October 23rd, 2006, 04:48 AM
Hey guys, are you sending text messages often or you'd rather call the person? I usually call if it is needed instantly but I'd rather send out text mesages if I have to inform a group rather than calling them one by one.
That's why I like predictive texting, it just makes texting quicker. Are you using predictive texting feature on your phone?
January 14th, 2011, 11:02 PM
Girl texting falls in mall. This could be you.
January 20th, 2011, 09:46 PM
What I thought would happened has happened: She went & got a lawyer. But Miss Thing apparently has a few legal skeletons in her closet & getting righteously laughed at is the least of her problems.
January 21st, 2011, 08:48 AM
Um, aside from reading the story..... who is she suing?
The phone company?
The video hosting site?
I hope she gets publicly trounced, but at the same time this frivolous lawsuit doe snot prompt for further restrictions on civil suits for things that are more warranted.
It amazes me when politicians use things like this to justify limiting awards on cases like Coal, Asbestos, Tobacco, Lead and other harmful substances.....
January 21st, 2011, 01:24 PM
She's suing the mall because the guards sat there & laughed without sending help. However, the video clearly shows her getting up, retrieving her phone from the bottom, & walking out with no problem or hesitation. So basically she's suing because she was embarrassed.
The only people who knew it was her were her family & friends, if she told them. Otherwise no one would have known because the camera was far away & not entirely sharp.
It would be nice to hear that any judge would throw it out, but after that female who spilled McD's coffee in her lap sued & won, I don't have a lot of faith.
January 21st, 2011, 01:34 PM
I have heard that that case was appealed, for lesser award (but I am not sure).
You usually do not hear about this, and the companies cry about it and get a general reduction/restriction on ALL civil lawsuit statutes.
They say that McD's coffee is a reason to make medical malpractice suits less tenable.
They say that the reason medical costs are going up is because of this when the actual cost of settlements/decisions is going down (I willhave to try and find this info, there was another thread here or somewhere else discussing this).
Suing the guards for laughing is bad.
Also, you heard about the woman suing the EMT/City because the ambulance could not get there? I feel for this woman, but how can the city be 100% responsible for all of this? You begin to see how we are spoiled in this country when we can actually sue the city for "mishandling" a severe weather threat that produced secondary (possibly tertiary) effects that made it so a woman could not receive help and died.
Especially when a similar case had people actually getting ther relative to the hospital THEMSELVES by improvised means and hard work.
I am not saying that this woman deserved to die, but the city should not be forced to pay $20M for something that was not a deliberate deriliction of duty.....
Lawyers have to make their money somehow...
January 21st, 2011, 08:55 PM
I think the actual basis for her suit, so she says, is because they didn't send help. I think it's really because they were laughing & plastered it all over the net. I've read there is a cap on civil suits but I'm not sure if it's with regard to punitive or pain & suffering.
If I'm not mistaken, there are 2 suits against the city. This is a tricky one. While it's not up to the city to provide alternate means for low income people who have an emergency to get to the hospital, having at least one pass with a plow should be an essential. Anything within a 10 block radius of Times Square, the financial district, etc. was probably plowed down to bare pavement. While I realize the main avenues are a must, at least get the bulk out of the way for the far-reaching side streets. One pass would have been enough.
Most of these things are motivated by money, some by grief & anger. Even if the money does nothing for them, in their mind, at least someone was punished.
January 24th, 2011, 09:35 AM
That is just not the right way to do it.
The irony being, a lot of the reason why they were not done right was because of a reluctance to over-respond to a situation when there is a limited budget.
When you are low on cash, do you plow every 6" of snow off the road, or fire a cop? Sounds a bit harsh (I am really over-simplifying it), but it is not far from what is actually happening.
They handled the situation wrong and the city was shut down for a while because of it, but blaming the city for the death of a relative when they had no direct hand in it?
It is odd that so many things that are privileges and services in the city are now looked at as if they were rights.
January 24th, 2011, 10:07 PM
I understand we can't go sue crazy for every infraction by the city (any city), but would you admit there's a gray area in this case?
I posted an article in the nyc: xmas snowpocalypse 2010 thread for NYC Guide for New Yorkers. She may have a case but it will be tricky. I have a feeling the city will settle. Not only with her, but with another case from that storm as well. The city's lawyers will pounce on the argument that there's no guarantee that the deceased would have lived if the streets were plowed, & they'll try to drag that thru the eye of a needle to win their case.
Similarly, what would happen if a tree trunk snapped during a storm & blocked a road for hours til it could be removed, preventing emergency services from getting there, say for medical or fire? How would the plaintiffs be able to prove that the timeline of the tree falling, the notification & subsequent arrival of public works, removal of the tree, & arrival of emergency services is soley the city's fault?
They better make sure before they file suits such as this, that they have a rock-solid case.
January 25th, 2011, 08:56 AM
No. (grey area)
I do not see it as the responsibility of the city directly for that.
If they plowed that woman in, if their ACTION made it so that they could not get to her, then they would have more of a leg to stand on.
As I said in that other thread, we are so spoiled now that we think the city is our guardian. That somehow we are entitled to all these services and conveniences and that someone else is at fault when a scenario that is outside the realm of practical design (you cannot prepare for everything, else you cannot afford to keep it running!).
The thing that bothers me more than the accusation is the money it will cost all of us JUST TO DEFEND AGAINST THIS. Some things are definitely the fault and responsibility of the city. If they found that workers were not doing their job, then you have responsibility that starts with them and them makes its way up to the point of management that were derilict in their OWN duty to get things going. But in a cas elike this, they went out and did the best they could.
When the best isn't good enough, you do not sue those that tried.
April 10th, 2012, 08:56 PM
Another oblivious dimbulb texter. His Oh Sh** moment is hilarious. Click on link for video.
Texting Man Comes Face To Face With Bear
KTLA News 7:40 a.m. PDT, April 10, 2012
April 12th, 2012, 09:08 AM
In all fairness, he wasn't exactly expecting a bear in the middle of the sidewalk (and he did not trip over the bear like that woman that fell in the fountain.
Still, he probably needed a new pair of shorts.