Woman who fell into a fountain while texting

[Art 1]

Ah! Since you seem to know her personally, would you please relate to her that trying to appeal to the public with the 'socially responsible' tactic of "someone might have gotten hurt" wasn't the way to go in that interview? She should stick to what her lawyer said - in essence, the video never should have left the company.

This case is no different from what would have happened if an elderly person had an embarassing accident not being able to make it to the restroom on time and the immature guards and their friends did a recording of THAT incident and posted it on the internet a'la "man who pooped in potted plant".

Just because there seems to be many of these tapes on the web doesn't mean it's right. In fact, the general public's acceptance of these security tapes being made public shows how readily we're willing to give up our personal freedoms if it's for the sake of entertainment or safety.

So much for our ersatz thanking the troops for our freedoms.

That's all nice. But, she is after money.

 

[Mermaid02]

That's all nice. But, she is after money.

And her prior acts support this!

 

[bicker]

Look bicker, you're mindlessing flaying at this one.

I could say that you're dodging and weaving to avoid the possibilities that I'm outlining, but saying such things adds nothing to the discussion other than nastiness. You and I disagree about how things are. You're insisting that your perspective is supported by facts. I'm saying that your facts don't refute what I've been saying. That's as far as it needs to go.

 

[kaytieeldr]

She didn't need help, she got out on her own accord and walked fine after that. It all happened in a few seconds time,. personally, I think she did it on purpose.

See the YouTube video titled "fountain texter -- staged or just a stupid idiot!!!! -- you decide"

It sure looks intentional - even before this person broke down the tape, literally step by step.

 

[kaytieeldr]

Why? Just because you find the video funny? In reality, the security company firing the guard is a clear admission that the security company found the guard's action wrongful, and going back to respondeat superior, that means that the security company is liable for having committed a wrongful action. All that remains to be seen is if there are significant damages that can be reasonably attributed to the wrongful action. We're now down into the weeds of the legal process... so clearly there needs to be lawsuit to determine that. To assert, given these facts you've outlined, that there shouldn't be a lawsuit makes no sense.

In my reasonable, unbiased opinion, the security company would have determined any/all involved employees to be in violation of company policy (examples: using cell phone at work, taping security tapes, allowing/inviting non-employees into employee-only area...), period. They would have followed standard company policy by, apparently, firing said employee/s.

Especially watched step-by-step, especially that last step with the knee lifted high - unlike her normal steps up to that point - any 'damages' can be attributed only to Marrero herself.

 

[bicker]

In my reasonable, unbiased opinion, the security company would have determined any/all involved employees to be in violation of company policy.... They would have followed standard company policy by, apparently, firing said employee/s.

They did, thereby acknowledging wrongdoing by an employee, which in essence acknowledges their own wrongdoing, as per the doctrine mentioned earlier.

Especially watched step-by-step, especially that last step with the knee lifted high - unlike her normal steps up to that point - any 'damages' can be attributed only to Marrero herself.

This is a very interesting observation, and one that a judge (or jury, if applicable) would and should make. Thanks for raising that possibility.

 

[nathalee81]

http://www.phonesland.net/2011/01/texting-woman-who-fell-into-fountain-is.html.

I don't know if this article will paste correctly, or if I can even link anything.

Alas, this woman has dropped her suit, it appears. No Supreme Court for this one.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

So maybe she was satisfied with the guard being fired.

 

[Mermaid02]

So maybe she was satisfied with the guard being fired.

I doubt it- more likely her lawyers dropped her, realizing there was no way they would get a dime.

 

[eliza61]

Or maybe she figured with public opinion firmly against her and a whole bunch of criminal issues swirling around her, this was one she was not going to win.

Amazing how self righteousness and umbrage can go right out the window when people find out your a thief and a con. Just last week she swore she was suing for the "principal". Hard to sue based on principals when you lack basic principals.

 

[Imzadi]

I think they lawyer was just out for any money he could get from her, regardless of if she won. She'd still have to pay him for all the billable hours he worked on the case. PLUS, public, personal appearances, like for GMA, cost more.

He probably figured, if she was really so stupid as to walk & text, fall into a fountain and then think she had some type of case, why NOT bilk her for whatever money he could get? When it came to light that she actually has to steal for money, he probably realized the cash cow is dry, and he might not see any money after all, and dropped her.

