Woman sues Match.com for $10 million

[Still Sensible]

Seems like a ridiculous suit to me.

Las Vegas -- An online dating service says a Las Vegas woman has no legal basis for her lawsuit seeking $10 million after she was matched with a man who hid in her garage and brutally attacked her.

Mary Kay Beckman filed suit in U.S. District Court on Friday accusing Match.com of failing to disclose dangers of online dating.

She said she’d known Wade Ridley only eight days when she broke up with him in September 2010. Four months later he stabbed her 10 times.

http://lasvegas.cbslocal.com/2013/01/24/woman-sues-match-com-for-10m-after-getting-matched-with-murder-suspect-who-brutally-attacked-her/

[Dreamer Tatum]

1. I would sue her homebuilder, too

because if she didn't have that home, he couldn't hide there.

[Angry Dragon]

3. and the knife company

and the mayor

[Dreamer Tatum]

4. And whomever made her computer. nt

[Drunken Irishman]

26. And her internet provider.

[Liberal_in_LA]

167. +1

[MineralMan]

2. All dating has the same potential danger.

It doesn't matter how you meet a person. It takes a long time to know a person, and to know that he or she is safe or a danger to you.

I see no case here that will cause match.com to have to pay her anything.

[Curmudgeoness]

9. Maybe.

I know that some of the online dating sites say that they screen the participants. If Match.com is one of those sites, there could be a leg to stand on. I always thought that was pretty stupid to say, since I don't know how they could do much screening.

[Confusious]

15. Match does no screening

Last edited Sat Jan 26, 2013, 07:19 PM - Edit history (1)

Nor should they be required to.

To put it in perspective, should we require everyone who goes into a bar to be screened? (beyond age, of course)

[PeaceNikki]

34. Yes, they do. And this man was wanted in Phoenix

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20032875-504083.html

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/21/major-online-dating-sites-to-start-background-checks-on-users/

[cthulu2016]

83. No, he was not.

The meeting through match.com and the brief dating (8 days) were months before he was wanted.

The match.com woman he attacked hadn't seen him for four months before the attack.

[PeaceNikki]

84. ok, I stand corrected on that point. She should have her day in court and not be fucking ridiculed

by people who don't know the details about the case.

She was a victim of a horrible crime. She paid money to a company that is a leader in a billion dollar a year industry.

[cthulu2016]

101. There is no reason to ridicule her

on any point other than as someone filing a frivolous lawsuit.

[PeaceNikki]

103. How can anyone possibly know it's frivolous?

The case hasn't been tried yet.

[TheMadMonk]

139. Very American. Sue someone else because plaintive...

...doesn't believe they should think thoughts someone else could have thunk for them.

From "no shit Sherlock" warning labels on products to meaningless "Don't try this at home" disclaimers.

Her COMPLAINT is: "Match.com should have warned her that online dating is dangerous."

She might barely have had a case if she'd been attacked whilst dating the man, (and then only very early in the piece) but for something which happened 10 months later? Get a life.

What next? Suing BFFs for introducing you to the sister of the bloke who used you for a punching bag?

[PeaceNikki]

140. *plantiff

It's a billion dollar industry. Thank Jeebus you guys are here to stand up for the little guy!!

[TheMadMonk]

147. Multi-billion. And strange isn't it that we "little guys"...

...can sue each other for ludicrous sums of money, (including through publically funded proxies) yet it is all but impossible to sue "the top end of town" and increasingly difficult to sue over actions taken on behalf of that "top end".

Strange isn't it that the publically funded organisations we can sue with relative ease are those ones which the top end wants out of govt hands and/or run on their terms. ie. education and law enforcement?

Strange is it not that we can sue those organisations for the egregious acts of individual employees acting alone, but not for the results of bad policy decisions?

And thank Jeebus for people like you who defend the rights of idiots not to use whatever brains they might have for such trifling matters as personal safety.

[qazplm]

151. not when they are in the wrong

or dont have a leg to stand on.

[kestrel91316]

232. I'm a "little guy" business and I think frivolous lawsuits are frivolous regardless of how big

or small the defendant's wallet is.

Suing a dating website for failing to warn sufficiently of "stranger danger" is lunacy. If she doesn't understand that ANY person she meets in any venue at any time who is physically stronger than her (and many who aren't) can injure or kill her, she needs to stay off the internet, lock her door, and have her only friend in the world bring her groceries.

[Tumbulu]

253. I'm with you! nt

[1StrongBlackMan]

258. There is a huge difference between ...

Match.com's potential for liability and that of a bar. One doesn't pay a bar for the purpose of meeting someone.

[Tumbulu]

259. good point nt

[Confusious]

269. If I pay for drinks at a bar

Last edited Mon Jan 28, 2013, 05:47 AM - Edit history (2)

You think I should be able to get some screening?

There's about the same chance of meeting someone at a bar and on match. There are no garentees.

There's absolutely no difference between a bar and match, (besides being on the net and lack of liquor) as much as you want there to be.

Besides which, I don't know if you ever noticed, but every piece of software comes with a disclaimer:

Examples/Software - Legal Disclaimer

All data, information and examples provided by <name here> are for informational purposes only.

All information is provided on an as-is basis.

<name here> make no representations as to accuracy, completeness, correctness, suitability, or validity of any information provided.

<name here> will not be liable for any errors, omissions, or delays in this information or any losses, injuries, or damages arising from its use.

Your use of any information/examples is entirely at your own risk.

Should the software/examples prove defective, you assume the entire cost of all service, repair or correction.

[1StrongBlackMan]

288. Not the same ...

When you pay for drinks at a bar, you are paying to get a drink at the bar, period. If you happen to hook up, fine; but that is more a function of your being there, than any drink purchase function.

[Confusious]

292. It's the same

You pay for the privilege of being there, but there are no garentees.

Just because you pay doesn't mean match automatically owes you a man or woman.

Which also means they don't have to to do background checks, though I guess they do now, as a courtesy.

[1StrongBlackMan]

306. What part of Bar = Drinks ...

Bars do not equal Girls/Guys do you not understand?

Maybe, it's because I'm older, married or a little of both, I, and most of the people in my peer group do not equate going to a bar with the objective of getting laid, a date, or even, female company?

[Confusious]

307. They were in my 20's, they were in my 30's

and they still are. They were the main pick up place for one nighters for my friends at all those ages.

Maybe we should talk about a church? is that your main pick up place?

Google:

http://www.google.com/search?q=pick+up+bar&oq=pick+up+bar&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

pick up bar

361 million hits.

Barack Obama has 2x as many hits, but he's in the news all the time.

Which world are you living in?

[1StrongBlackMan]

308. Okay ...

Now I recall why I hate going to so many bars ... too many men think Bar = Sex. Making way too many woman treat way too many men as an the assholes that equate their just being there as a license to mack them.

[Confusious]

309. Well, yea, that is the case

it's also the case that I've had women come up to me looking for a one nighter.

And so have my friends.

There are people who go to bars to have fun with their friends, I do it a lot. But it also someplace where looking to hook up is expected, by men and women.

[1StrongBlackMan]

310. Okay n/t

[JVS]

268. I think they mean they screen for similar interests

You know, that personality test thing they have you fill out. I'm pretty sure they're not talking about background checks.

[Confusious]

270. They started screening for sex offenders in march

Criminal backgrounds also.

A person I had on ignore had that info.

[Curmudgeoness]

298. This story is from May of 2012....

Leading online dating companies eHarmony, Match.com and the operator of sites ChristianMingle and JDate have agreed to check subscribers against national sex offender registries to screen out predators, the California attorney general said.

The set of business principles for the industry, which are also meant to screen out fraudsters, additionally includes providing customers with means to rapidly report abuse.

The companies said they have already taken similar steps to protect their customers, even before the public announcement was made on Tuesday.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/21/net-us-online-dating-idUSBRE82K08R20120321

I realize that this was after the incident reported here, and I thought that it was being done earlier than this, but it seems that they are saying that they do it now.

[pnwmom]

225. I disagree. If you meet the person through friends or family who have known him a long time,

then THEY have gotten to know them for you, and you can build on that.

It's very different when you begin to date someone no one knows.

[Confusious]

271. Big difference between knowing someone as a friend

And having a relationship with them.

People turn out different, sometimes in bad ways.

I know from experience, and from others experience.

[Curmudgeoness]

5. Welcome to online dating.

The place where losers who can't find a date anywhere else are sure to lurk.

I am ashamed to admit that I tried it too....lucky for me, the guy who was interested asked if I could come to the county he lived in, since he wasn't allowed to leave the county. The end.

[Confusious]

14. Thanks for your broad brush statement

You think some of us might be a little shy and find it a nice place to meet people?

Or do you think the bar is a better place? Maybe the church? Maybe friends? (actually I've had better luck there then with friends or family. This isn't the 18th century anymore)

Of course, I'm pretty sure you think singles groups are pathetic also.

And yes, I was a member for a while, and met a lot of nice women through there.

Sorry we're not all as fantastic as you.

[patricia92243]

121. Met my hubby on a dating site. Daughter also met her husband on another site. Most things

are what you make out of it - and that includes dating sites.

[Confusious]

126. I always find the mildly crazy

like finds like.

