Law American Airlines blames 9 year old girl because ''she should have known a perverted employee hid camera in toilet''

[PBAC]

The employee hid a phone in the first class toilets behind a sign labelled ''toilet seat broken.'' Their legal defence stated that the girl is at fault because she should have been aware of this and by using the bathroom she should have accepted the risks that someone may have hidden a camera inside it. AA have backtracked and stated this was a poor defence made by their lawyers and does not represent their own view.

I would call this one of the worst defences in history but have actually studied law and know this sort of argumentation is touted among certain students. It is more commonly known as victim blaming or victim shaming. It tends to be used mostly by lineage students who lack understanding or concern relating to civil society. The argument always falls under the onus that the person claiming the transgression is always at fault for allowing themselves to be in that position in the first place. So yes the view is commonly touted by a lot of wannabe lawyers but I haven't actually seen the ridiculous argument used on this scale before.

American Airlines backtracks on blaming 9-year-old girl recorded in plane bathroom

A flight attendant allegedly recorded girls using the bathroom on four ocassions, according to police

www.independent.co.uk

On Monday, a lawyer representing the airline wrote in a filing that the little girl should have been aware that a device was recording her while she was using the bathroom.

“Any injuries or illnesses alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, Mary Doe, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own fault and negligence, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s use of the compromised lavatory, which she knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device,” the filing said.

 

[MLarson]

I agree, the 9 yr. old goal is to blame

 

[The Big Yin]

Woodchip the AA employee and send their lawyer in front of a firing squad.

 

[Renard]

The perp filmed 4 different underage girls, and was finally caught by a 14-year-old who found the camera. Police identified the other victims through photos and videos which were all stored in his iCloud. You gotta love how Apple gave the excuse they were data mining all your photos and videos to find child porn, meanwhile an actual pedo stores his stuff in iCloud and they didn't notice anything. Obvious lie is obvious.

 

[Morning Star]

I can't even formulate a coherent response, just disgusted at everything about this story.

 

[Andy Capp]

The employee hid a phone in the first class toilets behind a sign labelled ''toilet seat broken.'' Their legal defence stated that the girl is at fault because she should have been aware of this and by using the bathroom she should have accepted the risks that someone may have hidden a camera inside it. AA have backtracked and stated this was a poor defence made by their lawyers and does not represent their own view.

I would call this one of the worst defences in history but have actually studied law and know this sort of argumentation is touted among certain students. It is more commonly known as victim blaming or victim shaming. It tends to be used mostly by lineage students who lack understanding or concern relating to civil society. The argument always falls under the onus that the person claiming the transgression is always at fault for allowing themselves to be in that position in the first place. So yes the view is commonly touted by a lot of wannabe lawyers but I haven't actually seen the ridiculous argument used on this scale before.

American Airlines backtracks on blaming 9-year-old girl recorded in plane bathroom

A flight attendant allegedly recorded girls using the bathroom on four ocassions, according to police

www.independent.co.uk

On Monday, a lawyer representing the airline wrote in a filing that the little girl should have been aware that a device was recording her while she was using the bathroom.

“Any injuries or illnesses alleged to have been sustained by Plaintiff, Mary Doe, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s own fault and negligence, were proximately caused by Plaintiff’s use of the compromised lavatory, which she knew or should have known contained a visible and illuminated recording device,” the filing said.

It's my understanding a defense lawyer is obligated to present the best argument available, even if it sucks donkey dick. I don't blame the lawyer. I blame the airline for not compromising instantly.

 

[Natural Order]

Burn it to the ground.

 

[milliniar]

It's my understanding a defense lawyer is obligated to present the best argument available, even if it sucks donkey dick. I don't blame the lawyer. I blame the airline for not compromising instantly.

This comment doesn't fit our view. But it was the employee only we have no culpability!

 

[FIMN]

I mean... the subject matter isn't funny, but imagining one of their PR execs reading this lawsuit and seeing it in the presses does make me chuckle.

 

[The XL]

I understand a lawyers job is to make the best defense possible. But defending a company or person who is obviously guilty of something heinous makes you an irredeemable piece of shit

 

[Elvis.]

 

[PBAC]

It's my understanding a defense lawyer is obligated to present the best argument available, even if it sucks donkey dick. I don't blame the lawyer. I blame the airline for not compromising instantly.