 

[Geoff_M]

I could say that you're dodging and weaving to avoid the possibilities that I'm outlining, but saying such things adds nothing to the discussion other than nastiness.

Answering points with facts would be an odd way of "dodging and weaving", but oh well.

You and I disagree about how things are.

I think the problem is that I'm hung up on the way things are, and you're hung up on the way things could be if a number of things change.

You're insisting that your perspective is supported by facts. I'm saying that your facts don't refute what I've been saying. That's as far as it needs to go.

I guess if what you're saying is in reference to hypothetical situations with no consideration given to reality, then I guess I now understand how you're approaching this situation.

 

[Geoff_M]

If she never filed this lawsuit, there's a good possibility we'd never know if the security guy had been fired.

There's only one small problem... there never was any lawsuit. None was every filed, there was only a comment that she was considering a lawsuit. I'm guessing that the security worker was fired before Ms. Marrero decided to "out" herself publicly... as he should have been. In her ABC interview she said that when she called the mall office regarding the video's release they said that they'd consider "drastic measures" to address the the matter.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

There's only one small problem... there never was any lawsuit. None was every filed, there was only a comment that she was considering a lawsuit. I'm guessing that the security worker was fired before Ms. Marrero decided to "out" herself publicly... as he should have been. In her ABC interview she said that when she called the mall office regarding the video's release they said that they'd consider "drastic measures" to address the the matter.

Then all's well that ends well.

 

[WeLoveLilo05]

I heard the same. If she didn't sue, then this probably would have not reached an LA news station. She is responsible for her own humility. (note: I do think that the security guard acted inappropriately and should be fired)

If she works at the mall though wouldn't she have some idea of where the fountain is, KWIM? As a teacher you know every inch of the building you are in...I go to my mall a lot and I know where things are, especially something like a fountain.
What an idiot, lets sue the mall b/c I decided to text and walk and fall into a fountain. Pay attention, SHE could have walked into an elderly person and caused them to break a hip or something.

 

[WDSearcher]

Or maybe she figured with public opinion firmly against her and a whole bunch of criminal issues swirling around her, this was one she was not going to win.

Amazing how self righteousness and umbrage can go right out the window when people find out your a thief and a con. Just last week she swore she was suing for the "principal". Hard to sue based on principals when you lack basic principals.

Although if she WAS suing on principle, then dropping the lawsuit once the security guards were fired could be one indication of that, no? If it was all about the money, there are PLENTY of lawyers who would pick up the case once dropped by someone else. It's not like she couldn't have called some referral service and gotten another attorney.

 

[WDSearcher]

If she works at the mall though wouldn't she have some idea of where the fountain is, KWIM? As a teacher you know every inch of the building you are in...I go to my mall a lot and I know where things are, especially something like a fountain.

And honestly? That's why I think she picks up her foot and looks like she knows where she's going. She knows the mall, and knows where the fountain is. She got to that part of the mall, knew the next step was higher, and took the step accordingly. What didn't register to her -- because she was texting -- was -- oh, right ... it's a fountain! I walk the same route to work every single day. Know where all the curbs are, where the grates are, etc. If I'm pre-occupied with something, my feet just kind of step over and around the things they should. I have still, on several occasions, tripped on a curb because something I didn't expect -- a bug, a piece of trash, a loose bit of pavement -- messed up the rhythm. I take one step that's a little too short or long to avoid something that's not usually there and poof! There I am, tripping over a curb that I know is there. Go figure.

 

[kaytieeldr]

And honestly? That's why I think she picks up her foot and looks like she knows where she's going. She knows the mall, and knows where the fountain is. She got to that part of the mall, knew the next step was higher, and took the step accordingly.

But the next step isn't higher. It's a fountain. It's not a step. The reasonable person doesn't walk there - on it, over it, onto it, or into it. They walk around it.

 

[WDSearcher]

But the next step isn't higher. It's a fountain. It's not a step. The reasonable person doesn't walk there - on it, over it, onto it, or into it. They walk around it.

I get that, but what I'm saying is that one sense told her there was a surface change. It changed from floor to fountain. She got that message, however subliminal. She didn't get that she should go around, not through. Different part of the brain, maybe?