[DirkGently]

25. That's a silly generalization. Where do "winners" meet dates? Bars?

[TexasBushwhacker]

74. Yes, it's much better to meet in a dark place

like a bar, under the influence of alcohol. I've dated men I met through personal ads and online plenty of times, but I'm very careful. I always meet them in a public place for the first date and usually the second date. I have to date them a while (a lot longer than 8 days!) before they know where I live.

They say that they are now doing background checks on some of these pay sights, but I just don't see how that's possible. What keeps people from using fake names? Hasn't anyone watched Catfish for Pete's sake? People use fake names, fake bios, other peoples pictures, etc.

[DirkGently]

96. My thoughts exactly. If anything, the ability to talk anonymously,

set the terms for any meet-ups, etc. would seem to provide more safety than "nickel beer night at the Lizard Lounge."

[kestrel91316]

235. Exactly. Before I meet anyone in person I make sure there's a long electronic trail

to follow if there's a problem. Phone numbers, email addresses, accounts at the dating site that you have to pay for with a credit card linked to a physical address and a verified name.

Yes, it helps to have a good "feel" for a person's character based on lengthy conversations. And you have to watch for red flags. But I have NEVER encountered a scary or creepy person. Some might have "odd" preferences in intimate behavior, but online is a great place for people to be open and make sure that nobody is disappointed or surprised. It can be a very nonjudgmental environment.

[sakabatou]

75. Sweeping generalizations like that are a sweeping fail

I've found my girlfriend online, and we've been together for almost 6 years. Though, it wasn't through a dating site.

[Samantha]

170. Absolutely - I have had three marriage proposals from guys at DU

Didn't take any of them up on it but I sure thought about it!

Sam

[sakabatou]

174. Really? Proposals?

Interesting.

[Samantha]

262. Yes, but unfortunately I have no "affair to remember" nt

[KansDem]

227. "DU?"

Well, that would be the "DatingUnderground."

[Samantha]

263. I found out some time later one of these guys already had a significant other

So I cannot recommend DU as the DatingUnderground.

Sam

[Major Nikon]

244. Will you marry me?

[Cha]

247. LOL

[Samantha]

264. Thanks for asking but I don't fool around any more with DU'ers

I am just too busy writing my DU tell-all book, but I might possibly send you complimentary copy.

Sam

[Major Nikon]

265. Good call

[LiberalFighter]

157. Lucky the guy was stupid enough to state it.

[TreasonousBastard]

162. I'm sorry, but I really had to clean the coffee off the monitor after that one...

scared the cat, too.

(I fear for the woman who did go, though.)

[Le Taz Hot]

169. I know, huh?

It's not like the good ole' days when we used to pick 'em up in bars.

[alarimer]

212. Really, "Losers"?

That's unfair and you know it. Some us of life in shitty little towns where everybody knows everybody and the quality of people available to date frankly sucks, because, it's a small redneck town, so we go elsewhere. And online, whether it's Match or Facebook, is simply a shortcut.

On OKCupid, for instance, people feel free to list their religion as atheist or none, making it easier for me to find like-minded people. It's makes it easier to weed out the religious and the conservative, neither of whom I want in my life in any capacity.

[kestrel91316]

233. I know several women who have been happily married for several years to the very normal,

hardworking, well-adjusted, NICE men they met through online dating sites.

I also personally have a few VERY nice (if shy) gentleman friends who just don't seem to have what it takes to meet women in person and develop a relationship with them. And as a woman I am the same way. After nearly 15 years of not meeting anyone in person who so much as wanted a date, I went online.

I guess that makes me a loser.

[liberalhistorian]

242. That's quite a huge broad brush there, eh?

I've known plenty of family and friends who met their mates online, and plenty of others in serious, successful relationships begun online. And, while DU is not exactly a dating site, my husband and I met right here on DU.

[banned from Kos]

6. Did he post a naked pic of her?

Outrage!

[gollygee]

17. He stabbed her 10 times and stomped on her head

but I'm glad you find it funny.

[alcibiades_mystery]

18. +100

Incredible.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

27. I'm sure other trolls find that hysterical.

[idwiyo]

49. No wonder you are "banned from KOS"

[Strelnikov_]

150. Seconded n/t

[bluestateguy]

7. Does Match.com do background checks?

If they do, they might find themselves on stronger legal ground if and when they get sued.

[Confusious]

13. No, they don't do background checks.

And I think they would have less of a leg to stand on if they did, because what would have happened if they said this guy was safe?

[DirkGently]

24. Exactly so.

Not seeing how running into a demented psychopath via online dating differs from running into one you met at a bar or at work or through a "friend."

Tragic occurrence. Not Match's fault. Not onlline dating's fault.

[PeaceNikki]

33. I beg to differ

http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/21/major-online-dating-sites-to-start-background-checks-on-users/

[TheMadMonk]

148. And they're bloody fools for doing it.

They've now accepted liability for anything they missed, but might have picked up if they'd dug a little deeper.

And just how deep should they be permitted to dig? Registered sex offender? Probably fair, except of course it's not when that label is so indiscriminatly applied that piddling in a public place lands you in the same boat as a child mollester. Serial love rat? It might be their business, but it's none of their business too. What if they're just a silver tongued fraudster who moves on once he (or she) has emptied your bank account.

[kestrel91316]

236. The website I use has a very prominent disclaimer, IIRC, about safety in meeting people.

So does Craigslist, which is probably wise because the people on there tend to look much sketchier to me, and I look there for entertainment but DO NOT contact anyone.

[alphafemale]

8. The stooopid it...

yeah...you know.

[Scuba]

10. She should be suing Al Gore.

After all, he invented the innerwebs.

[longship]

11. No comment on this case, but I wonder about Christian Mingle.

Can you sue them if you find out they really didn't find God's match for you? That's what they claim.

Posted as a counter irritant and with humorous intent.

[Still Sensible]

12. LOL n/t

[EvilAL]

19. hahah My friend worried about Dog's match for her, she'd

base new people she met by how her dog reacted to meeting them.. I found it hilarious, when There's Something About Mary came out and that lady did the same thing with her dog it fuckin near killed me.

[LiberalFighter]

159. What might be God's match might not be a good match for a couple.

Especially, in the OT.

[etherealtruth]

16. Aside from the obvious "stupidity" of the lawsuit

the attack of this woman is horrific.

[Confusious]

28. Yea

Some kid shot at me through my apt window, hitting me once. Such is life.

Shit happens that we can't do anything about.

(I do expect the universe to keep a full tab in the Karma bank though, because I'm owed millions for that shit )

[etherealtruth]

135. That is purely awful

I am so sorry!

[Confusious]

144. I'm getting over it

Still a little paranoid sometimes, but nowhere near as bad as I was.

Nothing, or no one, could have seen it, or stopped it, except for the kid himself.

Nothing, or no one, is going to keep you safe, except for yourself.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

20. She should sue her educators and parents for not disclosing the dangers of stupidity. nt

[UnrepentantLiberal]

30. What did she do that was stupid?

[Confusious]

42. Lawsuit.

It's seems pretty obvious you can't go around blaming someone for everything that happens to you.

Sometimes, it's life.

I've had a bullet go through my leg. I didn't sue anyone. Sometimes you get served a shit sandwich.

Forgot: She told someone where she lived after 8 days. I don't tell anyone new where I work or where I live for at least a month.

[2on2u]

21. Someone will sue her for having a garage. n/t

[mgcgulfcoast]

22. the woman is a first class asswipe

lets say her best friend introduced a man to her and it turned out badly? sue the best friend? life is a bitch. get over it, asshole.

[PeaceNikki]

29. wow. you're a heartless pig. "turned out badly", huh?

Following the attack, Beckman underwent several surgeries to repair her jaw, save her eyesight and hearing and to replace part of her skull.

I can't blame her for looking for assistance in recovering damages.

[Travis_0004]

168. I think this woman is part of the problem

She is filing a friviolus lawsuit, that is going to waste the courts time, and match will probably spend a ton of money to defend.

She should sue the guy that beat her up, he is the guilty party.

Lawsuits like this are the reason that we have so many warning labels, and I cant buy a saw blade, without a warning label saying its sharp. (If it wasn't sharp, I wouldn't be interested in buying the damn thing)

[PeaceNikki]

178. What problem is this woman part of? The one that got her stabbed repeatedly and her skull crushed?

All of you talking about frivolous lawsuits are really doing the bidding of the GOP. You have NO IDEA about this case other than the very scant details released in a couple of stories yet you are arrogant enough to claim it HAS to be frivolous.

Seriously, what the FUCK do you know?

You all need to watch http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=about - you're clueless and arrogant.

[Travis_0004]

191. So in your opinion Match.com is guilty

I feel bad for the woman for the fact that she was assaulted, but I'm failing to see how its match.com's fault.

And I've seen that movie you mentioned.

Also, match.com does have a section titled 'online dating safety tips', where it says meet in a public place, drive yourself to the first meeting, etc. The page might be new and a recaction to the lawsuit, but I don't know.

[PeaceNikki]

193. I think you and I don't have the details of the case and neither of us is qualified to

rule on the case or the merits of it.

Many here, including you, are arrogant enough to believe otherwise.

[Tumbulu]

255. Yes, and some lawyer did take it on

and it could improve safety for others in the future.

