Skip to comments.
Nanny Sues Hidden-Camera Manufacturer
http://www.comcast.net ^
| 6 14 06
| Associated Press
Posted on 06/14/2006 6:53:25 AM PDT by freepatriot32
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
To: freepatriot32
Is this suggesting that the broadcast was not the source of the tort? How can the manufacturer be held responsible for what the buyer did with the property?
Knock, knock??
To: freepatriot32
3
posted on
06/14/2006 6:59:35 AM PDT
by
BunnySlippers
(We want our day: A day without hearing SPANISH ...)
To: BelegStrongbow
How can the manufacturer be held responsible for what the buyer did with the property?
Happens all the time, sadly.
4
posted on
06/14/2006 7:01:26 AM PDT
by
P-40
(Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
To: BunnySlippers
Yep, and next will be the book about the suit about the hidden-camera manufacturer. And then after that will be the movie about the book about the suit...
5
posted on
06/14/2006 7:01:56 AM PDT
by
C210N
(Bush SPYED, Terrorists DIED!)
To: freepatriot32
Oh jeeze, I definitely have to start a "Stupidity out of Florida" ping list.
6
posted on
06/14/2006 7:13:09 AM PDT
by
Havok
(I like meat, guns, and comic books. Am I a bad conservative?)
To: freepatriot32
I find this interesting. These parents hire a nanny, install nanny cams because they do not trust the nanny.
A hidden camera will not stop mistreatment only aid in the prosecution of the offender.
If the parents are that concerned maybe someone should have stayed home with the children to begin with.
7
posted on
06/14/2006 7:17:57 AM PDT
by
Kimmers
To: Kimmers
If the parents are that concerned maybe someone should have stayed home with the children to begin with.How would they have made the payments on their new BMWs???
8
posted on
06/14/2006 7:21:05 AM PDT
by
Onelifetogive
(Freerepublic - The website where "Freepers" is not in the spell checker dictionary...)
To: freepatriot32
The critical missing piece of information is whether or not the infant suffered any sort of injury or trauma, and that should have been determined by any medical examination, either by the child's pediatrician or via hospital records.
This doesn't pass the sniff test, IMHO.
9
posted on
06/14/2006 7:26:35 AM PDT
by
mkjessup
(The Shah doesn't look so bad now, eh? But nooo, Jimmah said the Ayatollah was a 'godly' man.)
To: freepatriot32
This kind of crap would come to a screeching halt if companies victimized by these gold diggers would counter sue, and go for the financial jugglers of these sewer rats.
10
posted on
06/14/2006 7:33:15 AM PDT
by
demkicker
(democrats and terrorists are intimate bedfellows)
To: demkicker
Tort reform = loser pays.
11
posted on
06/14/2006 7:35:32 AM PDT
by
Protagoras
("A real decision is measured by the fact that you have taken a new action"... Tony Robbins)
To: FreePatriot; All
This is the reason for tort reform.
This is 100% an intimidation suit.
Keep in mind if there are punative damages the state gets a significant piece of that award.
The camera maker's attorney fee award should be charged to the plaintiff lawyer PERSONALLY.
12
posted on
06/14/2006 7:37:00 AM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: freepatriot32
Is this the crazy broad who was seen shaking the little kid, then slamming her several times on the floor?
I wonder if she had an explanation for the full body slams? Lens malfunction making objects look more wobbly from a distance or something?
13
posted on
06/14/2006 7:38:28 AM PDT
by
RepoGirl
("Bobby, if you weren't my son... I'd hug you...")
To: Kimmers
If the parents are that concerned maybe someone should have stayed home with the children to begin with. This is exactly why my child will never be in day care.
14
posted on
06/14/2006 7:38:44 AM PDT
by
gieriscm
To: freepatriot32
Uhhhh, so the fact this Nanny's handa and the baby's shoulders were shown to be eight inches behind the baby's bend over head on one frame and then eight inches in front of the baby's bent back head in the next means absolutely nothing?
Why not sure George Eastmann's estate for inventing the camera? How about John Logie Baird's estate since it was shown on a TV?
15
posted on
06/14/2006 7:39:14 AM PDT
by
SengirV
To: gieriscm
I have always said you can't pay someone to love your children.
I am also aware that single parents need daycare...
16
posted on
06/14/2006 7:44:40 AM PDT
by
Kimmers
To: Protagoras
In Florida there are many areas of law where the user pays the lawyer fee.
The problem is that it DOES NOT MATTER AGAINST A PENILESS PLAINTIFF.
This is a suit the lawyer should never have taken. What this is about is extending the "proximate cause" concept to absurdity. (ie suing a ski mask maker for a bank robbery)
The goal here is to force a settlement and use the PR to push BIGGER suits for the law firm.
If people want to be USEFUL, file "friend of the court" memoranda when the camera company files a motion to dismiss.
17
posted on
06/14/2006 7:55:06 AM PDT
by
longtermmemmory
(VOTE! http://www.senate.gov and http://www.house.gov)
To: freepatriot32
He said there should be a warning to the consumer about the images. "Warning: There is a hidden camera above this warning label. The images it takes may..."
Absurd...
To: freepatriot32
The lawyers bringing this case to court should be disbarred.
To: RepoGirl
"I wonder if she had an explanation for the full body slams?"Given that it was time-lapse, she wasn't "slamming" the child on the floor -- in reality, she was gently lowering the child to the floor, raising the child, then gently lowering the child to the floor, over and over.
That's her story and she's sticking to it.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-34 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson