Taco Bell executive suing for being an idiot

i,m sorry but reading this story angered me,hes suing the taxi driver for $5m for him attacking the driver?cause the footage was recorded without his consent,does that mean i can sue every person thats every recorded me on cctv?

if it does then i,m going to be a very rich man cause on average i,m caught on camera 300 times a day apparently.(in uk)

ok the kicking out seemed a bit harsh but wasn,t an invitation to attack the driver.


news.sky.com...

Law suits have a history of being totally ridiculous. The thing is, he may win the law suit too. That's just how ridiculous the law system really is.

We could list hundreds of totally bogus trials that were actually won. Things like "McDonalds made me fat" and "Burglar falls in kitchen of house he broke in-to, hurts himself, sues house owner", so on and so on. (those two are actual law suits)

Our Law system makes my faith in humanity fail.

Hopefully the first judge who sees this will simply throw it out.

originally posted by: Ghost147
Law suits have a history of being totally ridiculous. The thing is, he may win the law suit too. That's just how ridiculous the law system really is.

We could list hundreds of totally bogus trials that were actually won. Things like "McDonalds made me fat" and "Burglar falls in kitchen of house he broke in-to, hurts himself, sues house owner", so on and so on.

Our Law system makes my faith in humanity fail.

actually just as you mention about burglar hurts himself and sues i remember some crazy claims in America that was won,sure its probably happened in uk as well but seriously who is ruling on these claims needs to take a good hard look at themselfs,how a criminal can claim and win on them commiting a crime shows whats wrong in this world.

So, if the guy was charged because of the video, does that not mean it was admissible in court? If it was admissible, then doesn't that mean it was recorded legally?

originally posted by: Autorico
So, if the guy was charged because of the video, does that not mean it was admissible in court? If it was admissible, then doesn't that mean it was recorded legally?

well if you ask me it was cause doesn,t just about every form of public transport now have cctv and anyone with any sense knows that.

a reply to: sparky31

Totally agree.

a reply to: sparky31

Here in Australia it is very clear, by way of external and internal signage, that you automatically consent to being recorded when you step into the taxi and ask to be taken to a destination.

This idiot cannot assault someone, then, because he was caught on camera doing so, sue the victim because he did not consent to the recording - the taxi driver should counter sue because he was not asked if it was OK to be assaulted.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

The driver already sued the guy for $25,000.
globalnews.ca...

a reply to: sparky31

Wow. Un-called-for.

Get into prison now.

I know this too is in-called-for, but upon reading the assailant's name, anybody else smirk?

originally posted by: Autorico
So, if the guy was charged because of the video, does that not mean it was admissible in court? If it was admissible, then doesn't that mean it was recorded legally?

That, in my opinion, is one of the reasons for the lawsuit. He's suing also to keep the video from being used in his criminal trial, which is upcoming. It's a last-ditch attempt at staying out of prison for the assault. And California has a state law specifically prohibiting, with certain exceptions, the recording of someone without their permission. That law is an abberation in the US. And the headline is a little misleading since the guy is a former Taco Bell exec, having been fired for the assault.

originally posted by: Autorico
a reply to: Sublimecraft

The driver already sued the guy for $25,000.
globalnews.ca...

I know, but this is a counter sue by the butt-hurt CEO over a consent issue, so the Taxi driver should go for the counter-counter sue as he was not asked by the CEO for consent to be bashed.

This is an aside to the Taxi driver actually being bashed.

a reply to: Sublimecraft

If he can do that, I'm all for it! I was thinking that some double jeopardy thing might not allow it.

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
a reply to: sparky31

Here in Australia it is very clear, by way of external and internal signage, that you automatically consent to being recorded when you step into the taxi and ask to be taken to a destination.

This idiot cannot assault someone, then, because he was caught on camera doing so, sue the victim because he did not consent to the recording - the taxi driver should counter sue because he was not asked if it was OK to be assaulted.

here here,i hope he does counter sue cause i know who my money is on to win.driver claimed $25,000 in damages and the attacker claims $5m hope judge awards the $5m to taxi driver and shows no matter who you are you can,t think you can control these claims with your fancy lawyers.

a reply to: sparky31

It's amazing how far this guy is willing to go to prevent key evidence from his assault trial. Jeez just man up and realize you F'ed up.

originally posted by: Starrunner
a reply to: sparky31

It's amazing how far this guy is willing to go to prevent key evidence from his assault trial. Jeez just man up and realize you F'ed up.

thats what angered me tho,he obviously thinks it was only a taxi driver so why is him giving him a few slaps mean he loses his job and him having to go to court,its like him saying its an inconvinence so i,ll sue for $5m cause its what i deserve.

a taxi is a 'public place". In a public place you have no expectation of privacy, and therefore can be recorded. end of story.

I hope the taxi driver files a countersuit.

So this guy who was previously arrested for drunk driving back in 2012 BTW, assaults a cab driver and doesn't remember what happened yet he says he doesn't have a drinking problem, I mean come on...

Seriously?

a reply to: sparky31

He's a self serving delusionist who wants his victim to suffer far worse than a few slaps. He can't accept his actions brought about his own downfall. I personally doubt that Taco Bell fired him just for this but other things the company and not the public knows of.

I can't see much of case for the attacker. Firstly the dashcam is the victims property installed inside his property for his security if such a situation were to occur and it did its job. Once the video is used in court it becomes public record and once the case concludes it goes back to the owner, this case the victim. The only way the attacker has any hope of winning is if the video was posted online before it was considered public record/evidence in the assault case otherwise no case for attacker.

a reply to: sparky31

From what I read earlier today regarding this, it's not so much the video footage that has him in hot water, it's the audio recording. It's different in each state, but for some it's illegal to audibly record someone without their consent. When I used to work for an electronics retailer, I would help a lot of people with voice recorders. Many of them wanted them to record interactions with their ex's. I was informed on multiple occasions about the legality of it, which states require double consent. Thankfully, Colorado is a one-party consent state, but California is a two-party consent state. If both parties don't agree to being audibly recorded, then it's illegal.

That's how he's attacking this.