How Litigious Are We? Kid Sues Friend Over Lost iPod
from the welcome-to-America dept
People often point out just how litigious American society has become, with people trying to sue just about anyone over anything that upsets them. Apparently, this is beginning to filter down to children as well. A 14-year-old girl has decided to sue her friend, after the friend screwed up in returning the iPod she had borrowed. Rather than handing the iPod back to Shannon Derrik, Stephanie Eick apparently placed the iPod on her friend's school desk, where some other thief in their class pocketed the device. Rather than working it out between themselves (or hunting down the thief), Shannon went to court. As you might expect when two teens go to court, it certainly sounds like much of this is being driven by the parents, while most everyone else wonders why the two families couldn't figure out a more reasonable way to settle the dispute. Among the points of disagreement are that Stephanie's parents want to buy a refurbished iPod, while the lost iPod was still pretty new. Also, Shannon had about $45 worth of iTunes songs on the iPod, which she claims she can no longer listen to. Instead (gasp!) she's forced to listen to the radio. Correct me if I'm wrong, but songs you buy on iTunes should also be available on your computer -- but perhaps that's nitpicking. As for the two girls, they are no longer friends, but: "If I had to work with her for a project, I think I could do it," Stephanie said. "I know we're probably not going to be good friends again, but I don't hate her or anything."
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Youre kidding me right?
Plz said you are.
Ive lost all hope for the future society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and now the real story...
For those of you that say it is the plaintiffs fault for bringing it to school in the first place, I ask “do you blame the rape victim for dressing too seductively?”
Stephan Eick’s daughter borrowed an iPod and didn't return it to the owner. While she has possession of borrowed property she is expected to exercise due care of that property. Leaving it on a desk and walking away from it when the owner of the item is out of the room is not due care and does not constitute a return of the borrowed item.
Their daughter lost her first iPod and the father said she learned her lesson. Then she lost Shannon's iPod and he said she learned a lesson. He then buys her another more expensive iPod. What lesson has she learned? That she can be completely irresponsible and daddy will bail her out? Instead of paying the $200 originally asked (they hung up on us) it went to court. We never thought it would have to go this far, but we had no other recourse. Shannon saved for 6 months to get enough money for the iPod through babysitting and allowances. Shannon doesn’t have hundreds of dollars to replace.
Eick said he doesn't know what the big deal is and that we should just buy Shannon a new one because they are not that expensive. Meanwhile we are teaching Shannon to do what's right while he is paying out what is probably hundreds of dollars to an attorney to avoid having her daughter take any responsibility.
This is a question of responsibility. If the liable party won’t accept responsibility what recourse is there? No one ever wants things to end up in court, but what recourse is there? The lesson here is not to sue people for every little thing. It is to take responsibility. Hopefully Shannon will win this case and borrowers of other people’s property everywhere will learn to take care of such barrowed items.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
public schools ftw.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Arrghh!
(this being one of them)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
typical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: typical
God, I agree with the prevailing opinion here. I am curious, is it actually possible for one MINOR to sue another MINOR? Wouldn't the entire process need to be dealt with through the parents, and in this case, shouldn't the parents have been smart enough to kill the idea? He touched on that idea on the article, but my basic quandry is over whether the US legal system actually has the protocol for one Minor to sue another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This line was tooo funny!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
oh yeah...
You got them, didn't ya?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Litigious Society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Litigious Society
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Litigious Society
I would have to say that before this incident I would have agreed that it was ridiculous to sue over an ipod.
However, now that the shoe is on the other foot...we feel differently.
My son allowed a friend to listen to his ipod at a community xmas party. When her ride came to pick her up he asked for his ipod back and she ran out the door with it saying she would return it after xmas break and she jumped in the car and left.
The family was contacted numerous times in an attempt to retrieve the ipod. Each time we were told the girl wasn't home or the ipod was at her fathers.
After xmas break my son daily asked the girl for the ipod back and she would evade him or tell him she didn't have it.
The family made no attempt at all to contact us or return the ipod that didn't belong to them.
Finally, we spoke with the mother who confessed that the family dog chewed up the ipod. They agreed to make restitution, but only agreed to pay $100 for an ipod that cost $200, plus a $30 leather case.
We asked for the damaged ipod to be returned to see if we could possibly save them money by buying parts for it. This situation was dragged out for 2 months and we were told that the damaged ipod was thrown away.
This all took place on December 21st...here we are at February 6th and still have not been reimbursed not one cent.
To make matters worse.... we didn't even receive an "I'm Sorry" from the girl or the parents.
So.....that being said.....what would you do???
Would you go to small claims court and make them be responsible???