[Tumbulu]

254. I agree with you nt

[Warpy]

40. Organizations are assumed to have the resources

to weed out known sex offenders looking for victims.

Because of this particular case, dating sites have finally taken this seriously and have removed known sex offenders from their pages.

Ordinary citizens don't have the same resources and aren't expected to know the criminal history of everyone they meet and introduce to others.

[Confusious]

58. This guy had no known criminal record

Should we allow every corporation to see the criminal history of people who might get on their sight?

[Warpy]

66. Then she'll likely lose the suit because there was no way to know

If he'd been a registered sex offender, the company would lose.

This is how our system works. Companies are expected to exercise due diligence so people who use their services don't get harmed. If there was no way to know this guy was a time bomb with a seething hatred of women, they won't be held responsible.

At least now this case has forced them to weed out the known sexual predators with criminal records. In that way, it has already been successful.

[Confusious]

71. seething hatred of women

That's going a bit far.

Some people get wacked out at the end of relationships, or don't take rejection to well.

Doesn't exactly correlate with "a hatred of women."

The guy killed himself in prison, so it sounds like he had problems other then that.

[HangOnKids]

88. Relationship? The article makes it clear that they had known each other 8 days

The guy went on to kill another woman. That sort of suggests he did indeed have a problem with women. You have gone from defending Match and their business, into an entirely different realm.

[Confusious]

92. So just saying there might be other factors

and mentioning them, is defending it?

Wow, better tell everyone to keep their mouths shut, because if they mention Hitler, they're defending him!

[HangOnKids]

102. You Are Going Over The Top

You did not just "mention things", you appeared to be defending them. If that was not your intent, maybe another writing class might improve your writing skills. You mention in another post that you are still in school. Please stop with the Hitler shit, I think on the internet that means you just LOST. Thanks, and I am done conversing with you, I need to organize the frozen vegetables in my freezer now.

[Confusious]

108. You went over the top

I just kept going.

Please stop with the Hitler shit, I think on the internet that means you just LOST.

That would be Godwin's law, and I have to compare someone to Hitler. Mentioning Hitler doesn't count.

Maybe you can organize the straw in your argument also.

[hfojvt]

132. what I find odd is the phrasing

"She said she’d known Wade Ridley only eight days when she broke up with him in September 2010. Four months later he stabbed her 10 times."

she had known him only 8 days
she broke up with him

In my life that has never happened. If I know somebody 8 days, it is hard to imagine that there is anything to break up.

Maybe that is why I am still single.

But I see many other people moving very fast. What is the truth of their "relationship"? How much did they interact in 8 days? How many times had they had sex?

Not that it makes him any less of a deranged jerk, but is it possible that she let him get too close without knowing all that much about him?

[SummerSnow]

287. Wow,after 8 day's of knowing him she broke up with him??

So let me understand this.She was his girlfriend within a week of "knowing" him?Ok

Some years back a friend of mine who had desired to get married met this guy in our church.She met him January 31 and she told me on February 3 they were engaged.I told her she was foolish.So during the "engagement "he started exhibiting very abusive behavior. He was extremely controlling and jealous of her but she ignored it. I had found out later that he was married 4 times and all his wives divorced him.She ignored that too.She thought her love would change him.She told me that she asked God for a sign that if he was bad for her please reveal it.Well God answered.One day we were out shopping. When we finished we parted ways.She told me she was going to stop by her fiance apartment on her way home so he can take her home.Later on that evening I got a call from her mother.She said she was in the hospital. Her fiance had beat her up in the streets.I went to the hospital and she was sitting there lumped up and bruised clothes torn. She told me he had followed us that day we were shopping.He told her she promised she would be home by 2pm and he kept calling her house and the phone kept ringing. When me and her parted ways it was about 4pm.Then she said well I guess God gave me a sign.Well she didn't learn cause a year later she married a guy on prison.He beats her too.


Just slow down and get to know people.

[mike_c]

301. I've gotten a little "wacked out" at the end of a relationship or two....

Mostly I got drunk and went camping for a few days to feel sorry for myself. Hiding in the ex's garage and beating her half to death seemed a little over the top.

[duffyduff]

118. She's not going to "lose" the suit because it won't go to trial.

This is about getting a pre-trial settlement, which will be enough to pay her medical expenses.

[Warpy]

120. Well, we hope they'll be that generous

At least all the services have started to do what they should have done from the beginning: screen for rapists and other freaks.

[TheMadMonk]

153. Which would have had ZERO, NONE, NADA effect in this case.

And who stands where, if it had turned out he was a "Stubenville Jock" with a sealed record. Any request through channels would have come back clean. However, if they acted on material found through Google or newspaper archives, then the "nutter" would have grounds to sue, unless said "nutter" gave the service carte blanche permission to "invade his privacy".

[kestrel91316]

237. They shouldn't even have to pay THAT. And when we all have medical insurance,

that will hopefully make this sort of nonsensical lawsuit far less common. Fine. Sue somebody for your deductible and copays. They will be capped for everyone at a few grand.

[thucythucy]

81. Actually, I thought the article said

he was already wanted for another attempted murder.

Plus, according to PeaceNikki, who has provided links, the dating service does indeed do background checks. She posted this above, and you never responded.

Just saying.

[cthulu2016]

86. If you read the links, rather than taking them as proof unread, you would

know what was in them.

He was wanted for another attempted murder committed several months after the match.com woman briefly dated him.

[thucythucy]

94. My mistake.

I'm still rather stunned by the level of animosity aimed at this woman on this thread.

[TheMadMonk]

154. The animosity is for her greed and stupidity.

Perhaps if we knew more about her lawyer and how she came to the decision to sue, we might redirect some of the ill feeling, but as it stands. She looks remarkably like a greedy dot dot dot looking for a payday.

[TreasonousBastard]

164. That's a bit strong...

she was horribly attacked and suffered major injury, possibly even disability, and was likely disfigured.

Whether or not it was match.com's fault or not, we've evolved a system where "deep pockets" is never mentioned in law but drives lawsuits. When I was an insurance underwriter, we understood we would be hit with lawsuits like this simply because there is no other place for many people to go and accepted it as a form of social responsibility. I don't say we were happy with that, but it is what it is.

That is not to say that come companies don't try to screw legitimate complainants out of their due or some people aren't gaming the system. Shit happens when money is involved.

Oh, and the millions she's suing for... It's standard to put some humongous amount you don't actually hope to get in the initial court filings. No one takes that seriously.

[thucythucy]

218. Interesting take on what drives some litigation.

I don't doubt that if we had single payer health care for all, plus a less threadbare disability social safety net, we'd see fewer lawsuits.

As you said, how else are people without such supports going to cope after a horrific injury such as this? Her therapy bills alone--physical and psychological--are no doubt going to run into major money, an expense she'll be paying for years to come.

Thanks for your perspective on this.

[TheMadMonk]

243. And she "chose" to get born in a first world country...

...with a you gets what yous pays for attitude to EVERYTHING that can possibly be assigned a dollar value, including basic education and medical care that is taken for granted anywhere else in the developed world. You get what you can afford or you do without.

Guaranteed health care (apart from trauma treatment, which you'll still have to cough up for later if at all possible.) in America is bugger all different to whats on offer in deepest darkest Africa. Immunisation. FFS they have better access to treatments for endemic parasitic diseases.

No disrespect to Ms Beckman for her "choice" of birthplace. All disrespect to a birthplace that holds to an attitude of "Shit happens. You die unless you can afford to live.

And you admit it yourself. THE SYSTEM IS BROKEN. And your "charitable contribution" (if it ever were truly charitable) is now being openly used to game back. Settling out of court, is rapidly morphing into a contractual prior agreement to submit to some form of binding mediation rather than litigation.

There is an ever increasing list of billable services which will be refused unless you absolve the provider. Not to mention that the things for which service providers can be held liable, tend to ultimately target end users.

The only way for those unfortunate enough to attract the attention of The Lady, to survive is to game that broken system and hope that the good/bad publicity quotas for the month haven't been filled.

A broken system needs to be fixed, or instead it becomes a "fixed" system that benefits a privileged few, and privileges a fortunate few. (If that's a quote I have no idea where or who from.)

[LanternWaste]

300. We often see what validates our own preconceptions.

" She looks remarkably like a greedy dot dot dot looking for a payday..."

We often see what validates our own preconceptions. I have little doubt that is precisely how you yourself see it.

[TheMadMonk]

304. Actually, I'd at least afford her the qualification of desperate.

But in the end, it still looks like someone with massive medical bills and no way to pay them looking to someone with deep pockets to do it for them.

Yes her costs should be met, but by FIXING the stupid and damned near uniquely American idea that people deserve nothing they can't pay for. But no, just look for someone who can afford it and sue in the hope that they'll pay the litigant to go away.

Look at where that's gotten you. It's now virtually impossible for an ordinary person to enter into a contract without also agreeing to submit to, and abide by binding mediation.

These sort of lawsuits, are being used as reason to make it impossible to litigate against those where fault and even deliberate malfeasance is clearly demonstrable.

[Confusious]

89. No, read it again

Ridley later was charged with murdering a woman in Phoenix. He died in prison last year after killing himself.

later means after the attack.

