McDonald's Sued Over Nude Pics

[red states rule]

Does this loser have a case? Why would anyone have photos like that on a cell phone?


McDonald's Sued Over Woman's Naked Buns
Posted Nov 23rd 2008 3:49PM by TMZ Staff

McDonald's is known for its cheap meat -- but after a bad trip to the burger joint, one guy's wife allegedly became cheap meat.

McD's just got served by a guy who allegedly left his cell phone -- which contained nude photos of his wife -- at the Arkansas restaurant, only to find the nude pics posted online.

Phillip Sherman was assured by employees they'd keep the phone safe, yet the photos -- along with Sherman's phone number and address -- somehow found their way onto the Internet.

The couple claims they had to move to a new house to get away from his wife's new stalkers. Sherman wants 3 mil for their troubles.

http://www.tmz.com/2008/11/23/mcdonalds-sued-over-womans-naked-buns/

[Yurt]

seems like an invasion of privacy to me

[red states rule]

seems like an invasion of privacy to me

If an employee posted the pics, how can the company be held responsible? It seems to me if the guy was dumb enough to have the pics on his cell phone, he was asking for trouble

[Yurt]

If an employee posted the pics, how can the company be held responsible? It seems to me if the guy was dumb enough to have the pics on his cell phone, he was asking for trouble

respondeat superior

whether that wins or not is a question of fact, but i would not say there is no case. the factual circumstances around when the husband called regarding the phone also matter. looks like a good case to me.

[red states rule]

respondeat superior

whether that wins or not is a question of fact, but i would not say there is no case. the factual circumstances around when the husband called regarding the phone also matter. looks like a good case to me.

If a women can win millions over a hot cup of coffee - anything is possible. I do not see how the compnay can be held responsible if an employee did post the pics

[Yurt]

i missed part of yoru post:

the question about leaving pics on a self phone would probably come down to whether a reasonable person has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding pics taken on a private cell phone not left at a photo shop to have developed.

[red states rule]

i missed part of yoru post:

the question about leaving pics on a self phone would probably come down to whether a reasonable person has a reasonable expectation of privacy regarding pics taken on a private cell phone not left at a photo shop to have developed.

My point is Yurt, why have those pics on your cell phone? The guy was asking for trouble, and his wife was foolish to allow him to have those pics on the phone as well

[Yurt]

My point is Yurt, why have those pics on your cell phone? The guy was asking for trouble, and his wife was foolish to allow him to have those pics on the phone as well

that is your opinion and you are entitled to it and that it is why it is a question of fact and the question is whether the expectation of privacy is reasonable...and my guess is, many people would say yes.

[red states rule]

that is your opinion and you are entitled to it and that it is why it is a question of fact and the question is whether the expectation of privacy is reasonable...and my guess is, many people would say yes.

That is true Yurt, but my question is how the corporation can he held accountable over the actions of a single employee?

Seems to me the guy is looking to make a fast buck off this

[Yurt]

That is true Yurt, but my question is how the corporation can he held accountable over the actions of a single employee?

Seems to me the guy is looking to make a fast buck off this

this looks like a decent explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior

[red states rule]

this looks like a decent explanation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respondeat_superior

I posted this to get the opinions form you and Avatar since you are both lawyers

I must say I do not see how the company can be held accountable if a McDonalds employee did put the pics on the net

I guess you would have second thoughts on allowing me to be on a jury Yurt

[Yurt]

I posted this to get the opinions form you and Avatar since you are both lawyers

I must say I do not see how the company can be held accountable if a McDonalds employee did put the pics on the net

I guess you would have second thoughts on allowing me to be on a jury Yurt

i have answered all your questions and linked you to the legal theory as to why the employer could be responsible. do you really expect me to write you a memo P&A's as to why this case should or should not win?

if you said outright in the voir dire that you cannot be impartial, you're gone, imo. part of the requisite to being a juror is impartiality, or maybe you believe a juror's job is not to listen to the facts of the case and make a decision AFTER you get all the facts, hear the legal theories and law... rather to make up your mind before the trial....well, there goes our judicial system

wouldn't have thought you would think that.

[red states rule]

i have answered all your questions and linked you to the legal theory as to why the employer could be responsible. do you really expect me to write you a memo P&A's as to why this case should or should not win?

if you said outright in the voir dire that you cannot be impartial, you're gone, imo. part of the requisite to being a juror is impartiality, or maybe you believe a juror's job is not to listen to the facts of the case and make a decision AFTER you get all the facts, hear the legal theories and law... rather to make up your mind before the trial....well, there goes our judicial system

wouldn't have thought you would think that.

