Texting while Walking.

Yeah, now she is considering a lawsuit.

 

LOL - the dangers of TWW... (texting while walking :grin: ).

She has a right to sue for negligence. I would take this case in a hurry, but not to ask for too much money.

MadMax, or other lawyers, et. al., ¿qué dice usted?

 

I can't believe she's suing. What a joke.

<img style="visibility:hidden;width:0px;height:0px;" border=0 width=0 height=0 src="http://c.gigcount.com/wildfire/IMP/CXNID=2000002.0NXC/bT*xJmx*PTEyOTU1NDkyOTYzODEmcHQ9MTI5NTU*OTI5OTI*MyZwPTEyNTg*MTEmZD1BQkNOZXdzX1NGUF9Mb2NrZV9FbWJlZCZn/PTMmbz*wNWVkMjljOTM4MmY*ZWM*YjRkYTgyOTM*YjYwMTQxMSZvZj*w.gif" /><object classid="clsid27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=9,0,124,0" width="344" height="278" id="ABCESNWID"><param name="movie" value="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" /><param name="quality" value="high" /><param name="allowScriptAccess" value="always" /><param name="allowNetworking" value="all" /><param name="flashvars" value="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=12712703&showId=12685189&gig_lt=1295549296381&gig_pt=1295549299243&gig_g=3" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed src="http://abcnews.go.com/assets/player/walt2.6/flash/SFP_Walt_2_65.swf" quality="high" allowScriptAccess="always" allowNetworking="all" allowfullscreen="true" pluginspage="http://www.adobe.com/shockwave/download/download.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="344" height="278" flashvars="configUrl=http://abcnews.go.com/video/sfp/embedPlayerConfig&configId=406732&clipId=12712703&showId=12685189&gig_lt=1295549296381&gig_pt=1295549299243&gig_g=3" name="ABCESNWID"></embed></object>

 

Negligence? But whose negligence to act caused what harm? She wasn't injured because the mall security failed to act.

 

I agree with your last sentence, but I will go ahead and answer your questions:

I don't think she is suing "because she fell."

I believe they should have at least let her know "we saw that on camera" and also not posted it on YouTube without her permission.

She is an employee of the company that is supposedly trying to use the video to protect assets, personnel, etc., but they could have used it to potentially defame her person.

For what purpose is the surveillance video used? To post on YouTube? That shouldn't be. Do you agree with this, at least?

 

It was her OWN negligence that caused this to happen. That's like me running into a parked car on my bike while on the phone, breaking my arm, and suing the owner of the car for parking there. There is absolutely no case for her, in my opinion, and the only way she sees money is if the ownership of the mall decides to settle out of court to get rid of the bad publicity.

Having insurance in this sue-happy country we live in is almost a LIABILITY, because lawyers see that as an easy escape route. They understand that insurance companies would much rather settle for say $50,000 rather than take the case to trial, and have to pay lawyer's fees that will amount to much more, even if their client is innocent. People like her and her lawyer are the scum that keep this judicial system going, and it sickens me.

 

You're changing the crux of your point. In your original post, you said "sue for negligence", and now you're saying suing for defamation of character. I personally don't see how EITHER one applies here, but which argument are you going for?

 

How would she be suing for defamation of character, when nobody who she was until she went on tv and announced it?

 

She's not suing because of the act of falling in the fountain. She's thinking about suing for the security tape being leaked.

In any case, nobody had to know who this woman was. She could have stayed quiet and this would have been an unnamed person falling. There is not a close up of this woman where people could tell who it was.

 

Sue? WHAT? ....she was stupid and fell in a fountain, and you can't even tell who it is, but some people think she should be able to tie up our court system with a bull**** lawsuit.

Dumbassery at it's finest.

DD

 

If they knew who she was, they wouldn't have said "girl falls in fountain". They would have probably called it "some old woman falls".

 

the b**** looks likes the son from Hung

 

She should have just gotten this android app:

http://newsfeed.time.com/2010/07/16/texting-while-walking-android-has-an-app-for-that/



I have it installed, but never used it .

 

That's true. I should have said "defamation" in the initial post. I used the word "negligence" by mistake. I admit I must have read that somewhere and was thinking that.

Still, please answer what I asked you. Do you agree that the company should be posting these videos anywhere at all?

Perhaps this lawsuit against the company will stop them from putting their content out there for the world to laugh?

AND, yes, she was dumb for falling in there. We all know that. You don't TEXT-AND-WALK. Yes, she shouldn't have come out to say "that's me in the video" like marks says, but if you look at that video REEKO posted, again, the company doesn't take ownership for allowing the video of their surveillance to be leaked. She called the mall security peeps.

 

She literally said dont text and walk. Wow.

How caught up in a text message do you have to be to not see a huge fountain in front of you?

If you fall, people will laugh. And since she got up and walked away like nothing happened, why would anyone ask her if she was OK? It was pretty obvious she was.

 

She should be counter-suit and thrown in jail for wasting everybody's time.

 

She should be sued for destruction of property, she probably messed up the fountain by faceplanting into it

 

The Lawyer should be sued for encouraging her.

 

I don't believe you need permission to post videos of people in public places.

I also don't believe she (employee of some store) and the mall security are employees of the company - not that I see how it's relavent.

The mall security employees could get into some trouble with their company for misuse of company property, possibly theft of company property (assuming the video footage is considered property of the company), and possibly time spent replaying video and charging the company for that time.

But that, to me, would seem to be up to the mall security company to take action against its own employees and not anything to do with the lady in the video.