It's Not Whether You Win Or Lose (Your iPod), It's How You Sue Your Friends
from the the-wisdom-of-parents dept
Remember last week when we wrote about the excessively litigious teenagers (or, their parents) who couldn't figure out how to settle a dispute over a lost iPod amicably and instead went to court? Apparently someone was sickened enough by the situation to anonymously donate an iPod and iTunes credits to the teen who lost hers. Seems like a nice solution that gets this situation out of the courts. However, the mother of the teen has rejected the donation and wants to proceed with the lawsuit. At this point, it's become clear that it's not about being made whole for the lost iPod, but about punishing the girl who lost it. It's true that the friend who lost the iPod probably should have been more careful about things -- and it sounds like she could have done a much better job dealing with the situation after it happened, but it's hard to see how this really deserves to continue to go to court, especially after a solution presented itself. The anonymous donor is the only one who's coming out of this whole situation looking halfway decent.
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
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ditto
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What was this girl who lost her iPod supposed to do?
Conditions of the your answer must meet the following criteria:
1. You cannot claim that she was somehow stupid in lending her iPod to her friend. My friends will lend me their car or their external hard drive or some other goods of value, and I always return them.
2. You cannot claim that the friend who lost the iPod is not responsible for her own actions. This includes having anonymous donors replace it since it is simply teaching the girl who lost it that other people will come to her rescue at any point in time. There is, therefore, no reason to be responsible or take care of someone else's goods when entrusted to her care as such if you advocate such a solution.
This court action isn't about punishment or lawsuits. It is about asking for borrowed goods back and being able to do something about it when they aren't returned. Any assertion to the contrary is ridiculous
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're always talking about accountability on Techdirt so finally something is happening.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. Everyone else is correct, too, because THIS IS NOT NEWS. We have bigger fish to fry these days. By virtue of the fact that I have now been typing this response for ninety seconds, I already feel like a media whore. Done.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I told you so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I told you so...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
rebuttal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
principle
I don't think taking her to court is the right tack either, but I can see why the anonymous gift would be rejected as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: principle
To expand, let me offer a note of comparison. Most lawsuits these days are all about diverting responsibility--thieves who sue homeowners because they cut themselves while breaking in--instead of forcing someone to accept responsibility which was theirs in the first place, as in this case.
It may seem ridiculous and trivial, but I think the most ridiculous thing here is the fact that the parents of the girl who was borrowing the ipod did not immediately make her take responsibility. Sure, it was an accident, but she was in possession of the device and it was her responsibility until returned safely to the owner. Not that hard to figure out.
And now I've left a long and rambling comment about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Your rebuttal violates condition 2 above
Or, put another way, you get treated largely by the way you let people treat you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Your rebuttal violates condition 2 above
The courts are not there to teach social responsibility. The courts are not there to teach anything. A civil suite is not meant to punish. It is meant to put the parties back in the same position they were in before the bad.
If someone offered to make the injured party whole, I do not want my tax dollars wasted in a personal vendetta to "teach" (i.e. punish) a careless child. That is what parents are for. The child let someone steal an ipod, she didn't invade Poland. *Eye to heaven*
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gheeezzz
I want to counter the up tight arse posters here...
First of all, the girl that did lose it I am sure has had a difficult time and probably already learned her lesson. For Pete's sake, don't beat up on the poor girl who simply misplaced it. The publicity and the defense is bad enough. It is a shame that her parents did not offer to replace it, but hey... these are risks parents should take when buying their children's toys: THEY DO GET LOST. THEY DO BREAK. THEY CAN GET STOLEN. and most importantly: THEY ARE CHILDREN.
Shhheeeezzz. That's fine if the parents don't pay. I would use that tool to teach my child the risks associated with loans. I am a parent, I am aware and will take responsibility for the loss in my children's toys.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gheeezzz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Gheeezzz
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If someone ever commits or has committed a crime or tort against you, ask yourself: what did they have to lose?
If what they had to lose was next to nothing, you can be sure they will be conditioned to do it again.
If what they had to lose was their freedom or a lot of money or their own property, then they might think twice about ever doing it again.
