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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: freepatriot32
For a while I would of welcomed any lawsuit against X10 cameras and their annoying popups.
Heck, I would of welcomed a nuclear strike on their headquarters.
26 posted on
06/14/2006 9:44:20 AM PDT by
avg_freeper
(Gunga galunga. Gunga, gunga galunga)
To: freepatriot32
I bet the nanny is pretty shook up!
28 posted on
06/14/2006 9:47:23 AM PDT by
Revolting cat!
("In the end, nothing explains anything.")
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson