KnowTheToe
First Post
I just saw the Star Wars Kid video on the News on WGN in Chicago, poor Kid. This was the video where the kid recorded himself playing jedi and left the tape in the recorder. It is even funnier when seen on the news.
Star Wars Kid Video
- Thread starter KnowTheToe
- Start date
jonesy
A Wicked Kendragon
KnowTheToe
First Post
jonesy said:
Yea, I read that last week. I thought that was very cool becasue not only did he get cash, but now no one can really tease him because he can snip back with "when was the last time you got 5 grand for any video you made." I bet this actually made him a little cooler than he was before.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
Actually, since the kid apparently has now got himself a lawyer and is suing for emotional distress, a lot of those donations are being refunded. (And rightly so, if you ask me...)
Wulf
Wulf
From my Torts notes...
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Restatement of Torts § 46 - X liable for extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally/recklessly causing severe emotional distress
Samms v. Eccles (1961) - D repeatedly and crudely propositioned P. No proof that D was outrageous per se, or that he intended to offend.
Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) - Jury may find that D knew P was esp. sensitive to certain insults (i.e., racial slurs)
Logan v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co. (1985) - P overheard comment about his orientation. Court rules that “queer” comment shouldn’t really bother a gay man.
So setting aside the fact that this suit might be under Canadian law, and i don't know who's being sued...
- Darth Video will have a tough time proving that the defendant watched the tape / showed the tape / distributed the tape with the intent of hurting his feelings...reckless infliction of emotional distress, as I recall, is not widely accepted as a tort.
- I seem to recall the notion that the defendant's behavior must be outrageous, such that it shock the conscience of a reasonable person. Again, tough to sell to a jury.
- Under Alcorn...is it possible that Darth Video is particularly sensitive to "nerd" jokes?
- Under Logan...assume that our defendant's reckless/intentional act was to hold Darth Video up to scorn and ridicule as a nerd. Doesn't Darth already pretty much know he's a nerd?
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
Restatement of Torts § 46 - X liable for extreme and outrageous conduct intentionally/recklessly causing severe emotional distress
Samms v. Eccles (1961) - D repeatedly and crudely propositioned P. No proof that D was outrageous per se, or that he intended to offend.
Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) - Jury may find that D knew P was esp. sensitive to certain insults (i.e., racial slurs)
Logan v. Sears, Roebuck, & Co. (1985) - P overheard comment about his orientation. Court rules that “queer” comment shouldn’t really bother a gay man.
So setting aside the fact that this suit might be under Canadian law, and i don't know who's being sued...
- Darth Video will have a tough time proving that the defendant watched the tape / showed the tape / distributed the tape with the intent of hurting his feelings...reckless infliction of emotional distress, as I recall, is not widely accepted as a tort.
- I seem to recall the notion that the defendant's behavior must be outrageous, such that it shock the conscience of a reasonable person. Again, tough to sell to a jury.
- Under Alcorn...is it possible that Darth Video is particularly sensitive to "nerd" jokes?
- Under Logan...assume that our defendant's reckless/intentional act was to hold Darth Video up to scorn and ridicule as a nerd. Doesn't Darth already pretty much know he's a nerd?
Similar Threads
