Woman who fell into a fountain while texting

[Mermaid02]

was it a shame that someone posted the video online? yes.
were you really all that shocked by it? no.

#1, i wouldn't even say that founftain lady was embarrassed by the VIDEO itself. i will 100% say that ON THAT DAY, having to get out of a mall fountain, soaking wet, yes. she was probably embarrassed. but, by the time the video surfaced, no one knew who she was. i would still be embarrasses, for myself, for my OWN STUPIDITY, but come on. a lawyer? you're another one of those money hungry, pain in the neck people who are out to make a quick buck.

#2, i would be more concerned about the people who may have slipped and fell and hurt themselves in (what i am sure are) the many puddles of water that were left behind, trudging to the exit.

when fountain lady says that "it COULD have been this," or "it COULD have been that," she doesn't mention the fact that she COULD have endangered someone else. i know that is a stretch, but come on. we are talking about a lawsuit for someone's own ignorance.

the fact that this story is getting additional media in general is ONLY because the idiot won't stop going on tv and talking about it!! come on, lady.

Wouldn't it be ironic if somebody sued her for slipping in the aftermath of her horrid fall?

 

[ThunderMTexpert]

Wouldn't it be ironic if somebody sued her for slipping in the aftermath of her horrid fall?

i think i might love that person. LOL

 

[denisem]

Let's just say...if MY personally embarassing/clutzy moments were caught on tape and I was allowed to sue...I could retire.

OT - am I the only person on earth who was unaware (until recently) that Anderson Cooper is Gloria Vanderbilt's son???

 

[Mermaid02]

Let's just say...if MY personally embarassing/clutzy moments were caught on tape and I was allowed to sue...I could retire.

OT - am I the only person on earth who was unaware (until recently) that Anderson Cooper is Gloria Vanderbilt's son???

Yes, you are the only one!

 

[denisem]

Geez, I'll have to turn in my crown as queen of useless trivia

 

[Jabber_Jaws]

As an aside: This video would never have been presented on a commercial television station without the woman's written permission.​

That is incorrect. If a person does not give written permission they block out the face. I see it on TV all the time. That is how the television stations ( shows ) get away with that.

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.

I think you're calling out the wrong person about greed. The security company would not charge the mall more, so they can pay their security personnel more. That is just utterly ridiculous. They would raise their rates to cover the cost of the lawsuit: Plain and simple. That cost gets passed onto the consumer. That is not a reflection of personal greed, just a fact. Why should the consumer be penalized because some criminal idiot fell in a fountain?

Also why do you think if the security company pays it's guards more, they won't do things like this? Do people who make more money never do anything stupid? I doubt that. The security company fired the guy. That should be the end of it. Now if they did not fire the person, I would then say she might have a chance at a lawsuit.

 

[Eeyores Butterfly]

It seems like a lot of people are getting hung up on the character of the plaintiff. I'm very curious, how would you feel if say it was somebody's grandmother who had a long history of giving to charity? Basically one of those people who is so good it's sickening.

I agree the woman is a criminal and an idiot. The only reason she sued was for the money. But I'm more interested in the issue at large. Should we have a reasonable expectation to privacy when we are out? Should videos like this be made public? Just to make it less complicated, let's take the average joe out of the equation and just look at security videos.

After all, I'm sure that no one goes to Wal Mart with the expectation that the secruity camera footage of themselves will be made public.

 

[laurie31]

While I do think perhaps it's morally wrong for the security people to have leaked the video, I'm not so sure that it's legally wrong.

If it were someone's saintly grandmother falling because she was walking along while texting, then yes, it would be just as funny, as long as she wasn't hurt.

To me, the only reason this is funny is no one was hurt, and because the fall happened due to the person was doing something totally STUPID!! I think if the person had been truly hurt, no one would be laughing, and if the fall had not been 100% because the person was stupid, and not because of something else (an elderly person losing their balance - NOT funny!) then it would have never been released. It's the level of stupidity that makes it so funny. It's like The Three Stooges go to the mall or something.

Honestly, when I first saw the video, I couldn't even tell if it was a woman or a man for sure, much less the specific identity.

As someone has pointed out, these grainy security videos are all over the internet already. You can't identify the people in them, so legally I'm not sure it's a breach of anything. I guess time will tell.

