Weird Legal News
[Guest post by DRJ]
From Arkansas — Couple Sues McDonald’s over Nude Pics:
“Phillip Sherman learned that lesson after he left his phone behind at a McDonald’s and the photos [of his nude wife] ended up online. Now he and his wife, Tina, are suing the McDonald’s Corp., the franchise owner and the store manager.
The suit was filed Friday and seeks a jury trial and $3 million in damages for suffering, embarrassment and the cost of having to move to a new home. The suit says Phillip Sherman left the phone at the Fayetteville restaurant in July and that employees promised to secure it until he returned.”
From Wisconsin — Johnny Depp Movie (Indirectly) Causes Bridge to Collapse:
“During filming of “Public Enemies” [with Johnny Depp as bank robber John Dillinger] — Wisconsin’s first film under the governor’s new movie incentives — state highway traffic was diverted away from the center of Columbus, 70 miles northwest of Milwaukee. The detour road couldn’t stand the load — and collapsed.
Dodge County was left with a $116,000 repair. It’s filed a claim against the city of Columbus that could lead to a lawsuit.
But Columbus Mayor Nancy Osterhaus says talks are ongoing between the city, county and film studio NBC Universal, with hopes that they might split the bill for the March mishap.
Maybe Mayor Osterhaus should sign up for Obama’s bridge and road-building program.
— DRJ
Phillip and Tina Sherman take note; if you desire to take marketable pics of your naked selves and then deposit them into the public domain, well enjoy what you can from them and think happy thoughts that somebody else is also getting off on the images you evidently desired to share with them! Specifically think about that feller that spends a considerable amount of time just locating his burning orb to fulfill his greatest fantasy’s over your over exposed flesh.
McD has been instructed to only provide you with well cooled coffee, as it appears you may not be wearing enough clothing to prevent severe burns from 104 degree brew.
“employees promised to secure it until he returned.””
Fine a couple of happy meals will be thrown in.
Outside of that, it seems that jimmy and jamie are the two kids that just earned 40$@ you might desire to deal with.
TC (0b9ca4) — 11/23/2008 @ 12:27 amSomehow the Sherman’s problem leaves me unmoved — even though they had to move! 🙂
I do wonder, though, just to where could they have moved that’s out of range of the internet? And if such move did take them away from the embarrassment of their neighbors having seen the lovely Mrs Sherman starkers, does not filing this suit tell his new neighbors that it’s time to surf the web?
The amused Dana (556f76) — 11/23/2008 @ 4:21 amI wonder how the guy found out his wife’s nude photo was on the net. I could easily see this as a scam.
Tmac (f9e092) — 11/23/2008 @ 5:52 amProperly designed bridges don’t just collapse because they see extra traffic. The collapse if they weight of the vehicles traveling over them exceed design loads*, or the local DOT has not been performing proper maintenance.
*Note: If a bridge is designed for lower loads than the maximum described by AASHTO then there needs to be posted maximum weights (like “no trucks over 5 tons” type of thing).
Newtons Bit (cc15c7) — 11/23/2008 @ 8:59 amEmployees who commit torts or breaching a duty of care, on McD’s behalf mean McD’s is on the hook.
The promise to secure the phone created a bailment – and a duty of care and duty to re-deliver the bailment.
How much of a duty – that mileage may vary. But searching the phone for images and broadcasting them would be reasonably interpreted as a violation of the bailment, and I presume some kind of conversion tort.
McD’s is appropriately on the hook for any damages proven. I doubt they will rise to the level claimed, but that was a pretty egregiously unethical act by McD’s agents.
SarahW (a6e80b) — 11/23/2008 @ 10:22 am. . . that was a pretty egregiously unethical act by McD’s agents.
SarahW, you are making two assumptions that I don’t think can be made based upon the scant evidence presented in the article. First of all, you are assuming that Mr. Sherman immediately contacted McDonald’s to inform them of the missing phone. What if it took him a couple of hours, by which point several customers had had a chance to find the phone and download the photos? Maybe McDonald’s really did secure the phone once it came into their employee’s possession, but that was a few hours after the Shermans left the restaurant.
And, as Tmac brings up in comment 3, you are discounting the possibility that this could be a scam perpetrated by the Shermans to extort money from a large-pocked corporation.
