Woman who fell into a fountain while texting

[quentina]

Does anyone know what mall this was? I live near and it doesn't look familiar.

Berkshire

 

[Diznygrl]

I can't even count the number of security camera videos I've seen over the years on youtube catching people doing stupid/funny/outrageous things. This is the first time I've heard of someone suing over it, though. Give me a break.

 

[Seewhatimesdone]

I'm sorry but the video is HILARIOUS

 

[cm8]

Just wondering, with all these charges and past history of retail theft, how does this woman have a job in retail at a mall?

, great question, but I'm sure she slip through the cracks somehow

 

[bicker]

There are medical records stored in a mall security office?

Are you claiming that it is impossible for there to be sensitive records stored in an office? What is your point? You're making no sense.

No, but at least it would be within the realm of things that courts have held that members of the general public should not have to be subjected to.

Because Americans are childish prudes, in general. Yes, Geoff - good point.

There's no general concept of "Freedom From Embarrassment At The Hands of Others" in our legal system.

It isn't clear to me that this isn't already covered by the law, but even if you're correct, then that would just mean that the US defamation laws are reflections of 19th century technology, and would need to be updated, either by statute or by judicial projection of the intent of those laws, to include not only speech (which is actually protected, to some extent, by the US Constitution), but also images that defame (which arguably is less protected).

For 8 bucks an hour, I hope they laughed as hard as we did when watching this idiot fall in the drink.

Hoping for irresponsibility and immaturity is ridiculous, regardless of the pay rate.

 

[bicker]

Apples and Halibut

Not at all Chris. Responsible stewardship is responsible stewardship. If you do your work with a careless disregard for others, that's your prerogative, but that doesn't make it right. If you're responsible for something, then be responsible. Don't set aside your maturity and discretion because you find something funny.

How can you expect privacy in an open area of a public place?

It isn't a matter of expecting privacy within that area. It is a matter of expecting that your foibles within that area will not be presented more broadly than that limited amount of public exposure.

As an aside: This video would never have been presented on a commercial television station without the woman's written permission. YouTube uses several back-doors within the law, some of which Geoff was probably thinking of when he wrote his comments, to avoid the responsibility that commercial television stations live up to. They shouldn't get away with that. Unless they're an advertising-free public service, they should act with as much responsibility as all other commercial enterprises, and shouldn't be making money, effectively, by exploiting unauthorized compromising video presentations of others.​

Any Tom, Dick, or Harry with an I-phone could have taped her and placed it on YouTube.

This wasn't "any Tom, Dick, or Harry". That's the point. This was someone who had a responsibility. By extension, it was a commercial enterprise, though its employee, taking this action. Employers are responsible for the actions of their employees - they are vicariously liable, under the respondeat superior doctrine. This is well-established law, a fundamental aspect of how our nation protects its people.

The security company fired the guard that posted the video. That should be the end of it.

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.

What would suing the security company for cash accomplish? Well force the company to charge more, and then the mall would pass that cost to us the shopper.

So your perspective is a reflection of personal greed. If you're not the one suing and getting the money, you want the lawsuit to fail. Okay, I can respect that. You don't want to pay for more responsible security in the malls you shop in. You're entitled to your opinion. I'm looking at this more from the standpoint of what is fair and just, and forcing security companies and malls to administer better supervision and discretion with regard to who they employ is part of that, afaic.

No one owes you a happy, embarrassment free life.

No one owes you cheap laughs at other people's expense, either. If anything, our society should be trying to discourage that sort of childishness among its adults.

 

[bicker]

Sometimes the only way to hold people accountable is to sue. I'm not a fan of how sue-happy our society is, but the fact that you couldn't see her face is not the issue here as far as I'm concerned. And neither is the fact that she did something dumb.

I have no idea what the regulations are for security tapes in a mall, but I could list a page worth of specs for a bank branch security video.

I have a hard time believing that anyone on here would be okay with me taking one of those tapes, posting it on YouTube and laughing at the clothes you wore. That is not the same thing as a random person with a cell phone taking video.

This incessant need to make fun of people (even when they're doing something stupid) is disconcerting to me. Using something that is put in place to ensure the safety of others to further along that need is revolting.