I have peacenikki on ignore, so I didn't answer.

I guess they started this year in March, so I wasn't aware. I haven't been on in a while. School is more important.

[PeaceNikki]

91. Ask that one "Where are you getting the info that she told him where she lived?"

He pulled that out of my ass and has me on ignore.

[TheMadMonk]

156. At a bare minimum she provided him with information...

...from which he was able to work out where she lived.

Now whilst it is possible that the bloke was some kind of serial woman hater (and he clearly had issues) who expended every resource to track down every woman who ever done him bad, the more/most likely explanation is, SHE LET HIM DRIVE HER HOME.

[MADem]

173. Well, I don't know about that. I went looking for some old school chums a year or so ago.

All I had was first and last names (isn't that the sort of thing one usually exchanges on a blind date?)--it's been many many decades, now. I used the internet, the white pages, and that Facebook, and I was able to find four or five 'kids' in my college set from back in the dark ages--including one who got married and changed her name (I remembered her brother's name, so I started with that, found the married name on his Facebook, and so on...). I got phone numbers on most of 'em, too. We had a fun little mini-reunion last year. And I didn't even use one of those "finder" sites that charge money, either.

I'm no expert on This Internet Stuff at all, but it is astounding the amount of material about people that is available online.

[TheMadMonk]

245. This is true, but the simpler solution remains she gave...

...him her address, (or perhaps just suburb) or was followed home, than he tracked her down from name alone several months later.

[MADem]

261. Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. We just don't know.

Yes, he could have followed her home, or he could have found out where she lived via our pal Google.

We only know the scant details in the news report--no doubt there's much more "there" there.

[polly7]

57. I can't believe this was allowed to remain.

How does it feel to be a first-class, mind-numbingly stupid POS?

[ScreamingMeemie]

111. The woman is stabbed 7 times and you think it "turned out badly?"

And then you proceed to call her an asswipe and an asshole?

[TheMadMonk]

158. She is not being called names because she was assaulted.

She is being called names over a frivolous (by all appearances) lawsuit.

AND YOU ARE DOING RAPE VICTIMS NO SERVICE by playing silly games with conflating semantics in the hope of tarring people with the "appologist" brush. Would "horendously" be a sufficiently emotive adjective to get you off that hobby horse?

Then again I too have issues with "turned out badly" becasue it presuposes that some sort of connection was there to be seen if someone had just looked hard enough.

ANYONE, ANYONE AT ALL, remotely connected her life could have attacked her. Co-worker, friend of a friend, friend of a sibling, register jockey at any store where they have a policy of asking name and address, where larger purchases are involved.

And conversely, anyone, anyone at all, remotely connected with his life might have been victimised in her place.

Nothing "turned out" badly. A terribly bad person did a terribly bad thing, and she just happened to be the one it was done to.

[pnwmom]

228. Not in the real world. She would have been much better off dating only people

that her friends or family already knew well, or that she knew well from another context. They would have been MUCH less likely to attack her than a stranger with no screening at all.

And you have no idea what led him to attack her in particular. But the reason she was placed in his path was Match.com.

[TheMadMonk]

246. Or one of several bars in a nightclub district.

Or the workplace, or the Starbucks around the corner, or the post office. There are thousands of ways for one person's path to cross that of another, some are formal or informal introductions, some are commercial introductions, some are chance meetings. In some cultures it's a vocation. Should every matchmaker, babushka and interferring old aunt now be held responsible for every bad marriage they organised? Every abuse? Every death?

Or what if they'd married, separated, and then he took to her with knife and boot? When exactly should match.com's "responsibility" for bringing them together end?

Of course if there were some evidence of an actual egregious error of judgement or failure in their duty of care things would be different, but there's nothing to point in that direction, and fishing expeditions are rarely permitted by judges.

Like I said elsewhere, she might have had a case if the attack had come during the dating process or in the immediate aftermath, but not several months later.

What of the failure of the police to warn all past female contacts of the attacker when he finally did do something to put himself on ANYONES RADAR, after all they were in a much better position to know that he might be a danger to others.

Or perhaps you think Match.com should be constantly reviewing news articles, court record, etc. for any mentions of past or current clients on the off chance one of them loses the plot and might then start targeting clients they'd been introduced to.

Match.com may not have done every possible "right" thing, but nor did they do anything wrong. And from the information available, there is not as single bloody thing that Match.com could have done differently, to have effected a different result four months later, no matter what questions they might have asked or what records they trawled through.

To go them, just because they are there, casually (but not demonstrably causally) connected and have the deepest pockets, and SOMEONE needs to pay her medical bills speaks to a fundamentally broken underlying system. See my post 243

[pnwmom]

267. Match.com takes money to arrange dates. The Post Office doesn't.

I would have assumed you knew that.



So now there is the question of product liability. If Match.com made it clear that they didn't screen dates, and that their clients were assuming the risk, then they're probably off the hook.

[Confusious]

275. Match.com doesn't arrange dates

At least they didn't when I was on there.

They give you a site to contact other singles. Where it goes it up to you. Making dates is up to you.

They have about as much responsibility to make sure the person isn't a creep as the local bar, though I hear they screen people for criminal records now.

Of course, this guy had no criminal record.

And even if they screen criminals, it still doesn't mean the persons not going to be a creep.

[TheMadMonk]

281. Well Confucious has spoken. They're a specialist...

...classifieds site. A Craigslist of desperate and dateless.

How liable is the New York Times for "SWM(47) seeks..."?

[pnwmom]

226. Match.com isn't a friend. It's a money making enterprise. As far as your claim about the woman,

it says much more about you than about her.

I would never judge her that way after what she's been through. From the link at the OP:


"According to Courthouse News Service, Beckman has undergone surgeries to repair her jaw, preserve her eyesight and remove part of her skull to replace it with a “synthetic component.”

"Ridley later was charged with murdering a woman in Phoenix. He died in prison last year after killing himself."

[gollygee]

23. I really would have thought the replies to this would have been something like

"Match.com isn't to blame, but how horrible what that woman went through." Or maybe, "I can understand when you've been through something so horrible wanting to lash out and blame whomever you can, but this could have happened in any kind of dating situation." Or something.

But I would have hoped I wouldn't see people mocking her for having been brutally attacked.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

32. Another thread that seems to be attracting trolls.

[Whisp]

36. It's quite alright now - to act like mean RWers.

for my daily dose of disgust I check in here and sure enough I get a belly full. Every time.

I can't believe how much DU has changed, and not for the good.

[mythology]

51. I agree that this is a horrible thing to have happened to her

and that she is overreacting, which I can certainly relate to having done so to lesser offenses than what she endured.

I think whatever lawyer is taking her case is a bigger part of the problem.

[PeaceNikki]

55. Why can't you let a judge or jury decide that?

There is no way you know anything about the details of her case, so maybe you should give the victim of a horrible crime the benefit of the doubt and let her and her lawyers make her case and the proper people decide?

Or, fuck it, poke fun at her cuz "ha ha, a lady got stabbed and her fucking skull broken to pieces and wants help paying the bills!"

[TheMadMonk]

161. Because all too often in cases like this it never...

...gets to the stage where a judge and jury can weigh evidence and make an informed judgement.

Instead the sued party, looks at it in terms of profit and loss, settles for less than the cost of fighting the suit (including likely losses due to damage to their reputation) AND wraps it up in a non-disclosure agreement which means NO ONE ever knows the truth.

Instead we end up with cases like the RC church knowingly aiding and abbetting paedophiles, (and us knowing too) but their remaining absolved of blame, because judges (and juries) are rarely, if ever, given a chance to assign it.

At the other end, we've got fraudsters, ably abbetted (if not approached in the first place) by their lawyers, making absolutely ludicrous claims, in the hope that they'll be offered a fraction of the ask, to shut up and go away. Thirty percent of even $100,000 is a good payday for a couple of mediation meetings and a few minutes with the judge to get it all squared away.


And once again, she is not being attacked for what happenned to her, she is being attacked for her response to what happenned to her.

If she has a problem with the bills, then (it is America after all) why didn't she carry sufficient health insurance coverage for anything that might ever possibly happen to her?. What if it had been a complete stranger? She would have been in exactly the same financial boat.

Please note this is not any attempt to "blame the victim" it's a probably fruitless attempt to point out how bloody ridiculous you're being with your attempts to smear.

[SpartanDem]

106. She's being mocked because she filed a stupid lawsuit.

[PeaceNikki]

114. That's cool how you know all of the details of this case. Nobody should ever go to court, just ask

SpartanDem!

[SpartanDem]

123. What details could possibly make Match.com responsible?

[PeaceNikki]

124. I am not the plaintiff's attorney and I don't try to settle cases online, Frist.

[SpartanDem]

129. You said there were "details" that could make the suit this legit

you wouldn't have said that unless you had some ideas. Otherwise it seems to me you just can't admit that this is stupid.

[PeaceNikki]

131. I said she should have her day in court. You claim to know she doesn't deserve it.

And on that, I call bullshit.

[SpartanDem]

133. “The basis of the lawsuit is the advertising that is utilized by Match.com lulling women ..

and men into a false sense of security,” attorney Marc Saggese told KLAS-TV.

What sense of security is there in meeting strangers online? None. She doesn't deserve her day court because she and her attorney are full of crap.