JVW (89c289) — 11/23/2008 @ 11:08 am“large pocketed” corporation, though I am sure McDonald’s has its share of pock-marks.
JVW (89c289) — 11/23/2008 @ 11:14 amDid some digging. Allegation is that it was McD’s employees who actually posted the photos, along with her name, address, and phone number. They discovered posting when she started getting obscene texts and calls.
PatHMV (e3d0f0) — 11/23/2008 @ 2:55 pmThey’re screwed. But, you know, just as I would never bring a photo album with nude pictures of my wife into McDonald’s, I am not sure why anyone would carry around those sorts of pictures on their phone. Do you really need to have access to homemade porn at random times during the day? The Shermans deserve a lot of the embarrassment (though not harassment) that has come their way.
JVW (89c289) — 11/23/2008 @ 4:21 pmBy “they” I mean McDonald’s, by the way. That is, if the information PatHMV uncovered is accurate.
JVW (89c289) — 11/23/2008 @ 4:21 pmUnh hunh. Just goes to show, what’s weirdness for one generation becomes doctrine for the next.
SarahW and JVV both accept, without question, the “deep pockets” legal theory — that is, when it comes time to sue, find somebody associated who has lots of money and find a way to tie them to the tort. It’s routine. It’s normal. Even SarahW, who I am accustomed to see promulgating very sound views 🙂 takes it for granted.
I doubt very seriously that McDonalds has a policy permitting employees to do such a thing. I even more doubt that even the franchise owner for that store would have encouraged (or even permitted) such behavior, let alone that McDonalds’ management was even aware of the possibility, much less the activity itself.
So employees acting without the knowledge or consent of the employer, and very likely against the stated wishes/policies of the employer have committed a tort for which the employer is automatically to be held liable. Result: the actual offenders are not sanctioned in any way; everybody gets to pay a little more for hamburgers and/or take a little less for flipping them; and some lawyer, somewhere, admires for a moment the most heartwarming and elegant bit of prose in the English language: “Pay to the order of…”
This is why we continue to have police misbehavior. The victim sues; city taxpayers take the hit, and the cop gets two weeks’ vacation. I’m sure it makes sense to somebody (other, that is, than the lawyers and their financial consultants) but it sure doesn’t to me.
Regards,
Ric Locke (e429b3) — 11/23/2008 @ 6:13 pmRic
The Wisconsin story is bogus. The detour was not responsible for the bridge collapse in any way. It is a public road. Unless they violated weight postings (the story does not say that they did), anyone had every right to cross the bridge under any circumstances.
If the county thought the bridge was unsafe, they should have closed it or posted restrictions. That’s what engineers do. They don’t just let bridges fall down. And if they didn’t know the bridge was weak, they can’t hold the studio responsible for weakening it – especially if the loads were what any bridge is reasonably expected to carry, i.e. the loads were legal loads for public roads in Wisconsin.
Lax county inspections or weight postings were responsible for the bridge collapse. They are lucky nobody was hurt by their negligence. And yes, I am a professional engineer.
Amphipolis (fdbc48) — 11/24/2008 @ 5:41 amOn the Columbus thing. First, it would be more accurate to describe Columbus as being 25 Miles Northeast of Madison, WI.
Second, where is the State of WI and their highway and brige maintenence monies?
Oh, I forgot, Governor Doyle-eone, (Pronounced like Corleone) moved the monies into Democrat patronage.
PCD (7fe637) — 11/24/2008 @ 6:30 amPhilip and Tina Sherman perfect examples of the me generation these are a pair of vultures looking to rob from th rich and por to line their own pockets i hope their stupid lawsuit gets dismissed and as for JOHNN DEPP i dont care for this stupid jackass
Krazy Kagu (832d82) — 11/24/2008 @ 8:49 amRic, the key to liability here is that the employees acted as agents of McDonalds in taking temporary possession of the phone with a promise to secure it. MdD’s liability comes employees acting within the scope of their employment, and breeching the duty created.
The agents promised to watch the phone, but instead converted portions of it to their own use.
A possible defense to raise is that the phone was secured reasonably and that employees defeated the reasonable security
SarahW (a6e80b) — 11/24/2008 @ 1:30 pmoutside the scope of employment.