From your link Yurt:

1) Was the act committed within the time and space limits of the agency?

It remains to be seen if an employee did post the pics, and if it was done on company time

2) Was the offense incidental to, or of the same general nature as, the responsibilities the agent is authorized to perform?

The only thing I see here Yurt, is the guy called the store and asked if they found his phone.

3) Was the agent motivated to any degree to benefit the principal by committing the act?

I do not see any benefit to anyone in leaking the pics; unless the person sold the pics to the website

I can listen to both sides and make a decision. I am saying off the top of my head, the person who posted the pics is to blame not the company

[Yurt]

that is why it is a question of fact, not law. what that means (in short), depending on the state law regarding respondeat superior, do the facts of the case, in the eyes of the trier of fact (judge, usually jury here) constitute legal liability for the employer. the law is about getting the truth of the matter (usually). and in this case, if the attorney representing the husband did not pursue the case agains the employer he would most likely be negligent as the cause of action has merit.

as i said before, you can have any opinion you want. but when you speak of being on a jury, you have a duty to impartiality and to hear the facts of the case and law before you make a decision. the judge usually instructs of that duty before trial and then again before deliberations.

[red states rule]

that is why it is a question of fact, not law. what that means (in short), depending on the state law regarding respondeat superior, do the facts of the case, in the eyes of the trier of fact (judge, usually jury here) constitute legal liability for the employer. the law is about getting the truth of the matter (usually). and in this case, if the attorney representing the husband did not pursue the case agains the employer he would most likely be negligent as the cause of action has merit.

as i said before, you can have any opinion you want. but when you speak of being on a jury, you have a duty to impartiality and to hear the facts of the case and law before you make a decision. the judge usually instructs of that duty before trial and then again before deliberations.

Let the facts come out Yurt. The truth always comes out in time

As far as the jury, I would listen to both sides and let the facts decide my vote; even if I did not like my vote I would let the law prevail

[Abbey Marie]

This employee's actions were clearly outside the scope of his work. If I remember these things correctly, that should help keep McD off the hook. But I admit, it's been a while since I learned these things, and I could be off.

[red states rule]

This employees actions were clearly outside the scope of his work. If I remember these things correctly, that should help keep McD off the hook. But I admit, it's been a while since I learned these things, and I could be off.

The employee (if that is who posted the pics) is to blame, and the book should be thrown at him/her

McDonalds corporation had nothing to do with it, and is not responsible IMHO

[Yurt]

This employee's actions were clearly outside the scope of his work. If I remember these things correctly, that should help keep McD off the hook. But I admit, it's been a while since I learned these things, and I could be off.

i think it depends on the jurisdiction, CA has a broad defintion of what exactly is scoope of employment and if i recall from my research on it a bit ago, CA extends the cases broader than most other states. no surprise really. CA even lets people the sell the rights of a case before the outcome and during litigation....yay for hollyweird

[Abbey Marie]

i think it depends on the jurisdiction, CA has a broad defintion of what exactly is scoope of employment and if i recall from my research on it a bit ago, CA extends the cases broader than most other states. no surprise really. CA even lets people the sell the rights of a case before the outcome and during litigation....yay for hollyweird

On the plus side, it is the home of Duncan Hunter!

[Yurt]

On the plus side, it is the home of Duncan Hunter!

and manu, hjmick, crin, 82ndmarine, april15 and dear ol' yurt :cheers2:

[avatar4321]

I think there are a number of factors i dont know yet.

1)Does the doctrine of respondeat superior apply to intentional torts as well as negligent torts in the jurisdiction?

2)how many torts were actually committed?

3)What is the scope of the persons employment? Was/were the tort(s) committed while at work?

4)Was the "victim" negligent in any matter and is that a factor in this jurisdiction?

5)what kind of damage was involved?

Those are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head. im sure that there is more to learn.

[Yurt]

I think there are a number of factors i dont know yet.

1)Does the doctrine of respondeat superior apply to intentional torts as well as negligent torts in the jurisdiction?

2)how many torts were actually committed?

3)What is the scope of the persons employment? Was/were the tort(s) committed while at work?

4)Was the "victim" negligent in any matter and is that a factor in this jurisdiction?

5)what kind of damage was involved?

