McSuing bullshit

[Rideo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7744 345.stm

This couple left a cell phone with nude pictures of the wife on there in a Mcdonalds. Now they're suing ol' micky because the nudes appeared on the web.

To me this just looks like a couple of people not wanting to take responsibility for their actions, and trying to get a quick buck out of a 'big evil corporation'. I mean that cell phone could have been there for hours before an employee found it, it's not like they have evidence that a McDonalds employee distributed the pictures, it could of been anyone.

I'm tired of seeing McDonalds bullied, their food is shit but they provide cheap food to people who need it and they have the Ronald McDonald house and such. At least this isn't some bullshit on how McDonalds made them fat though.

Do you guys think this couple should win this case?

[oldmanwinter]

yeah, i fucking despise mcdonalds, and while i would be glad to see them lose money what you described is still bullshit. those people have no one but themselves to blame, and maybe you could argue that the guy that posted them is to blame too but i don't see how this is somehow mcdonalds fault. what could mcdonalds do to prevent something like this from happening, hire a guard to frisk people on the way out for digital devices they didn't have when they came in, lest some poor soul drops their cell phone or digi cam loaded with nude photos and someone else snatchs it up?

[stafffighter]

Something you're so eager to forget is that these people did indeed have their rights violated. They lost their phone, it happens. The responcibility of the person who found it was to find out who it belonged to and return it. That did not require them to look at the picutes but the simple human fact is just about anyone would. Posting those pictures publically and including her personal information is a hidious violation of privacy. If it does turn out to be a mcdonalds employeee who posted them they are in a very vulnerable position. Naked pictures, position, get your giggles out now children.

[Musician]

Looks to me like they have a legitimate argument. They realized they lost their phone, called back to McDonalds, and were assured that it would be kept secure until they could return to claim it. Later the photo's ended up on the internet, along with their personal information. They had to move to a new house because of this. I would be pissed too.

[Rideo]

At 11/23/08 03:49 PM, Musician wrote: Looks to me like they have a legitimate argument. They realized they lost their phone, called back to McDonalds, and were assured that it would be kept secure until they could return to claim it. Later the photo's ended up on the internet, along with their personal information. They had to move to a new house because of this. I would be pissed too.

But we don't know that a McDonalds employee distributed the information, if you leave your phone around with naked pics on it, chances are someones going to pic it up and inspect, and some little bastard probably emailed it to himself and then put the phone back down where it was.

I would completely change my stance on this only if there was a record on when the call to confirm that it was in the hands of an employee was made and the time when the pictures were sent from the phone.

[therealsylvos]

At 11/23/08 03:49 PM, Musician wrote: Looks to me like they have a legitimate argument. They realized they lost their phone, called back to McDonalds, and were assured that it would be kept secure until they could return to claim it. Later the photo's ended up on the internet, along with their personal information. They had to move to a new house because of this. I would be pissed too.

Meh, McDonalds is a franchise, its no more their fault then it is 7-11's.
This is just a case of the lawyers going after the biggest cash cow.

[universal-fear]

several questions, how did they find out the pictures were publicized, why cant the police search the phones internal history to find out when and where the phone was uploaded to the net, why the couple didnt think sooner that they left thir cell at a Mcdonalds, why did they have nude pics on a phone, why they did not relize that they were misteriously missing tons of calls on their cell, why is McDonalds to blme(it was clearly the couples lack of responcibility), why they did not make sure they had the phone when they left(if i had nude pictures of my girlfriend,if i had one, i would make sure i had it), why the couple were looking up porn of themselfs, and many other questions that are pretty much answerable with the preceeding

[InsertFunnyUserName]

Actually, to me, it sounds like two people using a mistake as an excuse to get three million dollars.

But regardless of the motives, it's not the cooperation's fault. If it is by any chance the fault of someone besides the couple, then it's the fault of the individual workers.

[ChickenReaper]

No,what is up with this system where people could sue eachother for the stupidest things I mean you shouldn't sue because there was no label saying not to put your hand in the blender, but if the blender just blows up out of nowhere sue by all means

[Conspiracy3]

People put too much blame where it doesn't belong. Why sue McDonalds when you get fat? Aren't you the one who chose to eat the food. Why sue McDonalds when you leave nude pics in the store? Aren't you the one who was stupid enough to leave it? What is next suing the electric company because you got drunk and drove into a telephone pole?

[Conspiracy3]

At 11/23/08 03:49 PM, Musician wrote: Looks to me like they have a legitimate argument. They realized they lost their phone, called back to McDonalds, and were assured that it would be kept secure until they could return to claim it. Later the photo's ended up on the internet, along with their personal information. They had to move to a new house because of this. I would be pissed too.

for all we know McDonalds might not have known about it until after the pictures were seen by another customer and that customer emailed them to himself and posted them.

