MyLawsuit.com?
---
A 14-year old girl who is alleging sexual assault from a MySpace impostor is suing — of course — MySpace:
--Where there is no duty, there is no negligence and no grounds for a lawsuit. End of discussion.
--Assume the answer for a moment and insist that there must in fact be a duty on the part of MySpace. What exactly would the plaintiffs have MySpace do? Turn itself into a credit bureau or background check service? Provide free chaperons to every meeting?
--Even if there were a duty, the plaintiff must still prove proximate causation, which in this fact pattern is undercut by foreseeability. The general rule in tort law is that criminal acts by third parties are not considered foreseeable and break the chain of causation between the plaintiff (i.e., the girl) and the negligent party (i.e., MySpace).
--Is "assumption of risk" dead as a defense to negligence? What about comparative fault?
--Thirty million dollars?
More thoughts at Point of Law Forum, Joanne Jacobs.
UPDATE: Apparently MySpace was already in the process of changing its access policies such that (self-reported) adults cannot reach out to minors unless invited to do so. How that, or anything else, protects against would-be predators posing as minors remains unresolved. Also, the accused has filed his own lawsuit against MySpace. This is rapidly becoming a theater of the absurd.
The suit alleges that MySpace has "absolutely no meaningful protections or security measures to protect underage users."Some hasty stitches:
"(MySpace) has got to take this seriously," said attorney Carl Barry, who is representing the girl and her mother. The suit seeks $30 million.
--Where there is no duty, there is no negligence and no grounds for a lawsuit. End of discussion.
--Assume the answer for a moment and insist that there must in fact be a duty on the part of MySpace. What exactly would the plaintiffs have MySpace do? Turn itself into a credit bureau or background check service? Provide free chaperons to every meeting?
--Even if there were a duty, the plaintiff must still prove proximate causation, which in this fact pattern is undercut by foreseeability. The general rule in tort law is that criminal acts by third parties are not considered foreseeable and break the chain of causation between the plaintiff (i.e., the girl) and the negligent party (i.e., MySpace).
--Is "assumption of risk" dead as a defense to negligence? What about comparative fault?
--Thirty million dollars?
More thoughts at Point of Law Forum, Joanne Jacobs.
UPDATE: Apparently MySpace was already in the process of changing its access policies such that (self-reported) adults cannot reach out to minors unless invited to do so. How that, or anything else, protects against would-be predators posing as minors remains unresolved. Also, the accused has filed his own lawsuit against MySpace. This is rapidly becoming a theater of the absurd.
Related Posts (on one page):
Posted by Kip on
20 June 2006
To comment on this post, please visit the new blogsite.