Absolutely on-target.

 

[Geoff_M]

Because Americans are childish prudes, in general. Yes, Geoff - good point.

So the fact that you cannot publish nude photos of a member of the general public without their permission is due to us being "childish prudes"? Interesting.

It isn't clear to me that this isn't already covered by the law, but even if you're correct, then that would just mean that the US defamation laws are reflections of 19th century technology, and would need to be updated, either by statute or by judicial projection of the intent of those laws, to include not only speech (which is actually protected, to some extent, by the US Constitution), but also images that defame (which arguably is less protected).

Look bicker, the Internet wasn't invented yesterday and this isn't the first time that someone has been popularly embarrassed on-line against their wishes. This isn't a novel area of law and it isn't the first such lawsuit. The parameters are already pretty clear.

Case in point is probably one of the famous example... one that's approaching a decade old now. Even though it took place in Canada, both of our Tort systems are based on English law and the case would have gone down the same way here. That's the case of Ghyslain Raza (AKA "Star Wars Kid"). His performance went "viral" thanks to some classmates. At the height of the it, Raza's parents filed suit against the families of four students associated with the video's release. But as I've said before, in order to be able to sue the plaintiff must claim some sort of demonstrable harm or damage as a result of the actions of the defendant(s) that you are attempting to recover. You cannot sue someone just to "make a point" or punish specific behavior. In Raza's case, his lawyers claimed that the damages suffered were that the boy "had to endure, and still endures today, harassment and derision from his high-school mates and the public at large", and that Raza had to be put under psychiatric care and would be under that care "for an indefinite amount of time" as a result. The incident continued far beyond the the initial video as parodies and "remixes" of the video popped up, even on commercial TV. Subsequently, one family was dropped from the suit, and the other three settled out of court.

As an aside: This video would never have been presented on a commercial television station without the woman's written permission. YouTube uses several back-doors within the law, some of which Geoff was probably thinking of when he wrote his comments, to avoid the responsibility that commercial television stations live up to. They shouldn't get away with that. Unless they're an advertising-free public service, they should act with as much responsibility as all other commercial enterprises, and shouldn't be making money, effectively, by exploiting unauthorized compromising video presentations of others.

You are aware that YouTube is a "commercial enterprise", don't you? Last time I checked, the video is still out there (3 millions hits and counting). And I've seen a lot of TV programs (not just news programs) featuring security camera footage of "dumb criminals" in the act where I doubt that permission was sought when the person was not deemed recognizable to be point where a release was required. bicker, you really should do some reading on this subject and but a little more thought into it before you start typing.

 

[bicker]

So the fact that you cannot publish nude photos of a member of the general public without their permission is due to us being "childish prudes"?

No, that is not what I wrote. Rather, I wrote that the fact that embarrassment by nudity is considered so much worse than embarrassment by other means is due to Americans being "childish prudes".

See the difference? See how what I wrote makes sense, and your statement didn't? I was pointing something out about a difference, and your counter-point was about one of the two things, in the absolute. Big difference.

Look bicker, the Internet wasn't invented yesterday and this isn't the first time that someone has been popularly embarrassed on-line against their wishes.

Yet, there are still many laws that are decades behind-the-times. Don't get me started on the overt and pervasive self-centeredness that prevails among Americans, with regard to digital music and video, vis a vis their disrespect for copyright.

Perhaps it is because we've been spoiled, as citizens of the strongest nation on Earth, that fosters such self-centeredness, such focus on consumption and self-gratification, and such insistence that what we want is righteously ours based solely on the fact that we decide to want it. Every nation's citizens exhibit shared negative attributes; perhaps those are ours.

But as I've said before, in order to be able to sue the plaintiff must claim some sort of demonstrable harm or damage as a result of the actions of the defendant(s) that you are attempting to recover.

Which is almost exactly what I wrote. What's your point in saying so, in reply to my message?

Perhaps you didn't see it, but the question raised was whether this lawsuit is legitimate or frivolous, not just whether the plaintiff will prevail. Your statement, here, talking about whether there are demonstrable damages to assess, is in agreement with those of us saying that it is not a frivolous lawsuit, since clearly once you get to trying to prove damages, you've already gotten past the legal question of wrongfulness, and are just working to quantify whether there is any monetary significance.

