Fall In The Fountain While Texting "Girl" Has Lawyer

Steve said:
"I am so humiliated that people know it's me!"

...as she sits for the photographers and gives and interview to a newspaper. No one knew who she was before that. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking exactly. Way to go, now instead of being an unnamed woman who made us laugh, her name is all over it. D'oh!
 
Kalabalana said:
No she's correct to do this. I knew it when I saw the video. The security camera's are just for illegal activity, which I guess technically this COULD be considered, but regardless, definitely no public license for the showing and eventual internet release is legally allowed.
Click to expand...

There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.

Can't get to the article, but there is also the issue of anonymity.
As others mentioned, her identity wasn't known until she opened her mouth.

One could argue that her actions would be analogous to posting the video herself, and then suing the mall.
 
She said she never texts while driving.

She can add texting while walking now too :D
 
way to make the public hate you. before we were just laughing at you yet we didn't even know who you are. Now she's going to lose the case (if she attempts to sue) and will probably get ridiculed for months to come from people she doesn't even know. :rolleyes:
 
gathagan said:
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place....One could argue that her actions would be analogous to posting the video herself, and then suing the mall.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There IS a reasonable expectation that a corporation, security entity, municipality, TSA, will keep data collected via surveillance cameras private. PERIOD. The cameras are not there to provide entertainment. We race down a slippery slope or over a cliff when we assume otherwise. Who gets to determine what is suitable for public consumption? Yes this is funny and she seems to be a less than scrupulous person, but the video should never have been released.

Now, had this video been captured by a third party on a cell phone camera (in public), you would have a point.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say on your last point.
 
Why are all the slopes so slippery? You would think someone would install a paved, gradual path.
 
TinyRK said:
So now she sues the security-dude, gets a few thousand $$$ and the rest of the world finger-points at the American Justice and laughs: HAHA! Only in America..! Unfortunately I have to agree :eek:

What a stupid biatch!
Click to expand...

QFT
 
I laughed when I first saw this and after reading this, I'm now saddened because I realize what this was all about (posted by someone earlier in the forum):
She was due in court this morning and has been charged with reckless driving, false identity and receiving stolen property among other things. Her husband is unemployed
Click to expand...
I'm fully convinced she's just another scam artist. You know the type. Go into a supermarket, spill some water on the ground from a bottle you brought with you, slip, and scream about the pain and how you're now suing.

Will she get away with this? I honestly don't know. Results vary, but sometimes people do get away with this. I wish there were a hell, though, so she, and people like her, would burn there.
 
AcerbicWit said:
There is a reasonable expectation that images collected on security cameras remain private. This is NO different than a TSA employee publishing images of your "junk". The hypocrisy here amazes me. Why is it acceptable to release one form of private data but not another?
The question here is did the entity gathering this data / image have an obligation to keep it private? They did have an obligation and did not uphold it. Why shouldn't she sue? Why shouldn’t an employee or corporation be held responsible for what I am sure is a rules violation?
Click to expand...
How on earth is this private? She was in a "open to the public" mall. In all honesty, once you walk into someone's establishment, they have every right to video tape you regardless of what you are doing. It's not like this is in her own house on her own property.
 
AcerbicWit said:
I disagree. There IS a reasonable expectation that a corporation, security entity, municipality, TSA, will keep data collected via surveillance cameras private. PERIOD. The cameras are not there to provide entertainment. We race down a slippery slope or over a cliff when we assume otherwise. Who gets to determine what is suitable for public consumption? Yes this is funny and she seems to be a less than scrupulous person, but the video should never have been released.

Now, had this video been captured by a third party on a cell phone camera (in public), you would have a point.

I have no idea what you are even trying to say on your last point.
Click to expand...


Jesus fucking christ, the armchair lawyering by you and Kalabalana in this thread is an embarrassment. A "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term of art with a very specific meaning and you're trying to correct someone who used it properly with your moronic layman's idea of what the term should mean. No state that I am aware of recognizes an invasion of privacy cause of action that even remotely fits this situation. The lawyer will probably try to use what is used every time someone is injured: premises liability and negligence. They're weak cases, but unlike your misguided idea of what she should be able to sue for, won't be thrown out on summary judgment and can make it to a jury.
 
From the article.....