[PeaceNikki]

134. Ok, Judge Judy.

We'll save this country BILLIONS by just passing quick media bytes on cases past you before proceeding.

Thank you for your great service to our judicial system, patriot!

[SpartanDem]

137. Way to refute my arguments

you=

[PeaceNikki]

138. Your complete argument is "sounds like bullshit to me". The end.

I heard you. And my 'refutation' of it is... "she deserves her day in court".

Even if you don't like it.

[octothorpe]

163. Or she deserves an opportunity to try to have her day in court...

The judge could very well throw it out, no? Also, shouldn't people be entitled to their own opinions of other peoples' actions? Based on the article, it sounds like she doesn't have much to go on against match.com. Of course there could be more to it, but the article probably would have mentioned it if match.com directly caused this to happen (such as somehow giving out her location without her consent)

[womanofthehills]

198. I agree

If she is given her day in court, it might save another women. Match.com might possibly decide to be more aggressive in weeding out the sick ones. I don't believe a psycho like this guy didn't have some kind of previous record. I canceled Match.com very quickly after a creepy person contacted me online. Local dating sites are better, because you can check up on a person easier.
It's good that she is suing, because it's now in the news and might help save other women.

[gollygee]

119. Even if you disagree with the lawsuit

Can you not have sympathy for a woman who was stabbed 10 times, and then he only stopped because the knife broke as he was stabbing her in the head, and then he started stomping her on the head? You can't sympathize for someone who went through that even if you disagree with the lawsuit? You think it's OK to mock the victim of such a horrible crime for something related to the crime she was a victim of?

[SpartanDem]

127. What happen to her was awful

,but it's completely separate from her filing this frivolous lawsuit and her being mocked for thinking it a good idea..

[gollygee]

128. Read through the thread

She's being mocked and blamed by some people even for the crime she's a victim of. That's the mocking I was referring to. The worst example is post #6.

[TheMadMonk]

160. She is not being mocked for having been brutally attacked.

She is being mocked for a ridiculous lawsuit against a casually connected third party who had no way of predicting or preventing the assault upon her.

Failure to make or refusal to accept such distinctions is I think behind a bloody good deal of the animosity on this site.

[gollygee]

197. See post 128

[Still Sensible]

199. + 1 n/t

[Tumbulu]

256. Yes, there are some really awful posts

and it reflects poorly on DU.

[cthulu2016]

31. Sad story. Frivolous lawsuit.

[onenote]

35. If you set up an acquaintance on a blind date and the blind date

becomes infatuated with your acquaintance and eventually does harm to your acquaintance, should you be liable?

[gollygee]

37. It depends

If you knew the person had been arrested for being very violent in the past, you'd have some responsibility to not set up your acquaintance. That wouldn't be a paid service situation like Match.com, so maybe not legal liability.

I think if they advertise that they do background checks and knew he had an issue or if they didn't follow their policy and if they had followed it they'd known, then they have some responsibility. If they don't advertise that they do background checks, or if they did one and no information showed up, then I would not think they had any responsibility.

[PeaceNikki]

38. It's a billion dollar a year industry not a well-intentioned friend, ffs.

[thucythucy]

41. Depends. If you charge money for the service of setting her up,

and in the process claim that you've done a background check, and so give her a false sense of security, well, then maybe yes.

This is why we have courts. To adjudicate such matters.

[onenote]

46. Obviously if match.com falsely claimed to do a background check

and didn't do one or did it negligently, that would be an issue. But if they make no representation regarding the character of the people that they are setting up, then its a different case.

Having never used a dating service, I have a question of anyone who has: when you fill out whatever description of yourself that you are asked to complete, does it ask whether you have a criminal record, have been institutionalized, etc.?

If it doesn't, then it would seem that both sides of the dating equation are on notice that the dating service doesn't ask for such information and you assume the risk when you allow yourself to be set up through the service.

[gollygee]

53. They don't have to ask you whether you have a criminal record to find out

In fact that would be just about the worst possible way to find out. They might have to have you fill out a consent form to have a background check run. I've been married loner than internet dating services have been around so I have no idea how they work. But if they do background checks, or claim they do, and a background check would have made him ineligible to use Match.com, then they have some liability. You can't sell yourself as making it safer by providing background checks, and profit from that claim, and then not follow through with it. But if they make no such claim, or if a background check wouldn't have helped in this case, then it seems like it would be the "normal" risk of dating. ("Normal" in scare quotes because I'm horrified that this is normal dating risk, but that's another thread and not the fault of match.com.)

[TheMadMonk]

166. Best way in the world if you round out the contract...

...with the standard boilerplate stat. dec. about full and truthful disclosure, along with the one about information being provided as is, with no guarantees of factuality or completeness.

Not to mention that it is entirely possible to determine, from the facts that ARE AVAILABLE that none of your scenarios apply to this case.

[Confusious]

61. No it asks nothing of the sort

and some of those questions are illegal to ask in the first place.

And yes, you take your chances on the site. It's no better and no worse then meeting people in public or on the job.

I don't tell anyone new where I work or where I live until at least a month or more. (People I work with know where I work, obviously)

She told this person after 8 days.

[thucythucy]

90. PeaceNikki has posted twice that they DO do background checks

and has posted links to back up her claim, and you haven't responded either time.

What would be illegal about a private for-profit dating service asking someone wanting to use their private service about a criminal record? Please cite the law that would make this illegal?

And so she told this person (whom she thought had been checked) where she lived? So fucking what? It still doesn't make her responsible for someone bashing in her skull and nearly blinding her.

Isn't that a little bit like saying we should check the clothing of women who get raped? Does the phrase "victim blaming" mean anything to you?

As to the validity of the court case, I'll let the courts decide that. You know, those folks who hear sworn testimony, weigh the facts, and don't presume to judge on the basis of a single internet thread?

[PeaceNikki]

93. Ask him "Where are you getting the info that she told him where she lived?"

He has me on ignore. I am not seeing that in any of the articles.

And... if she didn't - would he blame her as much?

[thucythucy]

98. And who cares if she did?

Just more victim bashing, as far as I can see.

As in, "She shouldn't have been out so late..." "She shouldn't have worn such a revealing outfit...." etc. etc.

The level of victim bashing on these threads is really disheartening.

[PeaceNikki]

99. Agreed. It's disgusting.

But sadly becoming common here.

[smirkymonkey]

130. +1000

[thucythucy]

100. Just to be clear, my post immediately above

wasn't meant to be critical of you. I agree with all you've said here, and thank you for it.

Best wishes.

[Confusious]

105. I have peacenikki on ignore

"have you been institutionalized," is a question that might be illegal to ask.

Other questions, in reference to employment are illegal to answer. When someone calls your former employer, they can only say, "yes, they worked here" and "yes/no would i hire this person agian." anything else is illegal.

And so she told this person (whom she thought had been checked) where she lived?

It's stupid. I guess if you're a woman, it's Ok to do stupid stuff? I would never tell a woman where I lived after the first date, much less the third. I don't need a psycho coming after me. Crazy people don't always have a record.

"But I should feel safe and free from harm at all times!" You don't get that. I don't get that. no one gets that.

Isn't that a little bit like saying we should check the clothing of women who get raped? Does the phrase "victim blaming" mean anything to you?

Strawman, but yes, we should question, and find out the truth. You want to find the truth don't you? Or just what you think is the truth?

As to the validity of the court case, I'll let the courts decide that. You know, those folks who hear sworn testimony, weigh the facts, and don't presume to judge on the basis of a single internet thread?

I gave my opinion. you don't like it. We make judgements everyday. Look at any thread on this board for instance.

[thucythucy]

117. Youre talking about employment, not a private

for profit dating service.

It is illegal for potential employers to ask about disability (hence, against institutionalization). It's not illegal for them to do a CORI. Happens all the time.

So we should ask a rape victim what she was wearing, and what she was doing out late at night. Because that's getting at the "truth" of the assault? Oy.

Yes, it's your opinion. And in my opinion, your opinion is callous, cold-hearted, victim-blaming BS.

Just my opinion.

You can put me on "ignore" now.

[Confusious]

125. More strawmen

of course you would first assume that (does that tell you anything about yourself? Probably not):

So we should ask a rape victim what she was wearing, and what she was doing out late at night. Because that's getting at the "truth" of the assault? Oy.

When I was shot, they took all of my clothes for evidence. That is why. Maybe some DNA is on the clothes. Maybe you should think about that.

Yes, it's your opinion. And in my opinion, your opinion is callous, cold-hearted, victim-blaming BS.

Blah, blah, blah. If you wave a wad of cash around in a bad neighborhood, I'm going to say you were stupid and shouldn't have done that.

I guess I'm victim blaming. No, just pointing out stupidity, which you think we shouldn't do. We learn from mistakes by doing that. Nobodys going to learn anything from you.

It is illegal for potential employers to ask about disability (hence, against institutionalization). It's not illegal for them to do a CORI. Happens all the time.

Laws have basis in other laws. Sometimes it's illegal to do things, like run credit checks, or ask some information.

Sometimes a landlord will ask a person applying for housing to get a copy of his or her own CORI and bring it to the landlord. This is illegal. If a landlord asks you to get your own CORI, you should tell her that such a request is illegal, and that, if she wants access to your criminal record, she should request it from the CHSB—if she has been certified for access.