This isn't about being uptight. You're intent on teaching the child who lost the property a lesson. While that's certainly important, why should you not teach the child who lost that they have a responsibility too? The way I figure it, there is more than a good lesson learned by the girl who lent it out to her friend simply due to all of the trouble she is going to to try and get it back.
And where is the reciprocal good will of the girl who lost it? If I lose something that belongs to someone else, I will replace it because it's the right thing to do. I will also expect to be sued or otherwise expected to pay it back if I don't do it myself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Weeeeellllll....since you were talking about a CRIME, and we're talking about an ACCIDENT, the difference is that little thing we call "intent".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
grow up..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: #9
That's one hell of a leap! I salute your uncanny skill at comparing the loss of a $400 mp3 player to the deaths of 50 million people in WW2 because people are letting other people "get away with things."
Mountains and molehills, people. Let's not lose track of which one is which.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Teens, not adults
The true accountability issue is with the girl who loaned the iPod, not the girl who lost it. Someone needs to teach this girl that SHE screwed up by loaning a high-dollar piece of technology to an equally irresponsible 14 year old girl. I doubt this is the only time that the girl who lost it is going to screw up, and she will learn enough times that people won't always bail her out. Someone needs to teach the other girl that you shouldn't sh*t on your friends over petty things and that you shouldn't always use the legal system to bail you out.
And if that anonymous donor really wanted to be helpful, he should have donated those things to the defendant, so that she could say "I'm sorry. Here is a replacement for what I lost of yours." That way, any refusal on the prosecuting party's part would nullify their legal claims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
well this isn't the case. that's criminal court, this matter falls into small claims court. totally different systems.
just wanted to clarify that up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Again, BOTH parties have a responsibility and BOTH of them should be held accountable. The difference is that the girl that the iPod originally belonged to is going through a hell of a lot of difficulty trying to get it back. That's her lesson, and she'll learn it well. But what about the lesson for the other girl? If she learns other people will bail her out when she screws up, she'll come to depend on them and will continue to act irresponsibly herself.
At 14, you should know right from wrong, and you should know that if you break it or lose it, you bought it. You can argue semantics like the parents have responsibility for their children, but SOMEONE in that family of the girl who lost the iPod should be made financially responsible for the loss, and ALL of them should discuss it as a family as to the responsibilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The firiend lost it, and is responsible for replacing it since she borrowed it.
Hopefully each of them would learn from this anthill of an incident, and become a little more responsible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're usually pretty level headed but how can you miss the point by so much?
YES, the litigous mother is a jerk and YES the iPod can be replaced now.
That's NOT THE POINT!
The point is a wrong was done, and needs to be redressed and the person responsible DOES need to be punished (reasonably).
If the anonymous donor's gift was accepted, it would all blow over, true...but what lesson would be learned? Only this: That this girl does not need to ever be responsible because someone else will clean up her mess.
I'd agree with you if the mother was asking for millions or virtual slavery or something. I hardly think its unreasonable to make the girl work a little to replace what was lost by her own carelessness and stupidity.
Lets start teaching some damned personal responsibility a little PLEASE!
Geez.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yo, captain
In addition, what were the terms of the loan agreement? Do you know? I would assume that it wasn't spelled out in a paper document. Being a human and having survived the age of 14, I can make a pretty strong assertion that the loan agreement didn't include specific instructions on how or where to return the item. I don't know anything about the school these girls go to, but at the school I went to when I was 14 it would have been perfectly acceptable to return an item to someone's desk and believe it would be safe there. Even an expensive item.
Don't think that you can or should use the legal system to teach responsability. Teaching is best left to the home and the schools and the churches. Courtrooms are for legal recourse for victims of crimes. The last time I looked it wasn't illegal to lose something (even someone else's borrowed property), irrisponsible, yes, illegal, no.
Clearly there are a lot of facts not in evidence on this blog. So it would be foolish to think that we can pass judgement on either party here. However, this lawsiut smells a lot like retribution, and that's a very real slippery slope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You don't think the fact that this has been all over the news hasn't made the girl feel awful about it? I think she made a mistake, and while she may have handled it badly, I find it hard to believe that the donor's iPod would teach her that everything will just blow over. By this point, I think she'll be DAMN careful anytime someone lends her anything ever again (if they ever do, since everyone knows she's not responsible).
