Nanny Sues Hidden-Camera Manufacturer

[waggy]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: jbourne77
If I caught a nanny/babysitter intentionally harming my child, she wouldn't be able to sue anyone until she had my foot surgically removed from her chest cavity and my pen0r from her left eye socket.

What does that have to do with this post?

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - A nanny who was arrested after police viewed hidden camera video recordings that appeared to show her shaking a 5-month-old baby is suing the recording system's manufacturer.

Not to mention the title...

yeah but the "video" was faulty. it did not show her abusing the child wich i think he is trying to get at.

 

[BurnItDwn]

Originally posted by: jbourne77

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn

Originally posted by: jbourne77
If I caught a nanny/babysitter intentionally harming my child, she wouldn't be able to sue anyone until she had my foot surgically removed from her chest cavity and my pen0r from her left eye socket.

What does that have to do with this post?

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla. - A nanny who was arrested after police viewed hidden camera video recordings that appeared to show her shaking a 5-month-old baby is suing the recording system's manufacturer.

Not to mention the title...

But the babysitter was found not to be guilty of harming the child. It was a time lapse camera. The family made a false assumption that she was shaking the baby when in fact she was not. The point I am trying to get across is that it's not a good idea to jump to conclusions.

 

[Scarpozzi]

Yeah....perfect example of a situation where she should go after the prosecutors for defamation and negligence. However, the video evidence should be brought up in this case because without seeing it, it's hard to tell how misleading it was....so most likely it will be dropped...

 

[Mermaidman]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: Mermaidman
AFAIK, you cannot sue the police or state for prosecuting you in error. If the cops mess up, too bad for you.

Oh no?

That's different. I'm saying that if the cops arrest you and release you for some reason or other, or if you go to trial and found not guilty, you cannot sue. At least that's what I learned from University of L&O

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Scarpozzi
Yeah....perfect example of a situation where she should go after the prosecutors for defamation and negligence. However, the video evidence should be brought up in this case because without seeing it, it's hard to tell how misleading it was....so most likely it will be dropped...

im just shocked they tried so hard to keep it in. just watching the video you know something is wrong with it. either that or you think the nanny was havinga spas attack or something.

also they refused to give over the orginal copy and then "accidently" copied over the orginal? pfft.

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: Tom

Originally posted by: purbeast0
suing the camera manufacture = BS

suing the parents or whoever was in charge of her getting locked up = OK

The way lawsuits work, the fact that the parents or the prosecutor might be liable, doesn't mean the camera manufacturer isn't. That is what the suit decides, whether they are or not.

And meanwhile, the costs of goods and services in this country continue to rise over frivolous litigation by idiots like this woman and her lawyer(s). Since when is suing everyone under the sun a right guaranteed by the Constitution?

Fine, let the nanny sue the camera manufacturer. However, when it comes out that they weren't at all responsible for the way in which she was accused and prosecuted, then she should have to pay all of their legal costs plus any lost productivity and perhaps a penalty for harm to their name in the marketplace. If we had procedures like that, I would bet that people would be a little more careful in who they sue (when most of the time, they are simply trying to bring in "deep pockets" even when they know there is little to no liability).

 

[Compton]

Originally posted by: jamesbond007
He said there should be a warning to the consumer about the images.

I don't get this. It's a video recorder right?

Either way, 2 years in prison is NOTHING. If it were 10 or 20, I'd think otherwise.

The bitch doesn't seem to get that you DON'T SCREW with other peoples' kids. Capiche?

LoL. Two years is nothing? Go volunteer for two years in the can, then come back to ATOT and say it was nothing.