It's hard to tell when and where it is illegal, so it's good to assume it's illegal, and check.

This guy had no prior history, so it wouldn't have helped.

[Trajan]

39. Granted .. Maybe is isn't Match's fault

But the ugly invective hurled at this poor woman by DUers is quite unnerving ..

What a bunch of heartless fucks ....

Ever been stabbed ONCE ? .... Twice ?

Try TEN ....

I dont care if her lawsuit is frivolous .... Using this woman as a punching bag, here, in this thread, is unconscionable ....

This whole thread should get WHACKED ....

[thucythucy]

43. Agreed.

It's pretty nauseating to see how heartless and smug some people can be.

[Confusious]

44. So she should get the $10 million?

That's what everyone is upset about.

Maybe I should get a cool $5 million for the bullet that went through my leg.

[Trajan]

47. FUCK the ten million dollars ...

Where the fuck is your basic humanity ?

Unfuckingbelievable ...

Money ? .... FUCK that ... the responses on this thread are heartbreaking ....

[Confusious]

52. She told someone where she lived within 8 days

That doesn't seem smart to me.

So we're going to give people a pass on stupidity now?

Yea, it's bad, but she made some stupid decisions, and she continues to.

[gollygee]

56. So it's her fault she was stabbed 10 times and had her head stomped on?

If they claim they do background checks, and profit off that claim, and doing a background check would have made him ineligible to be on match.com, then yes they have some level of responsibility. I have no idea if that is the case, but it is a possible scenario.

[alphafemale]

192. It is the perps fault. It is no more match.com's fault than her internet provider.

This is absurd.

[PeaceNikki]

59. That's cool how you know all of the details of this case. Nobody should ever go to court, just ask

you for your opinion, huh?

[PeaceNikki]

48. She should have her day in court and not be fucking ridiculed by people who don't know shit about

the case.

She was a victim of a horrible crime. She paid money to a company that is a leader in a billion dollar a year industry.

[leftstreet]

80. +1

[Starry Messenger]

171. +1

Thank you PeaceNikki.

[HangOnKids]

50. Not Your Money

Why are you so upset?

[Confusious]

54. I'm not the upset one

But really, you're going to give people money for being stupid?

Going to be a lot of takers.

[HangOnKids]

60. I'm Not Giving Any Body Money But Thanks For Caring

Trajan's point in his post was the outrageous callousness of posters in this thread.

[Confusious]

63. She made some stupid decisions

Now she's trying to make a little money off her misfortune, from a company who is not responsible.

That is the point, and bullshit.

I got all the sympathy in the world, but you double down on the stupid, I'm sorry, you're an idiot.

[PeaceNikki]

64. Where are you getting the info that she told him where she lived?

I am not seeing that in any of the articles.

And... if she didn't - would you blame her as much?

[HangOnKids]

65. Well So It Goes

IMO Match will settle this out of court.

[Confusious]

67. They shouldn't

She doesn't have a leg to stand on.

He had no known criminal record, so even if they did do background checks, they couldn't have known.

[HangOnKids]

70. They Have a Big Fat Reputation To Protect

They are not going to risk their entire business on this lawsuit. If this goes to a jury the coverage will be HUGE. They will not be able to withstand the heat. They will settle with her.

[Confusious]

72. I doubt it will be huge.

It's huge if it looks like the outcome is in doubt, or the person is guilty.

This is pretty cut and dry. I wouldn't be surprised if it gets tossed the first day.

I pretty sure that's SOP in courts for the attorney to ask for dismissal. A blind person can see that she has no case.

[TreasonousBastard]

165. She won't get 10 million-- that's just lawyer talk to file the suit...

but what if she does? Sorry about the bullet that went through your leg, but if there was an entity you could sue, why not?

The system is far from perfect, but sometimes you can get back something from somewhere. I'm supposing this woman is now disabled and disfigured-- what's that worth?

[Confusious]

201. Why wouldn't I do it?

Becuase its fucking dishonest.

Sorry about the language, but that's how strongly I feel about it.

[PeaceNikki]

45. Agreed. A (thankfully very) few people enjoy victim blaming women for sport.

Disgusting.

[Bjorn Against]

143. Agreed, people need to learn about empathy

I don't think Match.com is liable for what happened to her, but I can only imagine the pain she goes through every day because of what happened to her. I don't think anyone should criticize her without thinking of what she has gone through, if any of us had experienced such a grave injustice I don't think very many of us truly know how we would react. Maybe some of us would blame the wrong people for what happened to us, that may not be a good thing but it is a normal human reaction. People need to learn to have empathy.

[redqueen]

289. Thank you.

[cthulu2016]

62. One could always READ THE STORY

How many replies are there in this thread arguing about Match.com's responsibility or lack of responsibility to do criminal background checks on people... with some assumed bearing on the story being discussed?


The lawsuit is not about Match.com screening people.


The man had no criminal record.

[PeaceNikki]

68. He was wanted.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20032875-504083.html

And: http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/03/21/major-online-dating-sites-to-start-background-checks-on-users/

It's a billion dollar a year industry, they can do something.

[DirkGently]

76. Tracking down warrants? That's absurd.

I think online sites should have better tracking in place for anyone who's been a problem on the site, and as to fake accounts. Demanding a national warrant search for every member is way beyond the pale. There is no reasonable expectation of that kind of screening unless it's something the site is advertising.

[cthulu2016]

77. He wasn't. Read the story you link to, and also the OP link.

The woman in the OP hadn't seen him for four months before the attack.

The attack on her was in February.

The attack on the other woman was in January.

When she met him on Match.com, and when she stopped seeing him, were both months before he was wanted.

[gollygee]

87. Ah, thanks for the time frame

I read the article, then was trying to keep up with the post and do a few things around the house on and off, so I didn't have it clear in my head and it looked like there was a contradiction. That explains the confusion though. Thanks!

[DirkGently]

69. An excellent point. The suit is apparently based on

"failing to warn of the dangers of online dating."

So, even harder to see any reasonable basis for a suit here. The horror of what happened doesn't create a case for blaming anyone but the perpetrator.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

73. I don't understand how people actually do this.

As a man I would think online dating is a great way to setup a robbery or blackmail of some sort.

And the two women I know who actually seriously tried online dating both hooked themselves a psychopath. One was a steroid abusing and violent "MMA fighter" and the other was freshly out of prison for beating his daughter.

[Confusious]

78. Smart people have rules

They set boundaries.

A person cannot ask these questions on the first date: where I live, the company I work for, no specific personal questions, etc

most importantly, we meet in a public place.

If none of the flags go off, then you go to the next set.

The women I met where generally pretty nice.

Maybe a bar is more to your liking?

[PeaceNikki]

82. Where are you getting the info that she told him where she lived?

[gollygee]

95. I'm also wondering when 8 dates became "a mere 8 dates"

I haven't dated for a very long time, but 8 dates was a pretty good amount of dating time. If you go on a date or two a week, that's a good amount of time.

[cthulu2016]

104. "days" not "dates"

[PeaceNikki]

107. I still see no claim anywhere other than here that she TOLD him where she lived.

Since you're the self-proclaimed 'error-checker' on this thread, you should look into that, huh?

[gollygee]

116. Even so

Back in the day I probably would have taken two dates to decide if I felt OK with someone, and I would have likely let him pick me up the third time if he wanted, and if I didn't feel comfortable with him picking me up at day 3, I would take that as a sign that he wasn't right for me and I should move on. I don't think I was reckless to let guys know where I lived after meeting up with them a couple of times.

[DirkGently]

141. It's also incredibly easy to find out where people live.

Contrary to suggestions in the thread, it's not possible to date someone and not give them any of your "personal information." Just a name is plenty in most places where property tax records are available online.

Demented people are also known to follow people.

All of which is beside the point that there is no way to meet people, whether we find them online or in life, to prevent a vicious person bent on hurting someone from attacking.

I don't see any clear line to blaming Match here, but it's sickening and perverse for anyone to be blaming the woman who was nearly murdered by a madman for somehow "allowing" him to get to her. Someone with that kind of bad in them isn't going to be deterred by having to look someone up in the phone book.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

110. I never hit the bars and I did okay,

Seeing as I neither live under a rock or with an all-male religious order.

[Confusious]

113. Well, some of are a little more shy then others

and never really cared for the pickup scene. I always wanted something a little more meaningful, and as a gay friend said:

"you don't find good dating material in a bar"

(qualified by: you might, but the chances are low)

[gollygee]

79. I've known people who have met great people on internet dating sites

And have gotten married and lived "happily ever after." But it is like any dating situation, unless the dating company makes a claim of checking criminal records but doesn't, or something.

However, while it sounds like it might very well not have been the fault of match.com, it was certainly not this woman's fault that she was stabbed 10 times and had her head stomped on, and I wish the posters upthread who blame her and call her stupid would realize they're blaming the victim and take this as a learning experience or something.

[DirkGently]

85. There are bad people everywhere. Bars are worse.

Online sites let you e-mail anonymously as long as you'd like. Way more control than blind dates or night spots.

Bad guys DO troll online. But there's no reason it's inherently more risky than any other way to meet people.