Cathy said she was leaving work that day and texting a friend from church who wanted to know her birthday and the birthday of her husband, Walter Marrero, 46, an unemployed maintenance worker.
Click to expand...

I think I have an idea why she got herself a lawyer...
 
anonmoniker said:
Jesus fucking christ, the armchair lawyering by you and Kalabalana in this thread is an embarrassment. A "reasonable expectation of privacy" is a legal term of art with a very specific meaning and you're trying to correct someone who used it properly with your moronic layman's idea of what the term should mean. No state that I am aware of recognizes an invasion of privacy cause of action that even remotely fits this situation. The lawyer will probably try to use what is used every time someone is injured: premises liability and negligence. They're weak cases, but unlike your misguided idea of what she should be able to sue for, won't be thrown out on summary judgment and can make it to a jury.
Click to expand...



I agree with you and would like to add. "reasonable expectation of privacy", is when you have an actual reasonable expectation of privacy, like in your Lawyers office, Doctors office, Home, store dressing room, bathrooms, etc. the vast amount of people would consider those places private..hence the term.
 
This is good too:

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=280672

Woman who fell into fountain faces theft charges, has criminal record

The Reading woman who became an Internet sensation by falling into a fountain while sending a text on her cell phone was in Berks County Court on Thursday for a status hearing on theft-by-deception and related charges.

Cathy A. Cruz Marrero, 49, was charged in October 2009 for using a co-worker's credit cards to make more than $5,000 in purchases at two local stores.

But $1,055 of those purchases were dismissed from the case in previous hearings.

She also has several theft cases and a hit-and-run charge on her record.
Click to expand...
 
She's a damn idiot. I hope she didn't like her job.. since she worked IN THE MALL. No quicker way to lose your job than to sue the place you work at. And she worked there, how the hell do you fall into something you walk by daily!

This will likely result in someone getting fired and a guard rail getting installed around the damn pool. That said, I REALLY hope the mall finds a blind person that works/visits the mall and asks them if they ever fell in the pool. Then rinse repeat with this basically proving that it is negligence on her part, not the mall's.

This reminds me of that damn case where a guy parked his car with his grandmother in it at a park. He got out to throw some garbage away or something but the car wasn't in park so it just rolled into a lake and damn near killed is own grandmother if not for some amazing rescue theatrics by locals. Then he sued the city for not having proper railing to block unparked cars from rolling into the lake.. and the LAWYER had to talk him out of suing the rescuers for improper rescue.
 
Cathy said she was leaving work that day and texting a friend from church who wanted to know her birthday and the birthday of her husband, Walter Marrero, 46, an unemployed maintenance worker.
Click to expand...

Wait...what?
 
Don't underestimate this ++++ and her lawyer. Not long ago, some dumb bitch was so busy texting that she stumbled into a work area and fell down a manhole. I heard on the news that they settled out of court with her. Lawyers who are good will be able to do just about anything because some will offer a settlement just to avoid being dragged into court. If they get dragged into court, then all you need are stupid daytime talk show watching people who sit on their asses watching nothing but Judge Judy or the daytime soaps to win.
 
amdgamer said:
Don't underestimate this ++++ and her lawyer. Not long ago, some dumb bitch was so busy texting that she stumbled into a work area and fell down a manhole. I heard on the news that they settled out of court with her. Lawyers who are good will be able to do just about anything because some will offer a settlement just to avoid being dragged into court. If they get dragged into court, then all you need are stupid daytime talk show watching people who sit on their asses watching nothing but Judge Judy or the daytime soaps to win.
Click to expand...

there's a difference between a mall fountain and an open manhole without barricades up though. It's like saying you should sue the city every time you trip over a curb getting off the street. Anyone can trip like a klutz, but not everyone pay attention for open manholes, nor should they have to.
 
The lawyer says she's going to sue the responsible person, so she's suing herself????

I don't get it... does the lawyer get double fees from her for both suing her and defending her?
 
I bet this bitch is regretting outing herself now MISS I STOLE A CO-WORKERS CREDIT CARDS AND CHARGED $5,000 ON THEM!!!!

Hah....couldn't happen to a nice bit..person. :D
 
gathagan said:
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place.
Click to expand...

