and tell me that frivilous lawsuits don't occur. And that organizational (over)reaction doesn't occur. I know firsthand, personally, better than you on both.

So there. :)

I can relate insofar as I work as a lawyer for a big company that gets hit with lawsuits on a very regular basis. I spend a fair amount of my work week (1) dealing with claims that aren't very meritorious and (2) trying to review and revise company policies to ensure that we are doing our best to avoid litigation.

That said, I think the system we have "is the worst ... except for all of the rest." There are good reasons why the American justice system has adopted the general rule that each party bears its own legal costs. I'd be happy to elaborate later....but right now I have to deal with some BS suits. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
HailGreen28

HailGreen28

Posted
Posted
And when you are sued, basically being ****ed with thru the legal system by someone who doesn't like you, you can do nothing in return. "Malicious prosecution" requires years and hundreds of thousands of legal fees in order to prove. I was advised by 7 different lawyers not to go there
Wow.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
mattsb84

mattsb84

Posted
Posted

Wow. This lady is a piece of work. Can anyone make a rational case for any kind of suit that she could possibly bring against the mall?

Kind of reminds me of the girl who was texting and walked into an open manhole on Staten Island. Now, at least in her defense, the utility company who opened the manhole did not follow proper safety procedures. However, people need to use their ****ing brains every once in a while and perhaps not have their face buried in their phone or a book/magazine (we get that a lot here in NYC) while walking or driving. And I think it's actually quite scary that there are people who text while driving as well...good god people, use some common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
zoony

zoony

Posted
Posted

That said, I think the system we have "is the worst ... except for all of the rest." There are good reasons why the American justice system has adopted the general rule that each party bears its own legal costs. I'd be happy to elaborate later....but right now I have to deal with some BS suits. :)

there is a happy medium somewhere between protection of citizens and protection of business. We're straying from it in recent years, imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adam@section118

adam@section118

Posted
Posted
Wow. This lady is a piece of work. Can anyone make a rational case for any kind of suit that she could possibly bring against the mall?

The only thing I could think of would be for releasing the video. However, like others have said if he keeps her mouth shut no one ever knows it was her.

One of the best lessons I learned in acting classes was to laugh at yourself. Sometimes you just have to be able to sit back and laugh at yourself, because if you dont them you will go bat **** crazy

There is absolutely no incentive for any lawyer to take a case in which the chances of winning are not significant, and the damages at issue are not significant.

This case that thread is based on will not be filed because it is not worth anything and it is not clearly winnable.

But, keep complaining that this person has filed an unfair lawsuit, when she hasn't even done so.

Oh, and the attorney who represented you, should have moved for sanctions and asked their your attorneys' fees be paid by the other party.

Edit: also, I like your thought that you no more about litigation because you've been involved in one lawsuit personally, whereas I deal with ten a day. Makes sense. :)

Nothing personal, but I could not get over the fact you mis-spelled the word "know" in the middle of your long rant. :ols:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky21

Rocky21

Posted
Posted

Nothing much to add here other than this lady has no grounds to sue the mall for any reason (and she seems dumb).

They did not act negligently by putting a fountain in the mall or failing to ask her if she was OK within 5 minutes of this happening.

As far as the mall's responsibility for the release of the video all they have to do is reprimand the "rogue" employees, say they acted on their own and it's against mall policy to put surveillance video on the internet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted

Zoony is full of baloney. :)

I have reviewed thousands of appeals in my job. Cases like this rarely settle, and they rarely go to trial, and the person rarely even can find a lawyer. When they do go to trial, the plaintiff invariably loses and pay court costs (and sometimes attorney fees) of the defendant.

There is a reason we are all reading about this incident and laughing at the idea that she would sue. Because it doesn't work and people hardly ever do it. In the rare, rare case that someone does, it goes on the message boards and people get fooled into thinking that we have an avalanche of frivolous litigation going on in this country. Anecdotal evidence is useless.

Zoony is right about one thing. Malicious prosecution is heavily discouraged and almost never works. There is a reason for that: the only thing worse than a bad initial lawsuit is a bad lawsuit followed by a return malicious prosecution suit, follwed by a counter malicious prosecution suit, follwoed by a counter counter malicious prosecution suit, forever and ever amen.

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 11:40 AM ----------

Are you implying that trial work isn't hard work? If so, I think it's safe to assume you've never practiced law as a litigator.

Beans is just taking sides. Lawyers bad, mmmkay?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madison Redskin

Madison Redskin

Posted
Posted
there is a happy medium somewhere between protection of citizens and protection of business. We're straying from it in recent years, imo.

