McDonald's Not Dismissed From Nude Photo Case... But It Can Sue Its Own Employee Too
from the everybody-pile-on-now dept
Last month, we wrote about McDonald's attempt to get dismissed from a lawsuit involving a McDonald's employee who is accused of uploading naked photos found on a phone that was left at the fast food joint. Apparently, the company hasn't been dismissed from the lawsuit, but Michael Scott points out that the court has said that McDonald's can sue the employee in question over the matter for any damages. The court appears to have said that because a McDonald's employee promised to safeguard the phone, it became the company's responsibility -- but the fact that the employee was then negligent allows McDonald's to separately sue the employee for any damages.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
Filed Under: camera phones, liability
Companies: mcdonald's
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Personal Responsibility
If you don't want your car stolen then don't leave it unlocked and running. If you don't want your nude pictures on the web, then don't have them on your phone, or don't leave your phone lying around, or buy a phone that locks down with a password and keep it locked down. The same goes for the idiots with the laptops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Now having said that, it would seem that some people know some more about this story than the rest of us. If there are some sort of extenuating circumstances wherein one or more of McD's management behaved badly, perhaps that would open the door to damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Binding Agreements
So all I have to do is find a friend who either works at Mickeys, or will for the sake of this scam...
...then, leave a phone with naked pics of my "girlfriend" for the "employee" to find and "promise" to guard....
...then, upload the photos to the internet, sue, wash, rinse, repeat.
...I sue Mickey's, who has the DEEPEST of pockets, and Mickey's can sue the "employee" who - let's face it - has nothing (he works at Mickey's, remember?)
...So, let's take score. Me and my "girlfriend" and the "employee" can share the million dollar settlement (the employee can file for bankruptcy and THEN collect from me), while Mickey's can suck it.
Us - 1
Mickey's - 0
CBMHB
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Binding Agreements
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ok, this is stupid
I guess all of these major corporations might not want to keep low level employees around anymore since if the employee says or does anything, the entire company is now at risk.
What happened to responsibility? The person who is suing them is still one of the primary people at fault here. I wouldn't have even let him sue.
If you didn't want it out there, don't keep it digitaly. Simple.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ok, this is stupid
Yes, there is a sense of responsibility when you leave your phone somewhere. However, the content on that phone is still your personal property.
Someone who takes the phone (supposedly to hang onto it), and then goes through all your personal items, and then uploads them to the internet for all to see IS a violation of your privacy.
Your theory is like saying; Hey man, if you leave your wallet on the table at McDonalds and I find it, and I put all your information online, or use it to sign up for fake credit cards, or sell it to fraudsters, it's YOUR fault - after all, you forgot your wallet on the table. Don't want anyone to steal your information or make a fool of you? Well don't carry a wallet around. Better yet, don't shop online either, because if the site you buy from gets hacked then it's your fault for putting your credit card info out there.
Come on, get real. Digital or not, your privacy rights don't stop because you forget your phone when you're out to lunch. Someone violating those rights SHOULD be held responsible, especially when its an employee of the place you just did business with.
Now should the person be able to sue McDonalds? I don't think so... Just the person responsible - but that is for the justice system to decide.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this a corporate store or a franchisee?
But I agree, it is pretty scary that some minimum wage flunky who can't even push the no pickles button correctly can get a company into this much trouble. The solution is pretty obvious, if someone calls and says, "I think I left my ____ there, would you hold it for me until I get there?" The answer will be "No, I cannot take responsibility for your lost item. You may want to hurry back before another customer picks it up."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this a corporate store or a franchisee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Is this a corporate store or a franchisee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this a corporate store or a franchisee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this a corporate store or a franchisee?
This is why it is so important, as a company, to screen your applicants well. This is also important, as an employee, to keep your online personality anonymous and don't post pictures. If you absolutely have to post pictures, make darn sure they are only accessible by those you do NOT work with!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Is this a corporate store or a franchisee?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: OK, this is stupid
Laws that enable victims to hold one party responsible for the actions of another, based on their relationship to each other. For example, a parent can be held vicariously liable for the harmful actions of their children and an employer can be held vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.
Now it can't be applied just because this employee did something stupid. But can McDonald's prove they trained their employee well enough to know how to deal with the possibility that patrons might forget their personal belongings in the store? Obviously they didn't "train" this employee to go through the contents of the phone and share them with the world, but was there, but did they provide sufficient training as to what should be done? From the sounds of it they didn't, which could make them just as liable as the employee was. Now, if the employee went off and ignored what they were supposed to do, the case would be harder to make.
That's my understanding of it anyways...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: RE: OK, this is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: OK, this is stupid
The question of vicarious liability is whether or not McDonald's (or the franchisee owner) provided appropriate training on this scenario in the first place. People forgetting their belongings in a restaurant is not a fluke occurrence and, as such, it should be expected that the owner of that restaurant provide proper training on how to deal with that situation. Whether that training is ignored or not impacts the violator. But whether that training occurred in the first place falls to the establishment.
Again, I may be wrong, but this is how I'm understanding the concept.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: RE: OK, this is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: OK, this is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: RE: OK, this is stupid
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This could all have been avoided by...
2. Not keeping sensitive materials (ie... nude pix) on your unlocked phone.
3. Any of 10,000 other examples of keeping control of your personal belongings.
This situation is only going to lead to more worthless litigation. The fact is... if your phone is unlocked it is a secure as a postcard. Flip it over and you can read everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This could all have been avoided by...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sure...until it happens to you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure...until it happens to you!
No I don't! I can condemn all I want on however much information I want!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure...until it happens to you!
Face it, this a 100% money grab by this couple. No one should be denying that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Sure...until it happens to you!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If they did not, i believe they are liable for the actions of the employee.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I hate to see the size of training manuals in the future...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
He who has the gold...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kinda pathetic
[ link to this | view in chronology ]