This guy is apparently a violent psychopath. But he could have glommed on to someone to attack anywhere.

[Blue_Tires]

299. I've had mixed success with it

But I'd been doing it on and off for a long time (since the AOL days in college), I don't rush face-to-face meetings, and I'm pretty good at sniffing out the veracity of online chats...(Not to say I didn't do incredibly stupid, risky things in my younger years)

But the numbers work out for me as well...No one ever gives official stats, but estimated male-female ratio on mainstream dating sites is about 2.5:1, and only gets higher...Yeah, women have a much, much bigger "pool" to select from, but there are that many more predators, nutbars and sociopaths to weed out, as well....

[Still Sensible]

109. When I posted this, I didn't expect the replies

to go the way many of these have. I thought at least somebody would at least wonder if she was recruited in this endeavor by an enterprising attorney.

I have a great deal of sympathy for the victim and, as has been pointed out, some of the comments in this thread are pretty disgusting.

Based on the report, it would appear to me that the company does not have any culpability and it seems a frivolous suit. Obviously, there may be information unreported that could change that opinion.

In any event, blaming the victim is ridiculous.

[seabeyond]

112. mmm, field day on women. for some, whatever goes is acceptable. nt

[HangOnKids]

122. Indeed! This Thread has been very illuminating n/t

[duffyduff]

115. It is, but she will get a settlement large enough to pay her medical expenses

This isn't about going to a jury trial--few civil suits are--but is about getting a pre-trial settlement.

It's a tragedy what happened to her, but I don't see how Match.com is responsible.

[Still Sensible]

200. I expect that is what will happen

probably two good outcomes. One, the plaintiff gets a reasonable settlement from Match.com, which will calculate the cost of litigation and agree to at least high six figures, and

the company will figure out what they believe the minimal, reasonable due diligence they should do--probably a least checking sign ups against sex offender lists, perhaps a little more.

Given the reported basis of the sui, I would also expect a well worded warning and disclaimer in the sign up process.

[TexasBushwhacker]

136. Here's the thing folks - some men hurt women

Thankfully, most don't. But KNOWING a man well is no guarantee he won't rape, assault or even kill you. Most rapes, assaults and murders of women are perpetrated by men they know, usually men they are in or have been in a relationship with. So I guess if a woman really wants to be safer she should be a lesbian.

[Confusious]

146. That won't work either

http://www.musc.edu/vawprevention/lesbianrx/factsheet.shtml

Best just be a hermit. That way, no one or nothing can hurt you.

[Honeycombe8]

142. I don't see the liability unless he had a criminal record. nt

[tammywammy]

155. The news article says he had no criminal history before he attacked her.

While what happened to her is awful, I don't see how Match.com is responsible.

[myrna minx]

145. There are some cold, callous, frightening people posting on this site.

Ridiculing a woman who's been stabbed multiple times and had her head stomped is just another day on DU, I guess.

[Logical]

172. No, just people sick of frivolous of lawsuits! n-t

[myrna minx]

180. I'm quite capable of reading the posts on their own merit, thanks. This thread,

and this:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022258199
are some of the sickest, creepiest, callous threads I've read here, but anything goes after rape week.

[Coyotl]

196. Or frivolous posts

Boy hurts girl.. old as caves news.

[Silent3]

181. I have sympathy for someone who scalds themselves badly with hot coffee...

...but I have no sympathy for the act of suing the person who sold you the coffee for not telling you "Hot coffee is hot!"

This is pretty much the same thing. Even if you paid a dating company to do psychological profiling and thorough background checks of the people you're going to meet (which would have to be a pretty damned expensive dating service) you could hardly expect them to guarantee the behavior of those people.

As much sympathy as I feel for what happened to the woman, her filing a law suit is either opportunistic or naive.

[PeaceNikki]

182. You should spend some time learning about what you speak. You have fallen for GOP bullshit.

http://www.hotcoffeethemovie.com/default.asp?pg=about

FAQ ABOUT THE McDONALDS COFFEE CASE
WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?

Stella Liebeck, 79-years-old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her lap. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.

Despite these extensive injuries, she offered to settle with McDonald’s for $20,000. However, McDonald’s refused to settle for this small amount and, in fact, never offered more than $800.

The jury awarded Liebeck $200,000 in compensatory damages — reduced to $160,000 because the jury found her 20 percent at fault — and $2.7 million in punitive damages for McDonald’s callous conduct. (To put this in perspective, McDonald’s revenue from coffee sales alone was in excess of $1.3 million a day.) The trial judge reduced the punitive damages to $480,000, but did state that McDonald’s had engaged in “willful, wanton, and reckless” behavior. Mrs. Liebeck and McDonald’s eventually settled for a confidential amount. The jury heard the following evidence in the case:

McDonald’s Operations Manual required the franchisee to hold its coffee at 180 to 190 degrees Fahrenheit;
Coffee at that temperature, if spilled, causes third-degree burns (the worst kind of burn) in three to seven seconds;
Third-degree burns do not heal without skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability of the victim for many months, and in some cases, years;
The chairman of the department of mechanical engineering and bio-mechanical engineering at the University of Texas testified that this risk of harm is unacceptable, as did a widely recognized expert on burns, the editor in chief of the leading scholarly publication in the specialty, the Journal of Burn Care and Rehabilitation;
McDonald’s admitted that it has known about the risk of serious burns from its scalding hot coffee for more than 10 years — the risk was brought to its attention through numerous other claims and suits, to no avail;
From 1982 to 1992, McDonald’s coffee burned more than 700 people, many receiving severe burns to the genital area, perineum, inner thighs, and buttocks;
Not only men and women, but also children and infants, have been burned by McDonald’s scalding hot coffee, in some instances due to inadvertent spillage by McDonald’s employees;
McDonald’s admitted at trial that its coffee is “not fit for consumption” when sold because it causes severe scalds if spilled or drunk;
McDonald’s admitted at trial that consumers are unaware of the extent of the risk of serious burns from spilled coffee served at McDonald’s then required temperature;
McDonald’s admitted that it did not warn customers of the nature and extent of this risk and could offer no explanation as to why it did not;
Liebeck’s treating physician testified that her injury was one of the worst scald burns he had ever seen.
McDonald’s did a survey of other coffee establishments in the area, and found that coffee at other places was between 30-40 degrees cooler.
Moreover, the Shriner’s Burn Institute in Cincinnati had published warnings to the franchise food industry that its members were unnecessarily causing serious scald burns by serving beverages above 130 degrees Fahrenheit. In refusing to grant a new trial in the case, Judge Robert Scott called McDonald’s behavior “callous.” Morgan, The Recorder, September 30, 1994.

[myrna minx]

184. Thank you for posting this!

This thread has made me sick to my stomach.

[PeaceNikki]

186. Me, too. People are "Fristing" all over it. Who the FUCK do they think they are?

It's EXACTLY what this film is all about. And many DUers are falling for the corporate/GOP 'tort reform'/frivolous lawsuit BULLSHIT.

And being heartless victim blamers along the way. It's shameful.

[myrna minx]

188. The libertarians have defiantly made it popular to shame and ridicule anyone who seeks

recourse against any corporation. Hot Coffee was the zenith of their success at victim blaming. Who needs PR firms to try to sweep up disasters, when the rank and file will blame their own peers.

Hot Coffee is a true eye opener.

Even if this was a "frivolous" lawsuit, the amount of callous, cold hearted ridicule of this poor woman is shocking.

[PeaceNikki]

189. Exactly. That's why it's almost poetic that someone mentioned that case.

IMDB describes film as follows: "How the infamous McDonald's hot coffee lawsuit and similar cases were exploited as part of a right wing crusade to weaken civil justice."

Even DUers fall for that BS hook, line and sinker.

And, yeah... the ridicule is disgusting, but not as shocking on DU as it should be or it would have been in the past.

[Silent3]

185. Even if that particular old anecdote doesn't hold up well...

...there's still certainly a lot of frivolous law suits out there, and pretty ridiculous warnings printed on many products in hopes of blunting frivolous law suits. I personally was dragged into testifying in one very frivolous case myself.

Is it possible there's another side to this match.com thing I'm missing? Perhaps. Show it to me and maybe I'll change my mind.

[PeaceNikki]

187. Watch the film and here's a thought: let her have her day in court.

There is no way you, I or anyone in this thread has enough info to rule on this case OR call it 'frivolous'. Who the fuck do you think you are? You've read a few paragraphs on the internet and think you're qualified to rule on the merits of this case!?!?

It's EXACTLY what that film is all about. You and other DUers are falling for the corporate/GOP 'tort reform'/frivolous lawsuit BULLSHIT and spreading their lies.

And being heartless victim blamers along the way. It's shameful.

[Silent3]

194. There's not one touch of blaming her for the attack in what I said. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

195. no, but others are.

[Silent3]

234. Frivolous lawsuits happen in all directions

The most frivolous I've personally encountered was from the owner of a small company against an employee who had been my manager, for which I was called to testify (although I never ended up having to take the stand).

I have no pro-corporate bias in what I judge to be frivolous or not.

[thucythucy]

224. I knew some of this info on the McDonald's coffee case

but having this link and all this information in one post is just so excellent.

Thank you again PeaceNikki! You truly are a community resource.