Those are the ones that come to mind off the top of my head. im sure that there is more to learn.

you forgot to ask where professor plum was in relation to colonel mustard

:coffee:

j/k, those questions are highly relevant and most depend on jurisdiction

[Mr. P]

You young "wet behind the ears" attorneys are a hoot!

Toss around all the wherefores, whyfores, big words and whynots all over the place, sprinkle in some precedent even. But...

FACT:

1. Plaintiff filed suit

2. McDonalds must respond

3. McDonalds has deep pockets

4. Plaintiff's attorney knows that #2 and 3 are true

5. McDonalds knows it's expensive to defend a frivolous suit (asshole lost his phone) and would rather settle for less than half of the full amount.

6. Plaintiff's attorney knows #5 is also true

7. Plaintiff's attorney collects 30,40, 50% of settlement

8. Everyones happy.

9. It's become the American way

10. Case CLOSED

Someone remind me, Why do we need tort reform again?

[Yurt]

you "old" cycnic :laugh2:

[Mr. P]

you "old" cycnic :laugh2:

Cynic? sometimes yes, not in this case though, Old realist is more like it. :cheers2:

[Yurt]

Cynic? sometimes yes, not in this case though, Old realist is more like it. :cheers2:

so you think the employers did not invade any privacy by going into his camera, knew it was a customers and he claims he called them, and then posting those pics on the web? that is ok by you?

[Mr. P]

so you think the employers did not invade any privacy by going into his camera....speculation, knew it was a customers and he claims he called them...nothing in the link says he called them, and then posting those pics on the web? Is there any proof of who posted them? Or even when they were posted? that is ok by you? I need facts, not a TMZ report to really answer yer question. :poke::slap:
...

[Yurt]

:poke::slap:
...


Phillip Sherman was assured by employees they'd keep the phone safe, yet the photos

how did he know this if he wasn't there in person

and of course the entire thing is speculation and could be false. that is why i kept telling rsr it is up to the trier of fact. and your post above went along with the speculation. i though we were just having fun with a what if situation.

[Mr. P]

how did he know this if he wasn't there in person

and of course the entire thing is speculation and could be false. that is why i kept telling rsr it is up to the trier of fact. and your post above went along with the speculation. i though we were just having fun with a what if situation.

I don't see any lawsuit as a "fun what if" I'll stay away from this USA Current Events thread, I mean fun what if thread.:poke:

[Yurt]

I don't see any lawsuit as a "fun what if" I'll stay away from this USA Current Events thread, I mean fun what if thread.:poke:

rsr wanted to know what "could" happen in this situation. i gave him my likely opinion based on what little i know about the case and explained a little about how the law works in a case like this, abbey did and avi did by asking questions. if the case is already filed, what is the harm in learning about it and talking about it? you know, debate the policy behind such a case :cool:

[Mr. P]

rsr wanted to know what "could" happen in this situation. i gave him my likely opinion based on what little i know about the case and explained a little about how the law works in a case like this, abbey did and avi did by asking questions. if the case is already filed, what is the harm in learning about it and talking about it? you know, debate the policy behind such a case :cool:
No harm at all..

[Des]

Good, McDonalds is the devil.

[emmett]

that is why it is a question of fact, not law. what that means (in short), depending on the state law regarding respondeat superior, do the facts of the case, in the eyes of the trier of fact (judge, usually jury here) constitute legal liability for the employer. the law is about getting the truth of the matter (usually). and in this case, if the attorney representing the husband did not pursue the case agains the employer he would most likely be negligent as the cause of action has merit.

as i said before, you can have any opinion you want. but when you speak of being on a jury, you have a duty to impartiality and to hear the facts of the case and law before you make a decision. the judge usually instructs of that duty before trial and then again before deliberations.


I am not an attorney, as it may have been REAL easy to depict on ones own! I will however, play devil's advocate and challenge you Yurt, just for fun, in this matter. Here we go!

My argument:

The man did leave his phone at the McDonald's. It was not taken, no theft occured nor did any plot to get the phone from the man.

Who actually posted the information on the internet? Was it done from a McDonald's computer? By an employee? Who? Prove it! My contention is this, did the employee find the phone and use resources irresponsibly provided by McDonald's.

Did any company policy of McDonald's make it more likely that information could be taken from the phone than say....another company. What is the exact expectation of a corporation in this regard?

This seems to be a bit deeper of an issue than it looks...face value I mean! I'd like to argue that case.....AND....I bet I could win! Give me impartial jurors of any composition and I think I could convince them that it was not a policy of McDonald's, or it's employees, agenda or otherwise that contributed to this man's supposed pain and suffering!