[stafffighter]

At 11/23/08 05:01 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: People put too much blame where it doesn't belong. Why sue McDonalds when you get fat? Aren't you the one who chose to eat the food.

Welcome to the emotional arguments that make up half of this thread.

Why sue McDonalds when you leave nude pics in the store? Aren't you the one who was stupid enough to leave it? What is next suing the electric company because you got drunk and drove into a telephone pole?

They didn't explicitly leave behind a portfolio of naked pictures. They lost their phone. People lose phones, it happens. Going into the phone to find thew owners idenity is nessesary. Looking at the pictures yourself isn't nessesary but just about anyone would do it. The violation here is that the pictures were published. That's a legitimate offence. And if, saying if here, it turns out this happened at the hands of Mcdonalds emploee after they had been told the phone was secured that does put the company at fault.

[Korriken]

Rule 1: never put any information on a device you could lose.

Rule 2: never put any nude photos on a device you could lose.

Rule 3: keep devices you could lose secured to your person, like, in your fucking pocket and don't rely on some cheap piece of shit holster

I mean seriously, do you really expect this piece of shit to keep your cell phone secure? I would hope not.

[SadisticMonkey]

If McDonald's employees personally uploaded/distributed the photos, tehn sure, they deserve to be sued.
If not, then this should be thrown out.

[aninjaman]

At 11/23/08 05:24 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote: If McDonald's employees personally uploaded/distributed the photos, tehn sure, they deserve to be sued.
If not, then this should be thrown out.

If the employees did upload the photos then the employees should be sued not the whole company.

[Conspiracy3]

At 11/23/08 05:17 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 11/23/08 05:01 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote: People put too much blame where it doesn't belong. Why sue McDonalds when you get fat? Aren't you the one who chose to eat the food.

Welcome to the emotional arguments that make up half of this thread.

Why sue McDonalds when you leave nude pics in the store? Aren't you the one who was stupid enough to leave it? What is next suing the electric company because you got drunk and drove into a telephone pole?

They didn't explicitly leave behind a portfolio of naked pictures. They lost their phone. People lose phones, it happens. Going into the phone to find thew owners idenity is nessesary. Looking at the pictures yourself isn't nessesary but just about anyone would do it. The violation here is that the pictures were published. That's a legitimate offence. And if, saying if here, it turns out this happened at the hands of Mcdonalds emploee after they had been told the phone was secured that does put the company at fault.

Sue that employee, not the company. Did the Board of the McDonalds Corporation order him to publish the pictures? I think not. Why put the entire company at fault for the actions of one duschebag and a negligent couple?

[stafffighter]

At 11/23/08 05:39 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

Sue that employee, not the company. Did the Board of the McDonalds Corporation order him to publish the pictures? I think not. Why put the entire company at fault for the actions of one duschebag and a negligent couple?

Because the couple was told the phone was secured. This happening shows that it clearly was not. That's neglegence.

[aninjaman]

At 11/23/08 05:59 PM, stafffighter wrote: Because the couple was told the phone was secured. This happening shows that it clearly was not. That's neglegence.

And why should the McDonalds corporation be brought into this?

[stafffighter]

At 11/23/08 06:19 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 11/23/08 05:59 PM, stafffighter wrote: Because the couple was told the phone was secured. This happening shows that it clearly was not. That's neglegence.

And why should the McDonalds corporation be brought into this?

Because they had taken responcibility for the phone. I thought I made it pretty simple before.

[Conspiracy3]

At 11/23/08 06:25 PM, stafffighter wrote:

At 11/23/08 06:19 PM, aninjaman wrote:

At 11/23/08 05:59 PM, stafffighter wrote: Because the couple was told the phone was secured. This happening shows that it clearly was not. That's neglegence.

And why should the McDonalds corporation be brought into this?

Because they had taken responcibility for the phone. I thought I made it pretty simple before.

The board in charge of the corporation did not have responsibility of the phone. They did not say that the phone was secure. They didn't even know about it. So why should they be blamed? It is the fault of those individual employees and the customers who left their phone there. No one else is responsible.

[stafffighter]

At 11/23/08 06:32 PM, Conspiracy3 wrote:

The board in charge of the corporation did not have responsibility of the phone. They did not say that the phone was secure. They didn't even know about it. So why should they be blamed? It is the fault of those individual employees and the customers who left their phone there. No one else is responsible.

The employees, esspecially the managment staff, were acting as representatives of the company. That's how it works.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/23/08 05:59 PM, stafffighter wrote:

Because the couple was told the phone was secured. This happening shows that it clearly was not. That's neglegence.