How would you feel, even as an adult, if a friend was taking pictures with your digital camera at your house and walked out the door saying "Hey, I'm gonna borrow your camera and I'll give it back later." Then every attempt you made to retrieve it was to no avail.
What would you do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Calling Judge Judy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not a private school
I'm pretty shocked about it too. It seems to be way beyond sensible by now. I'd think all the press coverage this has gotten would have embarrassed both parties into some sort of agreement by now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
furthermore
can you sue someone for being stupid?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
... umm scuse me, but our watches cost one whole hell of a lot more than a freakin iPod....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lost Ipod-Lost minds
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder if I can still sue...
While playing I saw that the person liked to really move their arms around while playing, so I suggested that we go inside instead of over the concrete where they were playing, because the person was in the middle of a game the plea got ignored to a degree, and I'd never dropped it so I let it go, but sure as heck the gameboy got droped and a crack was put ion the screen rendering half the screen useless (and subsequently the GB needed replacing)
I wonder if I could still sue the people who layed the concrete...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Stupid, Be otch
"returned" her ipod? How effin stupid is that. She is just lying, to cover her dumb ass for breaking, losing,selling, or trying to keep the ipod. No real friend would behave in that manner. I blame Mtv for creating phoney images of retarded teenagers, that real kids emulate. Ipods do not belong in school anyway. Both of them should get thier ass kicked for being idiots, and their parents should be ashamed of themselves, for encouraging them. Dee dee dee!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
by the time this is all over the cost of the ipod verses the cost of court will be obvious.
on another note. the music industry is tearing middle schools kids apart .. its a conspiracy lmao.
.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Don't Bring Toys To School
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Might Makes Right, the Sequel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm suing techdirt
And if any of you use my name "Big Huge Dave" in any way whatsoever I'm suing you, too!
And if you say anything mean to me about this post I'm suing you!
And I'm suing my cat because she puked up a hairball this morning and I had to clean it up and now I'm emotionally distraught at work and can't eat because I'm, like, totally grossed out!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I'm suing techdirt
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is wrong with the litigation?
I some one takes your car and looses it how would you react, especially if that person just says I left it outside your house? The same deal budddy.For a kid an ipod is his or her own universe and I would not even lend my ipod to anyone. I think the other kid must paback with a new ipod and she thinks she is not responsible let the law of the land decide it.
"If a person grazes a field or a vineyard, and lets his livestock loose so that it grazes in another person's field, he must make restitution with the best of his field and the best of his vineyard." Exodus 22:4
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is wrong with the litigation?
now the ipod thing.....the litigation is stupid....it is a waste of time.....our courts have much more to take care of.....like actually prosecuting that bitch that drowned her children in the bathtub, said god told her to do it, and was given insanity......
that is the most irresponsible thing when you wrap up a statment with a quote from the bible.....the bible is ot real.....ok....wll it is real if you want to call it a fanasty story....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
White Romans?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: What is wrong with the litigation?
You're still missing the point. These are two different court systems. The one handling the $300 piece of property is Small Claims Court. The one handling the murder trial is a Criminal Court.
The i-Pod case is not detracting from a murder trial here. That's like saying that the animal show on the Discovery Channel is taking away air time from the music videos on MTV (they still show music there, right?)
Now, let me deviate off-topic for a moment. Drop the bible-bashing. 1) This isn't the place for it, and 2) Arun's use of the Exodus quote was a proper use and in-context. Whatever your opinion is on whether the bible is fact or fiction, the purpose of the bible is to give parables... example stories on how to live a better life. Similar to Ben Franklin's "Poor Richard's Almanac". The actual teachings of the bible (old and new) do illustrate a fair, peaceful, and happy lifestyle. Unfortunately, many practitioners of the faith pervert those teachings into their own version of the truth or out-of-context to prove a ridiculous point.
Now, I'm not even christian, but I at least respect when the bible is used properly, as opposed to being used as a justification for things like protesting the funerals of soldiers.
I just want to point out that when you behave as an anti-christian, as opposed to just a non-christian, you are behaving exactly as the fundamentalists that you are trying to insult. Nice.
Now, I apologize for stepping so far off-topic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
stupid yes...but I wonder
Yes, I'm totally against frivolous litigation.
However, I can EASILY imagine the situation going something like this:
Girl 1: I put your iPod back on your desk...not MY fault someone STOLE it!
Girl 2: How could you do that? That cost me 500 bucks! You OWE me an iPod
Girl 1: No I don't!
Cue Parents later in the evening:
Parents of girl 2: Listen, Bob, your daughter is responsible for that gadget, it cost a shitload of cash...so...what do you wanna do here?