Then there would be the cross examination of the plantiff in court! I tend to believe that it would be within the realm of fairness to examine carefully the level of suffering he had endured....correct? I mean...you're the attorney, I'm just asking. Wouldn't it therefore be acceptable to question this plantiff in great detail about his sex life? Such as what positions he and his wife like to have sex in, do they experiment? I mean they take dirty pictures and put them on their phone so it would seem fair to examine their "normal" behavior to evaluate whether it is conceivable that they had really been hurt in any way.

Am I going in the right direction?

About two days worth of that and I would think the jury would have some real soulsearching to do!

Here is another angle! What if the phone would have been left at McDonald's and an employee of a Drug store from down the street had perpretrated the dirty deed of posting the info on the net? McDonald's still liable?

Back to my original question! Was McDonald's computer or any of their equipment used to perpretrate this infringement into this man's privacy? I know I as a jury would want to especially know the answer to this question.

I rest my case!

[emmett]

you forgot to ask where professor plum was in relation to colonel mustard

:coffee:

j/k, those questions are highly relevant and most depend on jurisdiction


Colonel Mustard COULD have been the perpetraitor......NO? He is a shady looking character while Plum seems an awfully docile individual and I would think it unlikely that he was a porn freak!


On a serious note! Whoever opened the phone and pulled up pictures did violate in my opinion a person's privacy and should have his ass whipped! If I was juror (how the fuck do you spell that), Ok, I got it....anyway....I would find for the plantiff about the privacy and recommend the employee be flogged with twenty lashes, I would let McDonald's off the hook however because a Fish Filet sandwich is already 2 bucks and the idea that I...as a consumer would be hurt by this.....does not settle well.


Tort Reform....that's what we need. So folks like Yurt, AV and the rest of you scumbag lawyers quit raping Corporate America, and small business people like me, every time somebody's own irresponsible actions result in their getting hurt, don't get raped!

I do hope you guys know that I am sort of kidding, don't sue me!


I can't wait to get you lawyers reactions to what happened to me ion my book, so you can see the real effect of this issue as it applies to a little guy who can do no wrong to anyone, yet lose everything they have ever worked for in a lifetime because of someone's irresponsible actions out of their control. Yes...that is why I have been so mouthy about this subject!

[Yurt]

I am not an attorney, as it may have been REAL easy to depict on ones own! I will however, play devil's advocate and challenge you Yurt, just for fun, in this matter. Here we go!

My argument:

The man did leave his phone at the McDonald's. It was not taken, no theft occured nor did any plot to get the phone from the man.

Who actually posted the information on the internet? Was it done from a McDonald's computer? By an employee? Who? Prove it! My contention is this, did the employee find the phone and use resources irresponsibly provided by McDonald's.

Did any company policy of McDonald's make it more likely that information could be taken from the phone than say....another company. What is the exact expectation of a corporation in this regard?

This seems to be a bit deeper of an issue than it looks...face value I mean! I'd like to argue that case.....AND....I bet I could win! Give me impartial jurors of any composition and I think I could convince them that it was not a policy of McDonald's, or it's employees, agenda or otherwise that contributed to this man's supposed pain and suffering!

Then there would be the cross examination of the plantiff in court! I tend to believe that it would be within the realm of fairness to examine carefully the level of suffering he had endured....correct? I mean...you're the attorney, I'm just asking. Wouldn't it therefore be acceptable to question this plantiff in great detail about his sex life? Such as what positions he and his wife like to have sex in, do they experiment? I mean they take dirty pictures and put them on their phone so it would seem fair to examine their "normal" behavior to evaluate whether it is conceivable that they had really been hurt in any way.

Am I going in the right direction?

About two days worth of that and I would think the jury would have some real soulsearching to do!

Here is another angle! What if the phone would have been left at McDonald's and an employee of a Drug store from down the street had perpretrated the dirty deed of posting the info on the net? McDonald's still liable?

Back to my original question! Was McDonald's computer or any of their equipment used to perpretrate this infringement into this man's privacy? I know I as a jury would want to especially know the answer to this question.

I rest my case!

respectfully, i don't want to litigate this case. further, the outcome of the case would depend on teh jurisdiction, as i mentioned above, CA has a broad definition of scope of employment....

there are too many unknowns, i merely gave rsr my thoughts on "how" this could be considered mc'd's thought and why such a suit could have been brought in the first place. i never gave a definitive answer.

as to theft: it is might very well be considered theft. again fact specific, but i would not discount it out of hand.