 

[bicker]

My point was that the "childish prudes" comment was completely unnecessary.

We will have to agree to disagree about that. It helps explain why some strange things happen here in the US that don't happen elsewhere in the Western world.

Why that protection is given is immaterial to the case being discussed.

You can choose to ignore the distinction, if you wish. However, people who disagree with you are not subject to your constraints in that regard. Being consistent in is a positive attribute, consistent with regard to how the act of embarrassing other people by posting compromising visual images of them, in this case. It is a category of action that should be treated all-the-same within. That is the point I made.

That is a perfectly meaningless statement that could be applied to any current legal standard that you personally don't agree with and feel is "out-dated".

Actually, only those that are inconsistent, in the manner I just outlined.

"Having no sound basis" is

not applicable.

I'm sorry that you cannot understand that.

I'm sorry that you're imposing your decision to agree with one side of the issue on your ability to read and understand what other people are posting.

"embarrassment" (which in and of itself is NOT civilly actionable)

What did I just say? You even commented about it. I said that "embarrassment" should be treated consistently. You choose to believe that the law doesn't provide for that. Maybe you're right; maybe you're wrong. We'll see. Even if it doesn't, it should, but perhaps it does. We'll see.

Did you read what I wrote? Commercial TV stations (cable too!) do it too with grainy security videos on entertainment programs like "The World's Dumbest Criminals".

So now you're equating this woman with a criminal. That's ridiculous. Regardless, for people other than criminals, commercial television stations always get a written release from people depicted in this manner.

Also, your injection of the word "grainy" indicates clearly that even you realize that if the person is identifiable then the game changes. So you have now raised the question whether the person is identifiable - not whether you personal could recognize the person, but rather if other people could, people who perhaps might recognize her by other means than facial recognition. You are yet again imposing your own view on things, rather than letting the court determine those thing.

And the court may agree with you. And that's okay. But the point is that it is a matter for a court to decide. Not you.

Not you.

So it is not frivolous. A court needs to decide something. Your insistence that someone doesn't have a right to have a court decide something that is this debatable is without merit. That's the point.

 

[bicker]

That is incorrect. If a person does not give written permission they block out the face. I see it on TV all the time. That is how the television stations ( shows ) get away with that.

If they don't get written releases, then they are indeed opening themselves up to lawsuits. Legitimate, non-frivolous lawsuits. That doesn't mean that they'll lose - they'll probably either just pay the plaintiff to go away, or they'll win - but that's not the question here. The question here is whether the lawsuit is frivolous or not. It isn't.

I think you're calling out the wrong person about greed.

No, I was very specific about calling out the consumers who don't want their prices to go up in response to having more responsible people running security in malls. That's greed. "I want to keep more of my money; let someone else pay for better protection for me." Greed.

The security company would not charge the mall more, so they can pay their security personnel more. That is just utterly ridiculous.

I didn't make up that scenario - someone presented that scenario to the thread. Go take up your objection with the previous poster who said this.

They would raise their rates to cover the cost of the lawsuit: Plain and simple.

Again: I was responding to the scenario outlined by the previous poster.

That cost gets passed onto the consumer. That is not a reflection of personal greed, just a fact. Why should the consumer be penalized because some criminal idiot fell in a fountain?

Your comment "some criminal idiot" is irrelevant, and perhaps indicates some tunnel vision on your part that underlies why we disagree about this. Who fell in the fountain, and what happened after, is not the point. The point is that immature or irresponsible people had access to security video which they posted on the Internet. That's a breach. As another poster pointed out, it could have been some pedophile posting video of little children walking around the mall. So clearly what's needed is more mature, more responsible security personnel. That's what consumers pay for.

With regard to "why should the consumer be penalized"... Consumers pay for everything - every part of everything that goes into providing them products and services. Mature, responsible security is a necessary part of that. So therefore consumers should pay for it.

Also why do you think if the security company pays it's guards more, they won't do things like this?

Why do waiters at the finest restaurant both provide better service and get paid more?

Nothing is every guaranteed. Responsibility is all about improving the chances of good things happening and reducing the chances of bad things happening.

 

[bicker]

It seems like a lot of people are getting hung up on the character of the plaintiff.

Our society has developed a special kind of blood-thirstiness, especially acute over the last ten years or so. The intense polarization seems to make up for something we've lost, though I'm not sure what. Regardless, that blood-thirstiness fosters this sometimes maniacal distraction you're referring to.