Parents of girl 1: My little precious angel did NOTHING wrong...screw you Ted, don't expect ME to pay for it...that's YOUR kid's toys..not my problem! *CLICK*
At this point...what the hell are you gonna do? Just write off 500 bucks of hardware? I mean we're not talking about a CD here...
To me, this is EXACTLY what small claims court is for. When its a (relatively) small amount and there's no recourse within the law other than litigation.
C'mon people...I know the legal system has gotten ridiculous but this is a non-story. The parents (I think, its hard to tell from the story) and the minor are using the court system the way they SHOULD use it.
They aren't suing for millions, they aren't looking for the winfall...they just want recourse for someone's stupidity which cost the daughter an iPod.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stupid yes...but I wonder
For those who think that the kid is wrong for taking this to small claims...try telling your creditor this: "I left my payment under your door...you mean it's not there? I guess you have to forgive my payment due this month"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: stupid yes...but I wonder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
sobering (scary?) thought....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Quite Reasonable
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$500?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They're all crazy
So that said, the parents should have been able to work it out between themselves. Okay, so let the girl who left it on the desk work to by a refurbished ipod. The other girl doesn't want a refurbished one? well then let her pitch in for the extra -- it will make her more careful about who she loans her stuff too.
The parents should have used this as an opportunity to teach their girls how to work out "big" problems and still be good neighbors. But when parents can't do that... well, I guess everybody ends up in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Frivolous?
Someone lost or damaged an item they were responsible for and the owner is wanting reimbursement.
If you loan a $300-$500 miter saw to someone and they return it with the motor burned out after using all day non stop and they refused to compensate your loss you would sue as well. If you loaned it to them and someone broke into their garage and stole it and they refused to compensate you would sure again.
The differences here is it is kids and it is an item that is being referred to as a toy. I don't even see how it being at school is an issue to th e owner, she did bring it to school the person she loaned it to did.
What upsets me is how stupid the loaners parents are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And anyways, the music does stay on iTunes. But of course, even if she bought the music, perhaps her parents forced her to delete it from the computer as soon as she bought it, out of fear of the RIAA suing them. Especially since suing is so common and all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
turn the other cheek
Maybe is wrong what the 14 year old-lost your ipod- did. But.. should we sue her and punish her? Or should we understand that SHE IS A KID TOO, and should we do some good parenting from now on, on taking care of other people's belongins?
If you screw this up... you are gonna be sued!!
or
If you screw this up, we are just kid you know?.. that's supposed to happen..
1- Don't let a 14 year old have a $500 bucks gadget.
2- If you do let it, do teach them about their value.
3- If you willingly lend your things, know that: shit happens.
4- If something goes wrong decide what has more value: Your friendship or your ipod.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: turn the other cheek
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is that what they cost?
Really? I mean, people really spend that kind of money for a little low fidelity box and shitty speakers? Just because they can't be without their music for a while.
Huh. Who would have thought?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is that what they cost?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good Gravy
I'm trying to figure out what it's going to take to move my family to Canada personally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
$45 of songs she cant listen to?
38th :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now granted a 20 dollar toy or 100 dollar video game system isn't the "same" as an ipod, it is comproable. sure it may cost xx money at the store, but it worth over 10 times that price to the kid. and you just have to learn, that a, take care of your stuff, and b, take even better care of someone else's stuff
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the 30 gb ipod video is 299, the 60 gig is 399. the ipod shuffle is llike 99 and 159 (.5 gb and 1 gb respecitly) the nano's are like 250 for 4 gigs. i'm not sure if they still make mini's and what not.
so the most expensive her ipod could be is 400, maybe she had some nice headphones and a remote..another 70, so it's possible after tax and warranties, it'd be about 500 +/- but the real issues is this...why not watch the kids in the calss to see who comes in with an ipod?
a friend of mine found an ipod in the dorm showere. she knew who it belonged to, but used it for about a week before giving it back. wrong, but hey...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a few points
1) This is a wonderful example of teaching responsibility to the girl that loaned the i-Pod. Don't loan out expensive things if you want to risk losing it.
2) This is a wonderful example of teaching responsibility to the girl that "lost" the i-Pod. Don't borrow things if you can't be responsible enough to safeguard them.
3) This is actually covered under the Liability portion of the Homeowner's coverage owned by the parents of the girl that "lost" the i-Pod... subject to the deductible (at least $500). Hence the reason they don't want to pay.
4) This is exactly what small-claims court is intended to handle. They're not going to the supreme court here. It's not really "suing", it's just bringing legal claims against another party.