I think that's punishment enough.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Teens, not adults
If you lost my iPod, I'd expect you to replace it. If you lost my daughter's ipod, same.
If you didn't replace it, you and I would be in small claims court. And once we'd gone that far, I would be so ticked off with you that a gifted ipod from Steve Jobs himself wouldn't stop me from my small claim against you.
If the 'borrower' girl's parents had simply accepted responsibility for their child, this would have been over before it started...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wtf
these are children, taking them to court does not in anyway punish them, so what they miss an hour of TV or socilizing out of the week. if the point is to punish take away the ipod! take away the playstation! take away the cell phones (which im sure they have, pfft)!
and if you would all remember, that the girls parents that lost the ipod were willing to give her a sightly used ipod of the exact same model, but the mother of the plantif wanted it to be brand new and with out discussing this with the mother of the defendant, she sued them!
do a little more research and you will all find that the plantif's parents are hyping this whole thing just to get attention and try and get media on thier side, while the defendants parents wanted to keep it out of courst and settle and not have thier names drug though all this.
there is no winner now, and no punishment that the courts can give will be sutiable for a 14yo girl. they can not ask the girl who lost it to pay she dosent make any money, and they are not able to put her in jail (not criminal court) and they cant force her to stay in her room... small claims court dosent punish people except for in thier pocketbook, which i doubt the 14yo has any money in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If these two girls were really friends, girl A shouldn't be viewed as at fault for lending it out. That's what friends do. Girl B shouldn't be viewed as being at fault either, because she did attempt to return it. Granted, it wasn't the best choice of a method of return, but it's not like she dropped it down a sewer or sold it or something equally stupid. If you want to blame somebody, blame the thief who took the iPod from girl A's desk. That's the guy that should be getting sued right now if you really want a lawsuit. And even that would be a dumb idea. Lawsuits are meant for much more serious problems in our society, not the squabblings of teenagers.
Maybe the League of Nations reference was a bit much, but I can honestly say that I think stupidity like this on a large scale will be the death of this country. It seems our country as a whole no longer has any moral ground upon which to stand, and the lack of that foundation is crumbling our great nation piece by piece.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judge Judy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Judge Judy?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Judge Judy?
Was the ipod stolen on the same day it was bought?
Even if the child had lost it instead of returned it in a way that might have let it be taken by a thief, the value of a use ipod is a used ipod, not a new one. The parents of the child who returned the ipod "carelessly" offered a used ipod. The other party wants something of greater value than the item they lost.
Judge Judy says get a life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The answer is: that she can continue to lose people's stuff without herself being responsible for it because someone else will randomly come and save her.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY: LEARN IT, ON *BOTH* SIDES OF A CONFLICT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You can argue that it's not a new ipod that she was offered but it wasn't a new ipod that was lost either, it was considered used the moment she put a single song on it. Since refurbed units sell for more than used units, you should consider personal responsibility and start admitting your POV was wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes but
Frankly if the jury is at all reasonable they'll be angry at the plaintif for wasting their time with this crap and not award her a cent, maybe even make her pay for the defendant's lawyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are we serious?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*shakes head*
To the woman filing the lawsuit, life is about mistakes. So your daughter's ipod was lost. Sorry to hear about it. Another one was offered to replace it? Take it and go on with your lives. Be grateful that you have food, a place to stay, a job, and other meaningful things.
If you feel that your life is too insignificant, move to a 3rd world country and see how people live. Or better yet, watch a show on tv that shows unfortunate people walking 4 hours a day to find water. Then tell me if filing a lawsuit about an ipod really defines you as a person in today's world.
You're a pig. May misery find you soon and deal with you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where did the i pod go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I like my friends and all, but really how dumb can you be to loan someone a $400 electronic device with who knows how much in songs loaded on to it? Plus, the device has no formal way of proving that you own it. Apparently these two weren't very good friends to begin with otherwise it would've never made it to this point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Donor
Sounds like the donor is not only entirely decent (IMO) but entirely decent in a situation full of entirely selfish individuals. I think you should have given this selfless individual a little more credit than 'halfway decent'.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And I bet half of you scream about responsibility
So excuse me for not being sympathetic to this addle-brained, immature bitch who can't take responsibility for her friend's prized gadget that she was entrusted with.