I'm very curious, how would you feel if say it was somebody's grandmother who had a long history of giving to charity? Basically one of those people who is so good it's sickening.

Very good point. People deserve equal protection regardless of how much you like them. If something that they did directly caused the harm they incurred, that's another story - you have an obligation to mitigate any damages you sue for - but if that's not the case, then we should grant everyone the same consideration with regard to things like this. And this woman had no role in breaching the security of the video system and no role in the posting of the lifted video to the Internet.

I agree the woman is a criminal and an idiot. The only reason she sued was for the money. But I'm more interested in the issue at large. Should we have a reasonable expectation to privacy when we are out?

I think some folks made the points earlier clearly showing that we do not have an expectation to privacy while in public.

Should videos like this be made public?

But we should have a legitimate expectation that security video of us in public won't be posted to the Internet.

 

[cluvsdisney]

Do I have this right?
An initially unidentified woman, falls into a fountain because she is texting instead of watching where she is walking. It's captured on a video that goes viral. She identifies herself as being the woman in the video and now she's embarrassed because everyone knows it was her. She's upset no one came to help her but she was up & out of the fountain quickly and stated "I hope no one saw me." Which is it? Does she want privacy? Does she want help? Does she want this go to away? Or does she want to be the fountain lady for the rest of her life?

I think the employees that made their own recording of the security tape were wrong and should be terminated/disciplined. This must violate some company policy even though the woman is unidentifiable in the video. I do think the security company should issue a statement/apology on behalf of the actions of their employees but I don't a lawsuit is warranted especially since she has some personal responsibility here.

 

[Mermaid02]

Do I have this right?
An initially unidentified woman, falls into a fountain because she is texting instead of watching where she is walking. It's captured on a video that goes viral. She identifies herself as being the woman in the video and now she's embarrassed because everyone knows it was her. She's upset no one came to help her but she was up & out of the fountain quickly and stated "I hope no one saw me." Which is it? Does she want privacy? Does she want help? Does she want this go to away? Or does she want to be the fountain lady for the rest of her life?

I think the employees that made their own recording of the security tape were wrong and should be terminated/disciplined. This must violate some company policy even though the woman is unidentifiable in the video. I do think the security company should issue a statement/apology on behalf of the actions of their employees but I don't a lawsuit is warranted especially since she has some personal responsibility here.

Yeah- that's it in a nutshell!

If it was someone's Grandmother and she tripped because she was texting.... It would be just as funny..... as long as she wasn't hurt.

The reason this woman's character is being brought up is because she is once again trying to get something for nothing- it seems to be a pattern for her.

 

[Art 1]

Do I have this right?
An initially unidentified woman, falls into a fountain because she is texting instead of watching where she is walking. It's captured on a video that goes viral. She identifies herself as being the woman in the video and now she's embarrassed because everyone knows it was her. She's upset no one came to help her but she was up & out of the fountain quickly and stated "I hope no one saw me." Which is it? Does she want privacy? Does she want help? Does she want this go to away? Or does she want to be the fountain lady for the rest of her life?

I think the employees that made their own recording of the security tape were wrong and should be terminated/disciplined. This must violate some company policy even though the woman is unidentifiable in the video. I do think the security company should issue a statement/apology on behalf of the actions of their employees but I don't a lawsuit is warranted especially since she has some personal responsibility here.

I can answer your questions. She wants money, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[MiniGirl]

Do I have this right?
An initially unidentified woman, falls into a fountain because she is texting instead of watching where she is walking. It's captured on a video that goes viral. She identifies herself as being the woman in the video and now she's embarrassed because everyone knows it was her. She's upset no one came to help her but she was up & out of the fountain quickly and stated "I hope no one saw me." Which is it? Does she want privacy? Does she want help? Does she want this go to away? Or does she want to be the fountain lady for the rest of her life?

I think the employees that made their own recording of the security tape were wrong and should be terminated/disciplined. This must violate some company policy even though the woman is unidentifiable in the video. I do think the security company should issue a statement/apology on behalf of the actions of their employees but I don't a lawsuit is warranted especially since she has some personal responsibility here.

It is also my understanding that the employee responsible for putting the tape out there has, indeed, been fired.