5) The i-Pod is not a "toy". No more so than your remote control or digital camera. It's an electronic appliance. It's just a really small appliance. Even if it were a toy, it's a $300 toy, which happens to be (from what I could find the IL Statutes) the threshold to become a 4th Degree Felony theft.
6) I'd be interested to see what happens with the i-Tunes claim. According to most licensing agreements and the RIAA, the girl didn't "own" those songs. Can she really claim a loss of them? Hmm...
While I do think that the idea of "children suing" is ridiculous, I think some of the people reporting this story (yes, techdirt, you too...) were jumping on the "kids suing" hype-wagon. This is a couple of kids whose parents are using the legal system as it was designed to be used: arbitrating a disagreement where no malicious crime was committed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a few points
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is a good use of the courts
This is a good case. It's probably the most rational lawsuit I have seen mentioned in public in a very long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I see this as no different as if your neighbor borrows your powertool and then returns it to your doorstep. Most reasonable people here would try and recoup their losses.
We need more people with common sense and less sensationalists jumping to conclusions here. That's more worrisome than our society becoming litigous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
so do you "own" the song? no. what you "own" is the right to play that song on any of your up to 5 (i think it's 5 now) authorized computers, or on your ipod.
the girl didn't lose her songs, just the "digital copy" of them
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another way it might play out...
What ever happened to going home, saying you lost something valuable and being taken to the woodshed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
although what is not clear and i would have liek to seen is....
A) kid getting punshied for being irresponsile (both kids as mentioned in earlier comments)
B) parents trying to resolve this and actually feeling bad " i am sorry my kid was irresponsible." which did not happen
C) so i say sue away.. but losing a friend over a gadget the best thing... wait they are still proj buddies
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Makes me want to cry
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Regardless, my kneejerk reaction was that this suit is insane, but there is some reason in it. I like the example of returning your neighbor's powertool to his porch. An even closer illustration might be leaving your friend's bike on the street in front of his house. It would be extremely easy to steal, as I suppose the iPod was in this case.
However, the defendant girl's actions have an element of reasonableness to them as well. She borrowed the iPod, the owner went to the bathroom, leaving her purse on the desk, the bell rang, and the borrower placed the ipod next to the purse. Leaving your purse unattended implies a certain amount of trust that it won't be stolen out of the classroom. The borrowing friend, in her haste, may have thought it was the most reasonable place to leave the iPod as the other girl had already left one slightly valuable item on the desk. You might be more inclined to return a borrowed power tool to a porch if the owner had a habit of leaving things on his porch anyway.
I'm not about to take the time to look up Illinois law on conversion, trespass to chattels, and bailment, so I'll just propose that reasonable people might split the costs of replacement, shake hands, and be done with it. We are rights-centered to the point of absurdity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I don't think...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
first...
The girls should have just gone after the thief. Then, if there was any damage to the ipod, the suing girl should go after the thief and the friend that borrowed the ipod.
Why are kids taking ipods to school anyway? Aren't they there to learn? At leas that's what happened when I went.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
next, why bring ipods to school? because you don't teleport to and from school. walking/ riding a bus/ driving a car, taking your bike...all take time. i for one hated the bus, and would have killed to have something to distract my mind. (couldn't read or do work on a bus. too much movement) music was my friend. headphones and i was golden.
yeah, you're in school to learn, but when school's not in session...you'd be able to listen to music and whatnot.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The Driver vs The Horse
I've talked about negligence before, but since it's part of my profession, I don't mind educating about it.
Here's the deal. For someone to be considered negligent, four things must be met.
1) There has to be a "reasonable" and "prudent" duty to perform (to do or not do something)
2) There has to be a breach of that duty (failing to do or failing to not do something)
3) There has to be observable and quantifiable damages
4) There has to be proximate cause (an unbroken chain of events linking the failed duty to the damages caused).
Now, anyone with one iota of common sense would say that the farm hand failed in his duties to secure the horse. Common sense would tell you that it's highly likely that the failure to lock the horse up is what caused the accident.
Unfortunately, it's not about common sense. So, let's put the actions of the two parties through our little 4-step machine.
Farm Hand:
The Driver:
You could argue that the passenger died as the result of the driver's inability to control his vehicle after a sudden swerve, and that falls outside of his "reasonable and prudent" duties. You don't have to be a professional stunt driver to drive safely. I'm sure his defense tried this or something similar. It sounds like the prosecution went down the path of least resistance. It's easier to show the driver failed to act that it is to show proximate cause of the ranch hand.
Now... I know people are going to disagree with my view on this. That's fine. All I ask is that when you argue against it, make sure you're not arguing from the viewpoint of common sense. CS does not apply in the law. Saying it is "common sense that the horse got out and a person died" is making assumptions, and you cannot do that in a case as serious as one that involves the death of a person.