It's not up to that anonymous donor to make the situation right. The girl who betrayed her friend's trust by just leaving a very expensive gadget unprotected out in the open needs to pay up.
This is the sort of case that civil courts were made for. All she's saying is that she was wronged, wants the money for her iPod and wants the lawyer fees paid for. Hell, this is probably being filed in small claims court, which is designed for getting property damage taken care of.
There's gotta be a lot behind the scenes here. I really doubt that the girl and her family couldn't pay for this out of pocket to make right for losing her iPod. In the mean time what's she supposed to do, just go without any recourse for getting screwed over?
No, I bet the girl's mother told her that she'll make her widdle sally pay her friend back when hell freezes over.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
48 comments...
Yes, the person that borrowed was irresponsible.
Yes, the person that loaned is overreacting and wasting valueable court time.
Why do we in America let criminals have a free pass? So much judgement is placed on those who are less than responsible rather than a laser focus on criminal activity? What if we spent the time we spend blaming victims focused on ensuring our law enforcement and judicial systems have the tools they need to reduce crime?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is the RIGHT of the person who the iPod belonged to to sue for compensation. Everyone reserves the right. It probably is more trouble than it's worth, but it's still their right. The reality is that the judge won't give them the full value of the iPod, but that doesn't mean that a refurbished iPod has that value. It's probably less. Refurb is a recipe for disaster in my experience with electronics. Did they counter back with a monetary amount? Something else? What about the inconvenience? So now they go the legal route. The girls will learn valuable lessons either way.
Keep using harsh language - you only compromise your own point and demonstrate your immaturity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And We Care..... why?
Know how many kids get thier sneakers stolen each day in America? How about bikes? Video games? Oh, but that doesn't matter, because it's not a "Hawt Gadget".
F*ck you, Techdirt, for furthering the media's stupidity on pointless topics, and the rest of you need to just stfu as well. It's a goddamn iPod. Who cares?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One more time...
Court costs are probably just the filing fees.
And this is precisely the sort of thing that small claims courts are designed to handle. It's a great system.
As to why they didn't accept the donated iPod, I'd have to hear the mother's reasons myself, rather than just speculating on her motivations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What does the RIAA have to say about this?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
We've gotten off track..
1) Girl A loans iPod to Girl B
2) Girl B returns it by leaving it on Girl A's desk
3) THIEF steals iPod from Girl A's desk
We're now punishing Girl B because of THIEF. Perhaps a poor judgment call, but this is absurd. We've basically decided we'll now bend over and say "well, crime happens now and that's just the way of it, so let's pick on someone related to the crime and pick on them instead of trying to find a thief".
Absolutely not. Girl B didn't LOSE the iPod, she returned it in a stupid place.
What the hell has happened to us that we no longer care about criminals and instead focus on a misguided sense of "responsibility"? This case has merit if Girl B dropped the iPod off a bridge or simply lost it. She didn't. It was stolen.
Now, maybe she lied and actually stole/sold the iPod and didn't put it back on the desk at all, but that has never been questioned in this case.
We can all make the world a better place if we walk down the street until someone offers to sell us a TV or bike, and then smash their heads open.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We've gotten off track..
Yes, you've definitely gotten off track alright...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We've gotten off track..
I agree. When did we as a society decide to blame the victim instead of the thief? Is it when the police became to lazy to investigate petty theft?
In a public school, there is often a police office in the building. If a student tries to report a crime, it is hard to even get the police to take a report. Instead, the grill the victim and add insult to injury by telling the kid they deserve what happens to them and to take care of it themselves. They they send out a memo on the problem of gang violence to the teachers.
I know every crime isn't solvable, but how many students were in class when the ipod was taken? Did the police make any attempt at questioning students and taking the crime seriously? Even a token effort to send a message that crime would be investigated in school? I doubt it.
In the school I worked at, all the police did was sit in the office reading the paper, and even when teachers pushed the panic button (meaning they were being attacked in class) it took about 5 minutes for the office to respond and send school security (meanwhile, other students protected the teacher--at a risk to themselves). If Police took theft and battery in school as seriously as they do when it happens to a yuppie or a senator, then the ipod would not be an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of Life and Lessons
Someone mentioned that these girls must not have been very good friends in light of their actions after-the-fact: I'd be inclined to agree. The reality is that a true friend wouldn't let an iPod (no matter its cost or value) come between them. Real friends accept each other's shortcomings because they value their relationship enough to do so. They forgive each other's mistakes and don't hold them over each other's heads or use them as bargaining chips. Perhaps someone should be teaching these girls about what it is to be a true friend.