Like I said in an earlier post, if it had been me, I would be extremely embarrassed, but I don't think I could say that I had been "damaged" in any way. In fact, I would've probably been laughing so hard at myself that I wouldn't have been able to get out of the fountain as quickly as this woman did. Look, she clearly was not hurt. She was up and out of that fountain so fast that nobody even had time to come to her aid.

 

[Klismania]

I can answer your questions. She wants money, nothing more, nothing less.

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.

 

[LuvCuteBoys]

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

Now that we know, maybe it will make other security guards think twice before they post a security video online. And maybe it will prompt companies to review their policies to make sure their employees know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a security video is to be used for, well, security as opposed to the juvenile mocking of others.

 

[J&J]

since it is hard to see who it reallt is how do we know it really is her?

 

[bicker]

If she never filed this lawsuit, there's a good possibility we'd never know if the security guy had been fired. Now that we know, maybe it will make other security guards think twice before they post a security video online. And maybe it will prompt companies to review their policies to make sure their employees know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that a security video is to be used for, well, security as opposed to the juvenile mocking of others.

 

[Geoff_M]

not applicable.

I'm sorry that you're imposing your decision to agree with one side of the issue on your ability to read and understand what other people are posting.

I'm not imposing anything. I referring to known basic concept of our legal system. To re-quote the lawyer from a couple of pages ago: ""In order for her to sue she's got to have certain elements. You have to have a duty; you have to have causation; you have to have damages; you have to have a breach of a duty." Those are basic tenents of our Tort Law system and I'm sure that is something that's taught to every law student and can be recited by graduates in a rote manner. No damages, no chance of a successful lawsuit. Nothing in Ms. Marrero or her lawyer's legal saber rattling in the media has hinted at any claim of real harm or damages. No chance of success = "no sound basis" = frivolous. QED.

Is too.

But I suppose you're going to tell me that there's a possibility that some judge will decide to set aside 230+ years legal history and change all of that, and everyone up to and including the Supreme Court will agree with them.

What did I just say? You even commented about it. I said that "embarrassment" should be treated consistently. You choose to believe that the law doesn't provide for that. Maybe you're right; maybe you're wrong. We'll see. Even if it doesn't, it should, but perhaps it does. We'll see.

If it doesn't exist today, and no one's provided evidence to support the notion that it does, then it "doesn't exist". I can say that "I have a right for the government to give me $10 million", but until that "right" is granted legislatively or judicially, then it doesn't exist anywhere but inside my head.

So now you're equating this woman with a criminal. That's ridiculous.

Show me where when someone is convicted of a crime that they loss the right to control the commercial exploitation of their likeness? It doesn't. And remember, I'm talking about an entertainment program after the fact and not the evening news.

Regardless, for people other than criminals, commercial television stations always get a written release from people depicted in this manner.

Then why do they still blur out the faces of some of the otherwise recognizable criminals in the security camera videos? Answer: they weren't able to get a signed release from the perp.

Also, your injection of the word "grainy" indicates clearly that even you realize that if the person is identifiable then the game changes.

Only in the sense that it might help her with any claims of damage a la "Star Wars Kid", but since there doesn't appear to be any claims of damages then it's a moot point.

So you have now raised the question whether the person is identifiable - not whether you personal could recognize the person, but rather if other people could, people who perhaps might recognize her by other means than facial recognition. You are yet again imposing your own view on things, rather than letting the court determine those thing.

Again, these are legal issues with LONG track records in our courts with regard to privacy, commercial exploitation, and the right of publicity. I can cite more examples if you'd like... not that you'd listen.

And the court may agree with you. And that's okay. But the point is that it is a matter for a court to decide. Not you.

Not you.

So it is not frivolous. A court needs to decide something. Your insistence that someone doesn't have a right to have a court decide something that is this debatable is without merit. That's the point.

Look bicker, you're mindlessing flaying at this one. If you wish to assume that court decisions are made in a vacuum, that established legal frameworks aren't taken seriously by judges, etc.... then go right ahead. If you want to ignore precedents and other legal analysis and assert that this woman "might" win her case in court, then I suppose you could be right. But then again aliens "might" land on the front lawn of the White House tomorrow too. And quite frankly, I think ET shaking the hand of "O" on the front page of Tuesday's USA Today might be the better bet.