You are aware that YouTube is a "commercial enterprise", don't you?

Absolutely. Did you read what I actually wrote?

YouTube uses several back-doors within the law, some of which Geoff was probably thinking of when he wrote his comments, to avoid the responsibility that commercial television stations live up to.​

They shouldn't be able to hide behind those back-doors. That was the point.

bicker, you really should do some reading on this subject and but a little more thought into it before you start typing.

With respect, you should get off your high horse and stop assuming that other people don't know what they're talking about, just because you disagree with them. We don't have to agree with you to be well-read and thoughtful. If I need advice about what and when to post, I'll ask people who do not have a vested interest in the thread in trying to distract attention away from the points I'm making.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

Welcome to the 21st century-I don't think anyone knows what our expectation of privacy is anymore.

We live in a society of myspace, facebook, iphones and all sorts of gadgets. We all want to be connected and we want it to happen quickly and at the touch of a few buttons. You take the good with the bad. The same phones that can take your son's photo and then e-mail to a hundred of your friends, is the same phone that can be used to record an embarrassing moment and plaster it on youtube. The same security cameras that keep you safe can be used (by the wrong people) to make fun of an awkward trip or fall into a fountain.

We extol the virtues of our wonderful technology, but then can't understand when something like this happens.

It is what it is.

I've said it on this thread and I will say it again. I don't feel bad for this woman. She isn't my grandmother (who would never hit a vehicle and then run or steal from her co-workers), and she certainly isn't a victim of anything other than her own stupidity (both in the case of falling in freaking fountain and then opening her big mouth about it). Sorry, it is hard to feel bad for opportunistic narcissistic klutz.

I know your comments weren't directed at me specifically, but as I've said... this isn't about being connected as a society. If she was suing a random person for uploading a video taken on a cell phone, my entire reaction would be different. In fact, when I read the title of the thread, I rolled my eyes. After reading the article, my opinion changed.

There's a difference between feeling sorry for someone and expecting people to do the right thing.

Absolutely on-target.

Glad it's not just me!

 

[bicker]

Glad it's not just me!

Sometimes, LCB, it feels like just you and me (and NHdisneylover), though.

 

[happygirl]

My mall has several signs through out the mall saying something along the lines This property is being monitored by video!

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

Sometimes, LCB, it feels like just you and me (and NHdisneylover), though.

Yeah, I've noticed. LOL.

My mall has several signs through out the mall saying something along the lines This property is being monitored by video!

I HOPE places are monitored by video. I just don't want said videos popping up on YouTube. I want them monitoring criminal activity that could endanger the patrons of the establishment. Those signs would make ME feel safer, and potentially thwart someone who's considering robbing the cash register at Abercrombie. I don't think they're posted as a warning that everything you do has the potential to go viral.

It's called a "security" video for a reason.

 

[pyrxtc]

I went to Youtube and caught the entire video. Based on that, I have to say that if the mall is comfortable with their security guard's friends taping this particular incident off of security cameras (via cell phone) and posting it on the internet, and nothing happens to that mall or those guards because of it, what else is going to be allowed because it happened to have been caught by security cameras?

It's always been my experience that guard shacks and security rooms are supposed to be employees only and those employees are bound by the rules and regulations of their job, so this video would NEVER have gotten out onto the internet without repercussions to the employee who put it there. But in this case you have what sounds like a bunch of friends visiting their working friend and taking advantage of privileged information in order to make fun of another human being.

They weren't taping the incident in a mall while it was happening, they were taking advantage of something that isn't routinely available to the general public - a taped recording of the incident - and using it for private purposes. So if it weren't for the mall's privileged information this embarassing incident would have been limited to merely the people who were witnessing it at the time and it would have been forgotten.

IMO, the mall IS responsible. To not make a precident of this improper disclosure of privileged information is to allow other invasions of privacy to be broadcast on the internet. Remember, it's all fun and games until it's your full-body spectrum scan that's being used for hilarity on Youtube.

So everyone who has been posted at Flash mo****** dot com can sue for their picture being up there ? I'm sure there are more sites like that.