That is true, but that mall isn't a public place. Yeah, I know, I know, it looks and feels like a public place because there's lots of people around and it's deliberately made to feel like a public street with many shops... but it isn't. That mall is privately owned, and it has been made clear that this security video should not have been made public:

The security contractor for the mall released a statement Thursday saying it has fired a security guard responsible for releasing the video.
Click to expand...

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=280672

Don't make this about something it isn't. While all this stuff about the woman's personal life is amusing, it is all irrelevant and has nothing to do with the fact that a security guard, on his own and against company policy, made a privately owned security video public.
 
Just because someone gets a lawyer and threatens to sue doesn't mean they will get a dime. I don't get why everyone assumes threatening to sue means there is no justice, its not as easy to win cases like this as everyone seems to think. On a side note I hope she hasn't passed on her stupid gene to another generation.
 
There are too many to quote, so I won't. But I will clarify:

She was in a public place and should not be surprised there was a security camera recording her actions. I never said the location was private. Clearly, it was not. The images captured by this security camera are private property owned and controlled by the entity that recorded them (the mall). I don’t know the law and I never claimed to. However, I do know that corporations have internal policies that govern the release and distribution of these images.

The employee that violated these rules by placing this video on YouTube exposed his employer to this frivolous lawsuit. This case will not go to court; it will be settled. The victim here is the Mall. The idiot responsible for the lawsuit is the employee who released the video.

We can all agree that when we enter a public property, especially a retail location, we will be recorded by a security camera. You can’t walk down the street anymore without being recorded by a security camera. What I can’t explain is why anyone is defending the fact that this recording was released to the public. The “reasonable expectation” is that these images will not be made public. This is not “law” it is “trust”. We expect that recordings will be used for security purposes and not public entertainment subject to the release by any moron with the inkling to do so.

Are you suggesting that it is ok for images recorded by security cameras in retail chains, airports, bus stations, ATM machines, etc … to be made public at any time, by anyone for everyone’s enjoyment and gratification?
 
I have to say this, if this went to a jury, I could see one of the jurors laughing hysterically upon watching the video...

And about the government protecting us from fountains:

"Fountains are not allowed to come within 1500 feet of anywhere moronic idiots that text and walk at the same time, while not paying attention to their surroundings, may be located. This provision also includes open manhole covers, knee-high walls, parked cars, moving cars, and anything that the moronic idiots could possibly walk into."
 
AcerbicWit said:
She was in a public place and should not be surprised there was a security camera recording her actions. I never said the location was private. Clearly, it was not.
Click to expand...

But it is a private location. The fountain is inside the mall, which is a privately owned location, and is not a public space like a street. It may look and feel like a public place, but it isn't.

At the hospital I work at, a man recently came to the desk and complained about the "This is a weapons-free campus" signs on the outside of the buildings. His objection was that he felt that he had a right to carry weapons in any public place. My response was "This is not a public place; this is a privately owned hospital campus. If you would like to discuss this with Security, I can call them and they would be happy to discuss this in detail with you." He left. I note that this hospital campus consists of several buildings with lawns and pathways that people can freely walk through when passing from one side to the other of the campus, so these areas may look and feel like public spaces, but they most assuredly are not public.

I agree completely with the rest of what you said (as you can see from my earlier post).
 
Nothing more than a blood sucking parasite trying to get a quick dime. She'll win a settlement on the fact that an employee released a video that is to be private.
 
OMG! Really???!

A lawyer for tripping into a mall fountain while your were texting and somehow being "damaged" at people laughing at you for getting what you deserve?

Hey, If I screw up I'm the first to laugh about it.

Get over it and call it a lesson learned. Mall security isn't going to come running every time someone does something stupid. By her own admission she was gone long before they showed up which they probably witnessed.

Stupid...just stupid...
 
AcerbicWit said:
Are you suggesting that it is ok for images recorded by security cameras in retail chains, airports, bus stations, ATM machines, etc … to be made public at any time, by anyone for everyone’s enjoyment and gratification?
Click to expand...

Yes...

:cool:
 
i find this delightfully hilarious as it will now get put on news circuits and she will be even more publicly humiliated by her own doing.
 
Does this mean I can sue people everytime I'm being completely stupid (lacking any form of common sense) in public too?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top