What an idiot. Any bets she wins? I was reading one report that stated the mall should of had a bar around the fountain to prevent people from falling in. Ughhh.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Texting woman falls in fountain, files lawsuit
- Thread starter leekohler
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What happened to being able to laugh at yourself?
I'm being serious - don't we reach a point where we need to look back at some of the stupid, but completely harmless, stuff we've done, and admit, "Yeah, that was kinda funny."
I'm being serious - don't we reach a point where we need to look back at some of the stupid, but completely harmless, stuff we've done, and admit, "Yeah, that was kinda funny."
sad world we live in.
If anything it went from us just laughing at some random person but having no clue who it was to now we we have a name and a face to put with the idiot. The resolution of the security camera was not enough to pick out any more than she was African american and a woman. Now we know exactly what she looks like and her name...
I know I have done some really stupid things like walk right into a glass window missing the automatic door by a good 6 feet. Face imprint on the glass and all. All I could do was laugh it off then go into the the grocery store and do my shopping. If that got posted to you tube all I could do is laugh but no one would know who I was.
Yes it was stupid. I saw the clip and laughed. However she may just possibly have a case in law against the mall.
Not for 'not helping her' or for 'unsafe fountain'. Both these will rightly get thrown out.
The basis of her case may be that she was on private property, with a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a reasonable expectation that any footage filmed would only be used for security purposes. She had an embarrassing accident (happens to the best of us), and instead of laughing then erasing the tape, the mall security released the tape to the internet and the world.
There is a clear privacy issue here, and a clear trail of who had responsibility for reviewing the tape and who had access to it, so her case has legs.
These candid camera style or punk'd programs that you see on TV will have had the participants sign releases and waivers after filming.
In other amusing footage on YouTube, often the star will never know they are on YouTube, or if they find out, it's either filmed/released by someone not worth suing, or it's not clear who filmed it or how it got released, so it's hard to bring a case in court.
Not for 'not helping her' or for 'unsafe fountain'. Both these will rightly get thrown out.
The basis of her case may be that she was on private property, with a reasonable expectation of privacy, and a reasonable expectation that any footage filmed would only be used for security purposes. She had an embarrassing accident (happens to the best of us), and instead of laughing then erasing the tape, the mall security released the tape to the internet and the world.
There is a clear privacy issue here, and a clear trail of who had responsibility for reviewing the tape and who had access to it, so her case has legs.
These candid camera style or punk'd programs that you see on TV will have had the participants sign releases and waivers after filming.
In other amusing footage on YouTube, often the star will never know they are on YouTube, or if they find out, it's either filmed/released by someone not worth suing, or it's not clear who filmed it or how it got released, so it's hard to bring a case in court.
You could not identify her in that tape. Had she stayed quiet, most likely no one would have known it was her. Now we all know.
I saw her interview last week. It was even funnier than the video of her falling into the fountain.
She was crying and saying how it's not funny if it happens to you.
She was crying and saying how it's not funny if it happens to you.
Not quite. She's on privately owned property but in a public space. She has zero expectation of "privacy."
The media test -- per the U.S. Supreme Court -- is the newsworthiness of the event or the person. As a private citizen unknown in popular circles, she could seek damages on that basis -- Celebrity X falling into the fountain would have widely accepted news value. Citizen X? Not so much. Unless, of course, there are mitigating circumstances -- perhaps she's running for local office or, ahem, faces felony criminal prosecution.
Where she could seek damages is in the publication of the video to YouTube in violation of the mall's policies -- not in the resulting media coverage. The coverage, outside of YouTube, likely would not have existed had she not threatened legal action. She also damages her case by appearing on "Good Morning America" and self-identifying herself as the woman in the video.
Anyway, not a straightforward case for her to pursue-- and I'm not clear a jury is going to award any sort of punitive damages beyond a perfunctory $1 given her complicity in the accident.
Last edited:
Either way, the upshot of all of this is that she has effectively publicized her own criminal record. Well played.
I hope she loses this stupid suit. What a waste of court time. She wasn't hurt. I was on a slip and fall case in a super market (jury duty). The store lawyer pointed out to the slipee if she looks where she's going when she walks or does she have Queen Victoria syndrome? Then he tells us this story about Queen Victoria and the Empress of France walking in the garden. When Queen Victoria sat she didn't even look behind her. She knew that before she finished sitting an attendant would have a chair under her rump... the Empress of France... she looked...
Yes, that's a far better summary than mine. Good job. Your second sentence is also relevant - parties have a duty to minimise the 'harm' done to them, not seek to increase it
Except they didn't. What got uploaded to YouTube was a cell phone video of a monitor screen.
You may quibble over the difference, but in terms of copyright law, it's illegal to make a copy of a CD, but perfectly legal to record the song off the radio. This is no different.
Good luck finding 12 people who agree with that - I'm not buying it.
OR, they have the participants' faces blurred out so that they can't be identified. There's no way to identify this woman from the tape.
Agreed.
Some people never cease to amaze me. Unfortunately, today we live in a society where the individual is king, common sense has been thrown out the window, everything that happens to us is someone else's fault and all this lawsuit needs for success is a slick lawyer and a sympathetic jury.
Here's hoping this lawsuit goes down in flames and the plaintiff spends a lot of money in the process.
It appears that she weighed her options: "stay quiet and remain annonymous" or "speak up, risk ridicule for a possible payday" The decision she made may backfire on her big time if the case gets thrown out. But alas greed is always stronger than reasoning.
Cathy Cruz Marrero, Who Fell Into Mall Fountain, Has Splashy Criminal Record
Oh my- oops. This just gets better. Karma's a bitch, ain't it? Especially when it's nearly instant.
http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/21/cathy-cruz-marrero-texter-who-fell-into-mall-fountain-has-a-sp/
Oh my- oops.
This just gets better. Karma's a bitch, ain't it? Especially when it's nearly instant.http://www.aolnews.com/2011/01/21/cathy-cruz-marrero-texter-who-fell-into-mall-fountain-has-a-sp/
lol what a dumb broad!
Honestly, any somewhat intelligent person would realize it was COMPLETELY their own fault and she DESERVED to be laughed at!
I guarantee had it been me, I would have asked if someone had gotten that on video for the fun of it.
some people....
BUT if it weren't for ppl like this, what would have to laugh at?
Honestly, any somewhat intelligent person would realize it was COMPLETELY their own fault and she DESERVED to be laughed at!
I guarantee had it been me, I would have asked if someone had gotten that on video for the fun of it.
some people....
BUT if it weren't for ppl like this, what would have to laugh at?
And now that we find out she has a criminal record, the plot gets even thicker.
I posted that 4 days ago; post #24.
I posted that 4 days ago; post #24.
Oh dammit. I looked and must have missed it.
He must have been texting and missed it.
Caught! Can I sue now?