(the site used to be outtake pics from Splash Mountain and is now a not nice site.) Please do not go there now.

 

[Klismania]

When you step into a public space like a mall, you legally have surrendered your "expectation of privacy". Whether you think we should or not is immaterial, that's the current interpretation of the law.

Which should make each and everyone one of us pause when considering whether or not to go through the strip-search detectors at airports. The airport is a public area and you willingly allowed the TSA to view your naked body.

Accountable for what? where they responsible for making sure she didn't fall? Was it some ones responsiblity to make sure she wasn't laughed at? The mall should be held accountable for the actions of their employees and the damage said actions could do to mall patrons. The person falling into the fountain could be that guy that shot those people at the shopping mall in Arizona and it still wouldn't change the fact that the security guards misused their authority.


I highly doubt the faces on "the people of walmart" suffer any undue embarrassment at all. Unless you are a person who's photograph was surrepticiously taken and posted on that website for public ridicule, you have no basis for your judgment at all.

Unfortunately we live in an age where every thing you do is open to public view.

My mall has several signs through out the mall saying something along the lines This property is being monitored by video!

It's this kind of attitude, the one that says, "Tough. If you don't like it don't go into a place where you're being monitored" that gives me the creeps. This attitude clearly states that this person isn't going to be concerned over the loss of civil rights and/or personal freedoms unless and until it affects them.

And to use allegations made against another human being as some kind of justification to excuse your own bad behavior. Creepy.

But it's this attitude that I'll be pointing to when the ones doing the snickering turn out to be the ones whose TSA body scan got posted on the internet (an act which, once done, cannot be undone) and everyone hooted, hollared, and humiliated them. After all, they were in a public place, they willingly went into a body scanner, and shouldn't have expected any modicum of privacy no matter how many signs were posted saying that images were erased as soon as the person left the scanner.

IMO, you should have known better. After all, you were in a public place and chose to give up your right to privacy.

If the law can't be there to protect the least of these, and you give it your full blessing that the law shouldn't be there to protect someone you find personally disagreeable, then you can't really expect the law to be there to protect you or other strangers to not humiliate you when similar things happen to you.

 

[bdcp]

What gets me is that NO ONE knew who was in the grainy video until she outed herself. So, any embarrassment is of her own doing. Let's not even go to the fact that it is STUPID to text and walk. People have been hit by cars and fallen in manholes all caused by their own behavior. The only one responsible is HER.

 

[Klismania]

So everyone who has been posted at Flash mo****** dot com can sue for their picture being up there ? I'm sure there are more sites like that.

(the site used to be outtake pics from Splash Mountain and is now a not nice site.) Please do not go there now.

I know the site. Again, apples and halibut (I like that phrase!) The people on Flash****** (that website) intentionally pulled up their shirts or did things that they wanted other people to see. They knew when the camera was going to take a picture and timed their actions accordingly.

They didn't get out of the boat not realizing that their white t-shirt was now wet and everyone could see everything. They weren't a victim of:

- The security cameras catching this naked image of them
- The security guards letting their friends into the booth to see this naked image
- The security guards rewinding the tape of the incident several times to allow their friends to record that naked image
- The entire incident being posted on Youtube so thousands or millions of the dim-witted amongst us could share in that woman's humiliation instead of just the people who happened to be there at the time

If you're going to say it's OK for people to take other people's images and use them for whatever purposes they want simply because those people happen to be in public and have given up their rights because they're in public, then I don't want to hear any screaming about photographs or images of toddlers who are prone to removing their clothing in public winding up on a child porn website for pedophiles to use in their private moments.

Because it's the same thing.

I'm either not explaining it right or people are simply choosing not to get it. This isn't about that woman's lack of character, her moral compass or her wanting to get rich quick. It's not about how she did a foolish thing by texting and walking. It's not about how no one could recognize her so her embarassment is caused by herself.

It's about expecting those who are employed to govern the images taken of us with respect, decency and in accordance with the law.

That woman wasn't robbing a store, kidnapping a child, vandalizing the mall or doing anything that would endanger another human being. She had an embarrassing accident and should have been reasonably assured that the only people who witnessed it and would laugh about it were in the immediate vicinity.

