Over on Reddit there is a post detailing a story of a guy who posted on Reddit that he wanted to kill himself. Apparently some Redditors egged him on (not all did) and the man jumped from a hotel window killing himself some short time later.
The family of the man has decided to bring a wrongful death lawsuit against the Redditors and some others.
The debate here is not whether the posters who egged him on were despicable (they were) but whether Reddit should provide the names and whether those people should be held accountable in a civil court for their actions?
I cannot find what the people accused of egging him on wrote since they seem to have deleted their posts (admittedly I did not try looking very hard so perhaps someone else can find it).
I realize anyone can be sued for anything but curious about people’s opinion on whether they should be held accountable (beyond their own conscience assuming they have one).
ETA: I am not involved in this case in any fashion. Just saw it and thought it raised some interesting questions.
What I never understand about these cases is the people/media that go on and on about this “startling display of human indecency”, to take words from the linked article. Really? You are surprised that some humans are total bastards, especially in an anonymous situation? Where have you been for the last, oh, 20,000 years of human history? Did you just wake up, like Rip van Winkle?
It maybe different from state-to-state but I thought in civil cases the court could deem someone as being partially responsible for whatever and hold them liable as a result.
E.G. The damages are deemed to be $100,000 and they find you are 25% responsible for what happened so you are on the hook for $25,000.
Inhumanity has nothing to do with it, I don’t consider myself a troll or shit stirrer but internet death threats are a waste of time all around. Often the poster is a noob or posting anonymous and never ever responds to follow up or engage in conversation. The post itself is often a troll and just stirring shit and creating drama, its the equivalent of posting “I have a bomb and I’m going to set it off” what exactly can other posters do?
Can we get a standing convention announced that when posters ask “Can you be sued for T?”, they mean, “Will a plaintiff who institutes a suit alleging T survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim?”
In the early 70’s, I worked for a criminal lawyer downtown. He was a most colorful character.
Occasionally, an old wino would drop by for a handout. The story I heard: He had once been an attorney, a friend of my boss. He convinced his wife to jump out of a window at the Rice Hotel & was convicted of “mental murder”–a charge dating back to Elizabethan times. After doing some time, he became a wino.
Internet research hasn’t corroborated this story; some kind of game called “Mental Murder” came up multiple times. The lurid Annals of Texas Murders go back before the 'net–I might use some upcoming time off to research this matter (& a few others.)
The anonymous poster on a message board says he wants to commit suicide. We have all seen enough MB trolls to know that an anonymous poster may be pulling our collective leg. If I do not believe that the poster is actually suicidal, and I say ‘Do it!!!’…well, would my reasonable belief that the poster is lying save me? (IMO, any belief that another poster is lying is entirely reasonable)
If a person posts that they are suicidal, have they they not already declared an intent, or at least a disposition?
Would all posters who urged a suicidal person to kill themselves be equally liable? Could it be shown that one poster was more persuasive than another?
Personally, I believe all who urged the suicide are dicks, but not liable.
A defense lawyer could find millions of cases where someone threatened suicide but didn’t do it and maybe show that it is reasonable to assume that the threats weren’t serious.
Ah, you got as far as proximate cause? As I recall from old torts class, the elements of negligence (and wrongful death is a species of negligence) are:
[ol]
[li]Duty of care to the plaintiff[/li][li]Breach of that duty[/li][li]Actual causation (“but for” causation; but for the negligence, the harm would not have occurred)[/li][li]Proximate causation (was the negligence sufficiently close in causation to the harm or was it more like the death of a Cretaceous butterfly causing the election of a 21st century facsistic president)[/li][li]Damages[/li][/ol]
And that the earlier in the sequence you can nip the claim in the bud, the better.
I would argue that the Redditors had no duty to the now-deceased; it would be untenable to propose we have a duty to strangers reading our posts on the internet. Do I have a duty to anyone who could look this page up on the internet, even if they never even join the thread? Preposterous!
Failing that, if it were held that their was the duty of reasonable care while performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others (which is the baseline duty of care we are all said to owe others), I would argue it was not breached here.
I address only this point. I think they’ll have to turn over whatever information they may have regarding the identity of the posters involved as part of the discovery process. If I were drafting the complaint, I’d probably include claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress (in the alternative), cyber-something or other (think there may be various bullying/stalking/harassment statutes that may arguably apply, would research prior to filing), etc. The goal being to plead enough causes of action so that at least something will survive the inevitable motion to dismiss. Discovery may or may not produce enough evidence to survive a motion for summary judgment, but that’s a later battle.