I have heard better defences and I can think of many better. The argument ''its your fault because you had the option not to use our product'' is the weakest and most illogical defence position and would only be used by someone who has no imagination or has never been challenged. It's thrown out there by edge lord lineage law students. It's the lowest response and raises questions as to why it went through the insurer and AA's legal department without someone saying ''wait a minuet.'' It also raises questions as to why this was even allowed reach a court in the first place. AA could have dealt with this better. Now it looks like AA were actively allowing the employee to record people. It reads like company policy was to install cameras in the toilets and it's the customers fault for being too stupid to notice their shittiness.

So yeah I do blame the lawyer, because I have encountered too many of these assholes who think this way in law programmes and never get called on it. This is what happens when these shit heads are let through the cracks. The same cunts who had to do endless resits for human rights law and law an ethics. They are literally the people who keep failing ethic based exams. They also struggled with Tort law because they couldn't understand the logic that someone who suffers damage at the fault of another person is entitled to financial needs that result from that damage, including emotional needs. They are basically backward lawyers with reduced frontal lobes. The idea that someone like that managed to make it that far and not get called on it should be terrifying.

 

[djacobox372]

Well it's the same claim that the girls family is making: "The airline should have known the flight attendant was a perv planting cameras in the bathroom."

Unless they can prove that the airline overlooked evidence or was negligent in their background check, you can't blame them for this pervs actions.

 

[PBAC]

Well it's the same claim that the girls family is making: "The airline should have known the flight attendant was a perv planting cameras in the bathroom."

Unless they can prove that the airline overlooked evidence or was negligent in their background check, you can't blame them for this pervs actions.

onus is on the company to ensure the product they offer is safe. This includes ensuring the environment is safe and taking responsibility for the actions of staff while under operating capacity, particularly if the position is abused to compromise the customer. Emphasis should have been on seeing the offender penalised and the victim reimbursed, not on punishing them. This really is something you'd want to settle out of court.

 

[Andy Capp]

I have heard better defences and I can think of many better. The argument ''its your fault because you had the option not to use our product'' is the weakest and most illogical defence position and would only be used by someone who has no imagination or has never been challenged. It's thrown out there by edge lord lineage law students. It's the lowest response and raises questions as to why it went through the insurer and AA's legal department without someone saying ''wait a minuet.'' It also raises questions as to why this was even allowed reach a court in the first place. AA could have dealt with this better. Now it looks like AA were actively allowing the employee to record people. It reads like company policy was to install cameras in the toilets and it's the customers fault for being too stupid to notice their shittiness.

So yeah I do blame the lawyer, because I have encountered too many of these assholes who think this way in law programmes and never get called on it. This is what happens when these shit heads are let through the cracks. The same cunts who had to do endless resits for human rights law and law an ethics. They are literally the people who keep failing ethic based exams. They also struggled with Tort law because they couldn't understand the logic that someone who suffers damage at the fault of another person is responsible for the financial needs that result from that damage, including emotional needs. They are basically backward lawyers with reduced frontal lobes. The idea that someone like that managed to make it that far and not get called on it should be terrifying.

I didn't say the person was competent. But when you know you've lost before you start, what play do you make except something desperate.

But you're right, that's from my point of view as a layman. I could also imagine a person feeling like they could never in good conscience proceed with such a defense.

Having said that, the fact the airline didn't cave immediately and appease the affected families is what is appalling to me so I think we're agreed there.

 

[The XL]

We have too many laws and lawyers that exist solely for the benefit of mega corporations

 

[irish_thug]

It's my understanding a defense lawyer is obligated to present the best argument available, even if it sucks donkey dick. I don't blame the lawyer. I blame the airline for not compromising instantly.

You should absolutely blame the lawyer. This isn't better call Saul, lawyers are still bound by rules and ethics codes (believe it or not). Also blame the employee. And by blame I mean feed into the chip-o-matic 9000.

 

[fungi]

There should be immediate castration for p3dos.

 

[Andy Capp]

You should absolutely blame the lawyer. This isn't better call Saul, lawyers are still bound by rules and ethics codes (believe it or not). Also blame the employee. And by blame I mean feed into the chip-o-matic 9000.

Shows what I know, a whole lotta nuttin'. And I never watched that show. And yeah, chip-o-matic, GTFIH.

 

[irish_thug]

Shows what I know, a whole lotta nuttin'. And I never watched that show. And yeah, chip-o-matic, GTFIH.

It's actually a really good show, but not exactly an accurate depiction of the legal system.