Neither the recording of that incident, nor any images of that tape, should have left the guard area unless she sued the mall and it was needed as evidence that her accident wasn't the fault of the mall. Perhaps if the mall were fined and/or penalized in a way that's going to hurt, they'll be more careful about screening their employees and developing policies that discourage this behavior. The lawsuit also serves to set a precident that other public recordings must be handled in a respectful, appropriate manner or they'll be penalized as well.

 

[nathalee81]

Are you claiming that it is impossible for there to be sensitive records stored in an office? What is your point? You're making no sense.


Because Americans are childish prudes, in general. Yes, Geoff - good point.

It isn't clear to me that this isn't already covered by the law, but even if you're correct, then that would just mean that the US defamation laws are reflections of 19th century technology, and would need to be updated, either by statute or by judicial projection of the intent of those laws, to include not only speech (which is actually protected, to some extent, by the US Constitution), but also images that defame (which arguably is less protected).


Hoping for irresponsibility and immaturity is ridiculous, regardless of the pay rate.

Um, no point. Asking a question. Do you think medical records are stored in a security office? Because you didn't say "sensitive" records, you said medical records.

 

[bicker]

It's this kind of attitude, the one that says, "Tough. If you don't like it don't go into a place where you're being monitored" that gives me the creeps. This attitude clearly states that this person isn't going to be concerned over the loss of civil rights and/or personal freedoms unless and until it affects them.

I feel that that's a rather gross perversion of happygirl's assertion. Rather, I read what she wrote as saying that there is always give-and-take in life, and so it is reasonable to expect that not everything will be crafted such that everyone will be happy with the balance struck. There is a pervasive view emerging from a segment of society asserting that their own rights must necessarily always trump anyone else's conflicting rights, essentially "Who cares what anyone else thinks?" (That's actually the title of a thread, right now, on the Family board, discussing this very issue.) If a significant segment of society heads in that direction, it'll spell major problems for society. "Me, me, me" is not a good formula for the future.

And to use allegations made against another human being as some kind of justification to excuse your own bad behavior. Creepy.

While I agree with what you're saying, I don't see it being relevant to this situation.

But it's this attitude that I'll be pointing to when the ones doing the snickering turn out to be the ones whose TSA body scan got posted on the internet

You are linking two things together that rightfully are not linked: The posting of the image on the Internet is what's wrong. That's the point. You raised the issue, in your previous sentence, about using a transgression to hide from responsibility for a transgression. Well that's very similar to what you're doing here. You're trying to defend your attack on what the TSA does (probably because you personally don't like it) by referring to some other action (the posting of compromising images on the Internet). You want there to be a linkage of responsibility, because that would have legitimized your criticisms (of digital imaging, in general), but the responsibility is not linked at such a generic level. The responsibility for that image, taken by someone outside of the FAA security structure, and posted on the Internet, rests with that person who posted that picture. If the picture is posted by an FAA employee, then, and only then, through the doctrine I mentioned before, would their employer also be culpable. However, again, they would be culpable not for the video, but for posting it publicly.

What you're pointing out doesn't de-legitimize video, but rather only the careless management of video.

 

[bicker]

The people on ... (that website) intentionally pulled up their shirts or did things that they wanted other people to see. They knew when the camera was going to take a picture and timed their actions accordingly.

This is a very important distinction. Note that one of the most popular contexts within people are embarrassed publicly, these days, is the television series Wipeout! However, as you pointed out, just as in the case of the aforementioned website, the participants in Wipeout! are informed about what they are getting themselves into. It also helps that the show is presenting their compromising videos all in good fun. The same cannot be said of many videos posted on YouTube. There is simply no guarantee of reasonably mature discretion applied on YouTube.

I'm either not explaining it right or people are simply choosing not to get it. This isn't about that woman's lack of character, her moral compass or her wanting to get rich quick. It's not about how she did a foolish thing by texting and walking. It's not about how no one could recognize her so her embarassment is caused by herself. It's about expecting those who are employed to govern the images taken of us with respect, decency and in accordance with the law.

Of course, I agree with you completely about what this is about. I don't think that you're not explaining it right, nor that other people aren't getting it. They simply don't share our values.