I completely agree - this is an absurd lawsuit. Very sad situation - for sure - but it is completely unfair to blame this on Extreme Makeover. It sucks they dropped the sister at the last moment - but I don’t see that as illegal?
Oh so you are privy to the contract negotiations? Because if not then you know, you are talking out of your ass. Whether ABC breached the contract can only be determined by those who know what the terms of the contract actually were. As for the claim about the sister the plaintiff will have to show that ABC had a legal duty to the plaintiff that they breached that duty that the breach caused the harm and that as a result of that harm the plaintiff suffered damages. If she cannot establish all those things then she will get nothing.
If ABC’s actions were so egregious that those actions did in fact contribute to the mental suffering that led to suicide why should they not have to take the responsibility. I am not saying that ABC did anything wrong, just that if they did they should be held responsible. We don’t have enough information at this point to know either way. Let this family have its day in court and let the courts not uninformed/missinformed public opinion determine the outcome.
You know, in the interest of fighting ignorance and all that…
askeptic, you’re taking all the fun out of this, but you have a point.
With that in mind…let’s have a pool!
I say this case is tossed after between 55-60 minutes of hearing.
Anyone else?
I bet it will settle out of court for an undisclosed amount…
There’s always COPS.
On the plus side, if enough people sue, the cost savings they get from reality tv will dissapear, and the shows will go away. I don’t think their ratings are that great anymore, they are just cheaper to make.
And what if a guy driving a Hummer cut her off in traffic, thus ‘contributing to the mental suffering that led to suicide’? Should that guy get dragged in as well? And what if a recent boyfriend cheated on her & left her for another girl. Another liable party? What about the booze merchant that sold her the alcohol that was actually used in the suicide? ABC just prodded an opinion out of her - surely they’re not as responsible as the guy who sold her the poisons in the first place?
Sorry, but I’m not buying your reasoning. If there’s a breach of contract, that’s fine & worthy of a lawsuit. But I’m not seeing the ‘wrongful death’ angle.
I’m willing to bet that ABC likely has a clause in their contracts just for this situation and that this is probably the only way this woman feels she can get to them through legal means. As morally reprehensable as it is, I’m thinking they probably have done absolutely wrong from a legal standpoint.
So what’s all this “moral responsibility” crap I see floating around in this thread? Looks to me like a lot of people are using it as a cheap cop-out. “Oh, I side with the big TV network full of nasty scumbags who used that family like they were dirt on the legal issue, but my heart is in the right place because, even though I have sided with vicious scum legally speaking, I think they’re MORALLY culpable.”
Oh, and what’s the penalty for being morally culpable?
Yeah, what I thought. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. Maybe you’ll waft some good thoughts to them through the ether.
I cannot say I am impressed. How does that saying go? “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good people to do nothing.”
I don’t see any evidence of a claim for “wrongfull death”. My point is we don’t know what the claim or the basis for it is. It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a valid claim for “Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress” could be argued. I don’t know the facts. My point is neither do you. Why so quick to condemn. For all we know it is not even included in the actual complaint. For all we know an actual complaint has not been filed yet.
Facts are the driving force behind any legal case. Here we have no idea what the facts are. There is a saying amoung insurance defense attorneys: When the facts are on your side, pound the facts. When the facts are not on your side pound the plaintiff.
If you corporate sycophants want to keep pounding the plaintiff, I guess I can’t stop you…
Does anyone here think that ABC would avoid illegal immoral reprehensible activity that would make them a few bucks? (and they thought they could get away with it? TYCO, ENRON, SBC, WORLDCOM need I continue?)
Rats We need the smiley: <:-l - Dunce cap
From the quoted bit of the article I cited above, emphasis added
Enjoy,
Steven
OK. Whats yer point. So I was wrong about the wrongfull death claim. Does that lessen the validity of my argument?
I smell a Law and Order plot!
Why do people watch these stupid shows anyway? To date, I haven’t seen one, but they just sound horrid. Anybody have insight on the appeal? Is it the same as that which makes folks slow down to look at a gory accident by the road?