Slashdot Mirror
Oregon Woman Sues Yahoo for $3 Million
bigtallmofo writes "After notifying Yahoo that two member profiles about her were not authorized, Cecilia Barnes of Oregon is suing Yahoo for $3 million for failing to take down the profiles in a timely manner. The profiles allegedly set up by her ex-boyfriend contained nude photos of her along with her email address and work phone number. (Note: The member profiles have since been taken down by Yahoo)."
I tried it, They don't have either profile. No google cache either. :(
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
You're welcome
With very good reason
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
From the article:
Barnes sent Yahoo a letter in January saying she did not create the profiles and wanted them removed. Additional attempts to get Yahoo to remove them in February and March did not get a response, the lawsuit claims.
So, basically, she's suing because Yahoo left the images up for three months after being contacted and asked to take them down. Considering her personal information went along the photos, not acting on the information in a timely fashion is pretty serious, because it helped prolong her harassment.
As for the boyfriend, he should probably be brought up on criminal charges.
The email case took legal action from the dead soldier's family as well.
http://forumpics.info/Yahoo-pics/
:)
Didn't get but the thumbnails, but they are good enought o see what's going on.
Pretty Pictures!
This is another "i spilled hot coffee on my self now im going to sue you!" deal.
Okay, have you even seen the whole case of the hot-coffee lawsuit? Or checked the facts?
That was an old woman, and the coffee was spilled down her lap and other surrounding areas causing third degree burns on that required skin grafts and a hospital stay for seven-days.
She had approached them first for medical compensation and was refused, at which point she sued them. And incidentally, a judge later lowered the awarding amount to merely $480,000, which the media never publicized.
And btw, McDonalds serves their coffee at 185 degrees, a good 20 degrees more than other restaurants - there have been cases of folks with first degree burns because of that.
At the temperature that McDonalds serves their coffee, it just takes about five seconds for first degree burns to occur - which would require skin grafting.
Next time you shoot off your mouth without knowing the facts, you might want to look at the reasons why some lawsuits may have been won. I hate frivolous lawsuits too, but that doesn't mean I walk around talking nonsense.
Does not matter. The rights belong to the photographer.
Only the ownership of the video or photo, which doesn't mean they have the right to publish it.
That is why people who film complete strangers and win on shows like America's Funniest Home Videos cannot be sued for the prize money by those strangers. It has been tried probably, but I have been unable to find any case where the videographer has not prevailed.
Maybe becasue of this little requirement for submissions to AFHV:
Entrants whose clips are chosen for inclusion in a program must sign a Release and Indemnity in the form presented attesting, among other things, to the fact that they are the rightful owners of the submitted clips and that the clip may be submitted and broadcast without obtaining permission from or making any payment to any third party. All persons appearing in the clips must sign consent forms and/or releases (which shall grant to Producer the right to use such person's name, voice and likeness) before the submission can be eligible for prize awards. Parent or guardian must sign the consent/release form for minors. Failure to provide requested releases and/or consents will result in disqualification of entrant. These release and/or consent forms will be provided by the Producer. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the submission of a videotape constitutes the submitter's permission to use the videotape (and the name, voice and likeness of the submitter) in and in connection with the program and all exploitations thereof, including, without limitation, advertising and promotion and, further, constitutes the submitter's representation that all necessary consents and permissions therefor have been obtained.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
First this article
from a coffee maker states the recomended serving temperature is 75 degrees C (167 fahrenheit). The correct Brewing temperature is 185-195. But rather then nit-pick about temperature. Here's why McDonalds lost: ( Mcfacts snipped from a site, others collected elsewhere)
1: The injured women initially wanted $800 from McDonalds to pay for extra medical bills, to which McDonald's dismissed.
2. Evidence showed that McDonalds served their coffee so hot to save money. This let them get away with a cheaper grade of coffee and cut down on the number of free refills they had to give away. McDonalds executives testified that they thought it would be cheaper to pay claims and worker's compensation benefits to people burned by their coffee versus making any of these changes. (source http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm )
McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants.
McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.
McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay.
McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.
McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.
McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)
McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.
McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.
It all comes down to, if you are in the business of dealing with materials you know are hazerdous (as was proven in the case, McDonalds knew the coffee was hazerdous), you are responsible for selling such materials in a safe maner because the consumer expects you to do so. If you were "Battery Acid King" and sold sulphuric acid in open topped beverage glasses, people might assume you don't think its dangerous.
McFact: 185 degrees is the proper temperature for coffee, not a problem to be solved.
McFact: McDonalds made it a choice to brew, store, and serve their coffee beyond the normal 185F. The manual in the 80s listed 195F. Rather than using thermometers they turned up the heat to boiling and turned it down a notch resulting in a pour temp of over 195F, into sealed styrofoam mugs.
McFact: 185F coffee does not cause 3rd degree burns. 2nd degree burns are possible. Surgery and skin grafts are not required for normal coffee spills.
McFact: They were aware of the problem but refused to turn down their pots just a notch.
McFact: A reasonable restaurant, whether big chain or small fry has insurance, and so long as you provide photographs will pay for reasonable damages and even offer a small amount of pain and suffering.
Best example. I had deep fried oysters at Ivers... and broke a tooth on a pearl. I spit out the pearl and tooth fragments and filed an accident report. They agreed to pay the dental bill and offered a small amount for suffering. McDonalds refused to pay medical expences and got sued.
There is no sanctuary. There is no sanctuary. SHUT UP! There is no shut up. There is no shut up.
Get your facts from the court documents and findings. There was clear evidence of contributory negligence on the part of McDonald's, and the court punished them for it. Note also that the court found both parties responsible (that is, both Stella Liebeck and McDonald's), so your "no personal responsibility" spiel can go suck it, as far as this case is concerned.
From your source, the woman was seeking $20,000 to cover her medical bills, but McD only offered her a measly $800.
And, the woman received $160,000 in compensatory damages plus $480,000 (i.e. 3x compensatory) in punitive damages.
Except for the fact that one spouse would have to have a permanent criminal record. That's not worth $3 million to me, but I guess people have done worse for less...