Now... you can apply the same 4-step proof to the actions of the two girls to find out which one (if either... there's doesn't always have to be someone at-fault here. They call them "accidents" for a reason) was negligent. If the friend is negligent, then it is up to her (or her parents, since she's a minor) to indemnify the injured party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The Driver vs The Horse
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Most expensive ipod??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
According to the article...
At that hearing, Stephanie will be given the option of paying the $475 McCarthy is requesting to cover the cost of the iPod, court fees, an expensive carrying case and $50 in iTunes, or going to trial..
First of all, nobody owes anyone an expensive carrying case. The court costs are probably half of the amount being asked, and the iTunes music is STILL on the computer, so there is no need to have to go back to the site to buy the items again (unless the girl was dumb enough to erase all of the songs once they were uploaded). The case was already dismissed once, so I'm surprised that the parents are going this route.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
For what it's worth
I'm more bothered that the girl who lost her iPod is less amped about the lawsuit than her parents. That should be a tell-tale sign that the lawsuit was not the best route to take, especially since it was the girl's money and not the parents' money.
What this is is a lesson in why you shouldn't take expensive things to school. What would've happened if the girl had left the iPod on her desk herself? She'd have no one to blame but herself and would just be without the machine. It's convienent to have someone else to blame when you lended the item to them and it got lost on its return...so I'm not in favor of the girl getting all of the money requested in the suit.
The person who last had it should have to pay for half the cost of a new iPod and the music (if the plantiff can prove that she no longer has the music available on her computer [which is more like taking advantage of her mother's ignorance of how iTunes works to get an extra $50 than anything else]), and the other girl has to learn the lesson that life isn't fair and to be responsible for your own items.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is school for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What is school for?
Maybe the friend borrowed it over the weekend and was returning it on a monday or something. The article doesn't really say that the owner brought it to school and lent it to the friend at school.
Not a big deal, but people were focusing on that a bit too much, IMHO.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing to see here, move along.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is Ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This shouldn't be an issue at all
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Taking an iPod to school
When I was in school it took some kids 45 minutes to get from home to school...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
omg
I have to say... that girl was extremly dumb, why would she give a "precious" thing to a friend, that can be easily lost..? and the other girl.... "she left it on the desk" now really... if you see an iPod just random on a desk, wouldn't u take it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Litigation does not work...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WOW!!!!
1. Why would you loan a friend an ipod rather than going to their house and uploading the music? (this day in age almost every household has at least one computer in America)
2. If she had $45 worth of music (which is roughly 45 songs as most downloads through iTunes are 99 cents) on her iPod, she should be able to listen to it through her iTunes software that is the only software used to place music on the iPod itself. If she used another software program such as limewire, kazaa, etc. that is stolen music essentially and she should be sued by the record labels and musicians who songs she "can no longer listen to."
3. Friendships will come and go, and it will usually take a big incident for someone to find out where their friends stand with them. Why this was in the story or a matter of interest is odd, because after all, they are in middle school, not many people stay friends through middle school, school, college, marriage, careers, etc.
4. It's not so much a matter of teaching kids at a young age to sue, as this can be seen on at least every other tv channel at one point in the day or another. It's more so the fact that the parents would resort to suing over a maximum $300 electronic device. (we aren't going to count the songs here because there needs to be evidence they were purchased, and if there is evidence they were purchased there would be a way for the child to continue to listen to them without the iPod or without having to re-download them since they would be on their computer)
Most small claims courts require the value to be a minimum of $500 and not to exceed $5000, to ensure the ability to sue another person over stupidity on both parties is manageable and not something that is played every time something doesn't go there way or affects a possession of theirs.
And on those notes, people need to be smarter with their possessions knowing that an iPod will continue to be a big item that a lot of people will want but don't have until the price drops or until a new mass media storage device becomes available with better features.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rosematoes, you should take them to court - they are trying to shaft you (How is it someone thinks they can offer half of the value of something they destroyed? #@$% them!), and they really, really need to have a judge tell them what sorry sacks of $#^% they are.
The best part is that you can then make sure the court's judgment ends up on their credit reports and dings their FICO score for years!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and people shouldnt sue kids
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ipod
what is the right thing to do
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A "friend" is threatening to sue me because I accidently cracked the screen on her functioning iTouch and she wants me to pay $200.
I don't respect this girl, and therefore, I am not going to pay her $200.
I think she's too dumb to realize thata court won't take something as small as this, and the court fee would cost more than the $200.
People are pathetic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]