Fair enough. To elaborate on the point I made in an earlier post, I suppose the justice system could require a party that loses a suit to pay the other party's legal costs in all circumstances. The problem with that rule is that it would have the effect of substantially inhibiting people from filing suit against companies based on legitimate grounds.

For example, suppose Acme Corp. and John Doe enter into a contract. Acme Corp. is worth billions and has a legal team consisting of 10 full-time lawyers, and retains some of the fanciest, most expensive lawyers to handle litigation. John Doe owns a small, fledgling business. Acme Corp. breaches the contract based on suspect grounds. What can John Doe do? Well, he can sue Acme Corp. However, it can be difficult to predict the outcomes of trials, in part because juries can be unpredictable and in part because legal disputes are rarely slam-dunk, black and white, etc.

So, what happens if John Doe decides to sue Acme Corp. for breach of contract and loses? Well, he could end up footing Acme Corp.'s bill, which could be massive, and be put out of business. If John Doe is smart, he would consider that potential liability and might decide, "Well I got ****ed by Acme, but I'm not about to ask for seconds." The net result is that people with legitimate claims, particularly "small fish," might be very reluctant to pursue their legal rights if that would entail going after a "big fish." That's not a good thing.

Acknowledging that policy consideration, the American justice system requires each party to bear their own costs. Now, there's a downside to that approach, i.e., people who do nothing wrong will, from time to time, have to fork over money to defend themselves against frivolous claims.

However, there are mechanisms in place to mitigate that downside. First and foremost, many lawyers operate on a contingency basis. That means that, if they spend a lot of their time bringing frivolous suits, they will spend a lot of their time working on matters that will likely net them $0. In fact, they will likely end up forking over cash to hire experts, pay court costs, etc. without any realistic shot at a recovery. So, they will actually lose time and money to litigate those frivolous claims.

Second, on occasion, courts will order a party who files a frivolous lawsuit to pay the other party's legal fees. While that is the exception and not the rule, it is nonetheless a remedy available to courts for egregious cases.

Finally, lawyers who repeatedly file frivolous lawsuits are subject to sanctions and even disbarment. While lawyers might get away with filing a couple BS lawsuits, they can and do lose their licenses for repeatedly filing frivolous claims. When that happens, they can't practice law and they're likely stuck with tens and even hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of student loans.

PS - My professional life would be made a lot easier if the justice system switched to a "loser pays" rule. I can't stand dealing with ****s who come after my employer based on frivolous grounds. (I do, however, enjoy sending them nice letters telling them to essentially **** off.) Nonetheless, I understand why our system works the way it does ... even if it does have its downsides.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Predicto

Predicto

Posted
Posted
not all of them. Maybe just 99% or so. You, for instance, seem pretty cool.

And btw, I'm not full of baloney about the points I was making if you read them. :nutkick:

I went back and read them again to make sure...

Nope, you are still full of baloney. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mickalino

Mickalino

Posted
Posted
I am no lawyer, but I think it is a bit harsh to release the video. Not sure what the laws would be about releasing such a video.

This happened in wide-open public. There is no restriction on that, as far as I know

---------- Post added January-20th-2011 at 08:29 PM ----------

Those fountains will have railings around them at every mall in 6 months if that law suit wins.

When what we really need is cell phones with railings to protect the innocent phones from idiot users, while they're walking or driving

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mickalino

Mickalino

Posted
Posted
The only thing I could think of would be for releasing the video.

Except now that she's suing, she's going to suffer far more embarrassing exposure, than if she would have kept her mouth shut.

If she was really worried about privacy, she should have just done that - remained as private as possible. Now look at her.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
adam@section118

adam@section118

Posted
Posted
Except now that she's suing, she's going to suffer far more embarrassing exposure, than if she would have kept her mouth shut.

If she was really worried about privacy, she should have just done that - remained as private as possible. Now look at her.

My guess is the company has policies against releasing videos.

I pretty much said what you said above, though. She should have just laughed at herself and moved on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjfootballer

pjfootballer

Posted
Posted
The only thing I could think of would be for releasing the video. However, like others have said if he keeps her mouth shut no one ever knows it was her.

Nothing personal, but I could not get over the fact you mis-spelled the word "know" in the middle of your long rant. :ols:

Maybe because she is in a public place, the video is not subjected to privacy laws and the security company can do whatever they want with the videos? Just speculation on my part, I don't know the laws.

If he had a type like (knwo) I could see. But he typed "no". I don't want a lawyer that doesn't know the difference in the two words.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...