And even if they are not very good friends, what ever happened to the notion of "taking the high road." Yes, the plantiff has the right to seek legal remedies, but that doesn't mean that this is the best course of action. Sometimes weighing your options and choosing not to take legal action is the wisest choice. Also, it is often the more genteel response -- especially in matters as trivial as this. Everyone is always complaining that today's kids are uncivilized, disrespectful, and irresponsible, yet few seem willing to teach their children the value of "taking the high road" by actually doing it from time to time.
Perhaps one of the best pieces of advice I was given in my youth (when I was about 16) was that you should never lend something that you can not afford to loose. It wasn't that I shouldn't expect to get it back -- it just shouldn't be something I couldn't bare to live without. That goes for "things" and for money. The old proverb -- "Never a borrower or a lender be." -- assumes that the loss of what is loaned would drive a rift in a relationship. If you stick to loaning out only that with which you feel comfortable parting (and prehaps you should even go so far as to mentally "right it off" at the time of loaning it), then this old proverb looses its teeth. This premise has helped me choose when not to loan things many times over the years. While I may have lost a few things over the years, I've never lost a friend. Perhaps that's a lesson someone should share with these girls and their parents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wow
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Several lessons to be taught here...
Far too often we end up NOT teaching our "chirren" to be responsible. If we don't instill the values of a resonsible life, then what kind of society so we have to look forward to. It appears that most of us here have opinions, and most of them want to do the right thing. Very few (if any) of us want the "kidiot" that lost the damnable thing in the first place to be publically flogged, but come on...you have to take responsiblity for your mistakes. You won't always have an annonymous donor in life, unless you have huge breasts and some rich old guys eyeing you, but that's another issue...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Several lessons to be taught here...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No, she doesn't NEED to be punished. Get that thinking out of your head. I know you are smarter than that. (I hope)
I feel sad for all you people who think that every mistake needs to be justified by some sort of punishment. It's your mentality that is going to f*ck up the world in the future.
Mindless Drone - You said this happens all the time? Where is your proof? Provide some links about people suing over a book, a shoe, a pen, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IDIOTS!!
What the hell freaking kind of lesson is she teaching her own daughter? That you should hold grudges, whine, bitch and moan for any perceived harm? And even when a solution presents itself, you continue whining cuz your main goal is to PUNISH someone? What happened to the old way of living life? Y'know, sometimes you get burned, you learn some lessons, you move on.
Hey, here's a great novel idea: The girl's "punishment" is that her friend is MAD at her for losing her iPod. Since she (and her parents) refuse to pay for it, maybe further punishment is that the iPod-girl will no longer be friends with her. Maybe the losing-girl should save up her allowance (or after-school job) to pay for a new iPod.
And the daughter's lesson should be "exercise some judgment" and "if you choose to entrust someone with your things, you bear some risk".
This bullshit does not belong in court, and all you freakin morons advocating for it have lost your minds. No wonder the whole world hates us stupid Americans. Fools & imbeciles.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can't blame the media for making a semi-large story out of this & say "that's punishment enough". She might be a bitch & enjoy the attention...ever consider that side?
What if the family was poor & the mother saved pennies in order to give it to her daughter as a present? It would be a different story then I bet.
If they truely want this settled, the parent(s) of the "damned" should simply replace it. Honestly, if my son was throwing rocks and accidentally broke your window, I'd be right over while on the phone to get it replaced.
Shit happens. What matters is what you do after the fact.
Is it really that hard to be a responsible parent these days?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An Eye for an Eye
An Ipod for an Ipod.
A Bluetooth for a Bluetooth.
C'MON IS THIS REALLY TRULY *JUSTICE*????
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ipod stole
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
because its been more than a year & all i hear is " ill give you the money, tomorrow...."
my dad works for the police and he doesnt want to start shit but he want my ipod back that i got for christmas two years ago..
& my parents worked really hard for it.
it was an 80GB white ipod.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]