No, it's not, and that's a moronic argument. If I walk into a Safeway, but my baby down, and leave, and SOMEONE should so happen to kidnap thay baby, it isn't Safeways fault. When you lose something, it's up to YOU to remember and go about the proper steps to secure it. It's not up to the store to immediately know theres a missing item in the building and magically locate it before anyone has time to, oh say, get naked pictures off it. An employee claiming that he'll find and return your phone =/= a magical spell that goes back in time and stops bad people from stealing information from the phone before anyone realized it was missing.

[Korriken]

and such is the world we live in, where you can sue anyone for almost anything, give it some media attention to work the stupid sheep into braying in the pasture, and watch as the judge, knowing he's in the spotlight, rule in favor of the defendant to make himself look good.

[stafffighter]

At 11/23/08 07:13 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 11/23/08 05:59 PM, stafffighter wrote:

Because the couple was told the phone was secured. This happening shows that it clearly was not. That's neglegence.

No, it's not, and that's a moronic argument. If I walk into a Safeway, but my baby down, and leave, and SOMEONE should so happen to kidnap thay baby, it isn't Safeways fault.

1.Slight difference between a phone falling out of your pocket and leaving a human being.

2. They called the resteruant and were told the phone would be secured. From there if the pictures were posted by an employee that means the phone was not secured, as had been promiced.

I'll try to explain this. You own a store. You hire someone to run your store. That person has been trusted by you to run the store and as such acts as a representative of both you and your store. Would you care if they did something bad in your store?

[SadisticMonkey]

At 11/23/08 07:13 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:

At 11/23/08 05:59 PM, stafffighter wrote:

Because the couple was told the phone was secured. This happening shows that it clearly was not. That's neglegence.

No, it's not, and that's a moronic argument. If I walk into a Safeway, but my baby down, and leave, and SOMEONE should so happen to kidnap thay baby, it isn't Safeways fault.

Yeah, but safeway should be some what responsible if they told you the baby was safe, but then you find out an employee actually sold it to pedophiles (??)

[Korriken]

At 11/23/08 07:51 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Yeah, but safeway should be some what responsible if they told you the baby was safe, but then you find out an employee actually sold it to pedophiles (??)

Personally I would call them irresponsible if they didn't call the cops and have you arrested for abandoning your baby.

[marchohare]

Hmmm... I can't get beyond the idea that if you let someone point a camera at you while you're nude, you don't much care where the pictures end up.

I have, and I don't. I'd put nude pictures of me and my girlfriend up here now if Newgrounds let me get away with it. Neither one of us would give a shit. It's not like we look bad or anything.

You don't have to have an exhibitionistic streak to allow someone else to take nude photographs of you, but you can't exactly be a fragile little shrinking violet, either.

Who cares who masturbates to them? If others would laugh and make fun of them, don't let yourself be photographed nude. Simple.

[Al6200]

At 11/23/08 07:51 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Yeah, but safeway should be some what responsible if they told you the baby was safe, but then you find out an employee actually sold it to pedophiles (??)

But should Safeway be liable, or just the actual employee who stole it? I'd think the latter, unless the top execs at safeway decided that their business would improve if they told their employees to kidnap little kids.

Also if the parent was acting with neglect, then the amount that they could sue for would be reduced (I think).

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/23/08 07:26 PM, stafffighter wrote:

1.Slight difference between a phone falling out of your pocket and leaving a human being.

No. They are both instances of you losing something, and it being completely and utterly your fault.

2. They called the resteruant and were told the phone would be secured. From there if the pictures were posted by an employee that means the phone was not secured, as had been promiced.

McDonalds employees, despite commen perception, do not have magical powers. Therefor a 17 year old illegal Mexican saying they will try to find and secure a phone does not necessarily mean the following two things:

1) Their attempts to secure the phone will be fruitful
2) Her promise can magic go back in time to prevent someone from fucking with her phone before the employees of the restraunt even knew there was a missing phone in the building.

I'll try to explain this. You own a store. You hire someone to run your store. That person has been trusted by you to run the store and as such acts as a representative of both you and your store. Would you care if they did something bad in your store?

Yes. And considering the person who lost his cell phone neither ownes that McDonalds nor has any idea if it was an employee that took the photos off the phone, that question isn't relevant.

[Cuppa-LettuceNog]

At 11/23/08 07:51 PM, SadisticMonkey wrote:

Yeah, but safeway should be some what responsible if they told you the baby was safe, but then you find out an employee actually sold it to pedophiles (??)

Excuse me?

You mean if they said they would try to find it and keep it safe, but it turns out the baby had already been kidnapped by a pedophile because the dipshit parent waited way too fucking long to call the store?

Unless you have some sort of evidence that your version of events happened, stop making up a scenario and telling everyone that's what actually happened. It's the equivilant of me deciding 9/11 was done by the Jews, and then acting as if it's a fact without offering evidence WHY.