The Litigious Society

[Gatekeeper]

Dad: Child's MP3 player came with porn

Fri Dec 28, 7:05 AM ET
COOKEVILLE, Tenn. — A father gave his 10-year-old daughter a Christmas present that would make Santa blush.

Now Daryl Hill wants to know why an MP3 video player he bought at a Wal-Mart in Sparta was preloaded with pornography and explicit songs.

Hill bought three of the players as Christmas presents for his children. He said one of the devices had apparently been returned to the store from a previous owner who loaded sex clips and songs with lyrics about using drugs.

"Within 10 minutes, my daughter was crying," Hill said Thursday. "I wish I could take the thoughts and images out of her head."

Hill questioned why Wal-Mart Stores Inc. would sell used merchandise as new, which he said violates its own policies.

A company spokesman said in an e-mail to WSMV-TV of Nashville that stores are not supposed to return opened packages to the sales floor and that the matter was under investigation.

Hill said he declined Wal-Mart's offer to replace the MP3 player. He said he has already bought his daughter a new one and is hanging onto the controversial one until he talks to a lawyer.

I sympathized with him until I read the last word: lawyer. Ah, yes, that's what it's really all about, isn't it? A big payday for daddy. I bet he'll train his daughter to turn on the waterworks on cue, too.

Heh. Sorry, I'm just in a bummed mood right now. It's no surprise that America is a litigious society. Odds are, if a lawsuit is filed, the good trial lawyer will walk away with the majority of the winnings, er, judgment.

Gatekeeper

[Eli]

Litigiousness is a small price to pay, considering the alternative.

[Kuciwalker]

Of course that's the reason he's "reviewing the evidence"

[Jaguar]

Even without the "ZOMFG teh pr0n" angle, the guy was scammed. He has a right to be pissed off.

[Provost Harrison]

THIS IS SPARTA!

[Dauphin]

I think that this is a case where the threat of legal action is justified.

The problem is pay-offs when they should be repairing the damage. Make any pay off be the direct paying for counselling for the daughter's emotional distress for example - if that's the legal basis for the claim.

[C0ckney]

this is the sort of case that very rarely gets to court in this country. the claimant will instruct a lawyer, threaten to sue and make some noise in the press. the company will offer a 'goodwill' gesture, and then after a little bit of haggling, the claimant will accept it, and the matter will be quietly dropped.

i would imagine it's broadly the same in america.

[Cort Haus]

Hmmm, I'm very sceptical of counselling. I suspect it's a scam that only benefits the pockets of the con-seller.

Some bad memories are best left alone, and the human mind has a built in capacity for forgetting unpleasantries. I have some childhood experiences I'd rather not think about, and the only times they bother me is when someone has probed them. I know others who feel the same way - that counselling actually makes things worse.

The person at the store trying to maximise their sales income by returning the item to stock against policy deserves to be harshly punished. I don't see what good the lawyers payola machine can do here.

[Geronimo]

I don't see how tiny video images of strangers could possibly make a healthy 10 year old girl break down into tears. Why would she be crying? Did daddy tell her she would go straight to hell if she ever laid eyes on naughty pictures?

[Proteus_MST]

Maybe it wasn´t exactly vanilla sex that was portrayed in the videos

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I think that this is a case where the threat of legal action is justified.

The problem is pay-offs when they should be repairing the damage. Make any pay off be the direct paying for counselling for the daughter's emotional distress for example - if that's the legal basis for the claim.

That is the basis for torts in our country. However, there are also punitive damages attached. The latter are also necessary, as if they only ever had to pay out solely for damages, it would be worth it to take the very occasional hit for damages in return for the extra profit.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I don't see how tiny video images of strangers could possibly make a healthy 10 year old girl break down into tears. Why would she be crying? Did daddy tell her she would go straight to hell if she ever laid eyes on naughty pictures?

Children are weird. An ex-friend's 13-year old kid once found a video tape of a woman giving oral sex to a dude and kinda freaked out. As the woman's boy-friend tried to explained "that when two people are in love . . . " the kid yelled, "You make my momma do that!" and threw a fit.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Geronimo
I don't see how tiny video images of strangers could possibly make a healthy 10 year old girl break down into tears. Why would she be crying? Did daddy tell her she would go straight to hell if she ever laid eyes on naughty pictures?

Maybe it was 2 Girls 1 Cup.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


That is the basis for torts in our country. However, there are also punitive damages attached. The latter are also necessary, as if they only ever had to pay out solely for damages, it would be worth it to take the very occasional hit for damages in return for the extra profit.

Generally you can assess whether someone is taking such actions in order to make extra profit or for other reasons.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by C0ckney
this is the sort of case that very rarely gets to court in this country. the claimant will instruct a lawyer, threaten to sue and make some noise in the press. the company will offer a 'goodwill' gesture, and then after a little bit of haggling, the claimant will accept it, and the matter will be quietly dropped.

i would imagine it's broadly the same in america.

Yep. Without the threat of suit, companies like Wal-Mart wouldn't do anything.

They'll end up settling. Probably paying for the guy's new MP3 player and counseling for the girl and a little bit extra.

I mean, contrary to the portrait of lawyers shown on TV, the better ones are those that can settle more cases than litigate.