[justiceischeap]

282. Not trying to steal PeaceNikki's thunder

but if you get a chance to watch Hot Coffee, please do so. It's about more than the McDonald's lawsuit. It's about how the right is leading the courts to protect corporations, doctors, etc. from liability. It's about how anytime you sign a contract these days (cell phone, cable tv, etc.), there's almost always a clause in the fine print that says you must arbitrate instead of sue.

Another thing that wasn't posted in PN's post is that McDonald's spent a considerable amount of public relations money to paint the woman injured as a money-hungry con artist who was interested only in the payout of a frivolous lawsuit. Kinda like many posters in this thread is doing to the woman who is suing Match.com.

It could be a case of her wanting Match to help with some of her hospital bills, and they refuse, so a lawyer decides to sue to get her the money she feels owed to her.

[thucythucy]

291. Thanks for the info.

I know there has been a concerted effort by the right and its various mouthpieces--Limbaugh, Coulter, Gingrich, D'Souza, etc.--to paint people who sue under the Americans with Disablilities Act as lazy imposters filing frivolous crap to make a buck. Then, when you research their "examples" of "frivolous" lawsuits the reality is always way different--and much more sympathetic to the plaintiffs--than they portray it. Clint Eastwood--of empty chair fame--even tried to get Congress to amend the ADA because he was pissed someone filed a lawsuit against one of his inaccessible restaurants.

And I know too there's whole industry dedicated to winning "tort reform"--meaning giving corporations virtually unlimited power to escape civil liability. These are the same people--Heritage Foundation, Cato Institute, etc.--who want to eliminate government regulations. So--no government ability to reign in private malfeasance, coupled with limited or no ability to sue.

So this is all related, a campaign on many fronts, and from the look of this thread not even DUers are immune to corporate spewing.

I definitely will watch the entire film.

Thanks again, and best wishes--

Thucy

[myrna minx]

183. Read these posts - people are calling her an "asswipe" among other things.

That's not a "logical" argument against what some (without knowing any mitigating factors) call frivolous lawsuits, it's attacking a woman personally. People have gone on so far as to blame her for her own attack. It's sick.

[jeff47]

207. Being a victim does not turn one into a saint.

Hypothetical example: Woman gets attacked. Woman later commits credit card fraud.

Are we supposed to not say or even think anything bad about the woman because she was a victim?

There is no one in this thread blaming her for her attack. There are people saying "because you never know who's a psycho, be careful". There are other people asking how he found her, which will help expand the definition of "be careful".

There are people attacking her for her frivolous lawsuit.

Just because she was brutally attacked doesn't mean she's immune from criticism for other actions.

[Confusious]

279. To some

Being a victim does mean you're a saint.

You're not allowed to question the sainthood in any way.

[cthulu2016]

231. I add my voice to those pointing out that the coffee thing is RW propaganda

A cup of coffee can be 150 degrees or 200 degrees. Both are hot, in that you wouldn't want to pour them on yourself.

They are not, however, medically equivalent. The 200 degree coffee is functionally similar pouring boiling water on yourself.

Serving someone coffee heated to a temperature no beverage is ever served at is a truly dangerous practice.

And the woman in the case suffered horrific injuries of a sort that are amazing for mere spilled coffee at the temperature range any of us associate with coffee someone would hand you.

It was a legitimate suit that was NOT about hot coffee, but rather about unusually and dangerously hot coffee.

I am reminded of a lawsuit that could have been reduced to, "This woman didn't know that hot water comes out of the hot water tap." It was a hotel that met the demands of a hotel of people wanting to shower at the same time by turning up the temperature on the boiler to a point where the unadulterated hot water was genuinely dangerous, rather than uncomfortable.

Someone was very seriously injured in a way they could not have been from what we expect of "hot' water. There is hot, and then there is dangerously hot, even though the two look the same.

[redqueen]

290. Yep. Can't just say, 'That's a frivolous lawsuit.'

Not if it's this type of subject.

[treestar]

152. I don't think they are at fault

Poor woman, but this could have happened randomly or by any other means of introduction.

[Trascoli]

175. stab me too

for 1 million a stab, I'm sure I could take it.

[Th1onein]

176. EIGHT DAYS and he knows where she lives?

Wow.

[myrna minx]

179. *That's* what you take away from that article?

Wow.

[Th1onein]

215. Yeah, WOW, that's what I took away from it.

Wow.

[Sheldon Cooper]

190. You really have no idea how the internet works, do you?

If I knew your name (which I do -based on your anti-choice postings on another website) and the state in which you live (which I do - based on what you've posted here) I could easily track down where you live. Ever heard of zabasearch? Did it occur to you that no matter how cautious this woman may have been, the animal that attacked her could have easily found out where she lived.

For the jury - I have not tracked down where Th1onein lives, nor would I. I'm just responding to her ignorant comment with startling facts. But if you feel that I've violated something, please feel free to delete this.

[Th1onein]

214. You know, you are probably right, Sheldon Cooper

I've never heard of zabasearch, so maybe you could get my mailing address from it. Although I doubt you would ever find me there, since I am never there, and it is only a mailing address. But, then again, most people do live at their mailing addresses and don't travel like I do.

Nevertheless, you have no need to attack me in such a manner, simply because I disagree on choice matters. It is sly and a nasty piece of work on your part.

[Sheldon Cooper]

217. Just returning the sly, snide, and nasty innuendo in your comment.

See how that works?

[Th1onein]

219. There was no such innuendo in my comment.

And your stalking has been noted.

[Sheldon Cooper]

220. lol

[Th1onein]

221. There's a term for this: disrupting.

Not a good thing.

[Sheldon Cooper]

222. I don't think that means what you think it means, but it's amusing nonetheless.

Now go ahead and have the last word, dearie.

[Th1onein]

223. It means what it says, Dearie.

When you have nothing useful to add to the discussion and are simply shooting shots at people, it's disrupting.

You're on my ignore list.

[octothorpe]

202. Not that hard to believe...

They could have went out on a date and he picked her up. This is no different than if you meet someone in a bar or an event, hit it off and they pick you up some other day. It's also possible that she didn't even tell him where she lived. As someone already mentioned, it can be pretty easy to figure out where people live using various sites online. There is even a site called publicdata.com that has the databases of various states' DMVs. If you know someone's name, age and general location, you can pull up their drivers license information. It's one of the reasons why I'm so slow to update my records. I don't want internet people to know where I live.

[Ian Iam]

177. How old is this lady?

[limpyhobbler]

205. Match.com should clearly inform people: Our members include rapists, stalkers & murderers

They should present clear warnings that their users have not been screened in any way.

Some people might think that a walled site like match.com is safer than an open site like craigslist.

The membership wall gives an illusion of safety and security. The illusion is reinforced by match.com's advertisements that always promote the comfortable aspects of the site, without mentioning the presence of rapists and murderers.

Match.com should take responsibility and present the dangers to their users. And not in the fine print buried way down on page 27 of the terms of service.

The warning should be plainly and immediately visible.

Match.com probably chooses to de-emphasis the dangerous aspects of its product because it makes money partially by selling the image of a comfortable environment that is relatively safe.

[jeff47]

209. /facepalm

I think this has to be the most depressing post in this thread.

[limpyhobbler]

210. LOL ok. But match.com makes a lot of money selling an image of safe dating. Needs a warning label.

eom

[jeff47]

211. Only in your head.

Match does not advertise themselves as safe. In fact, they have lots of stories about how you need to be safe when meeting people from their site and they shove those stories in front of you over and over again.

The entire premise of your post is people are utter morons.

[limpyhobbler]

216. I just watched 3 match.com ads on youtube and all of them showed safe environments with no warnings.

Match does not advertise themselves as safe.

They don't advertise themselves as dangerous. Their ads don't present the dangers.

People don't necessarily understand the risks of online dating sites like craigslist. And match.com definitely comes across as safer than craigslist.

The entire premise of your post is people are utter morons.

Just the opposite. People are not morons just because they don't know which websites are relatively more safe or dangerous.

On the other hand some people seem to think that just because a customer assumes match.com is relatively safe, that makes the customer a moron.

The internet is still pretty new. Many people don't understand it. That does not make them morons.

Match.com exists for one reason: To make money.
Like any other company, they should place an adequate warning label on their product.

I just looked at their TOS and yeah they did bold up the warning part, but maybe only in response to this complaint. It should be more up front.

I don't buy into this thing that anybody who doesn't understand the risks of internet dating is stupid. The site is behind a membership wall and could seem safe to people who don't know any better. Match.com is responsible for making sure the dangers of their product are presented right up front, loud and clear, along with its potential benefits.

[jeff47]

249. Again, your premise is people are too dumb to tie their own shoes.

They don't advertise themselves as dangerous.

And they're no more dangerous than any other method of meeting people. So you want "Warning: We're just as dangerous as a singles bar, or meeting a friend-of-a-friend."?

The only one applying any sense of safety to their operation is you.

Just the opposite. People are not morons just because they don't know which websites are relatively more safe or dangerous.

Because if it's online, it must be super-safe!! It's not like anyone's heard about Nigeria scams!

On the other hand some people seem to think that just because a customer assumes match.com is relatively safe, that makes the customer a moron.

No, the moron is someone who thinks "relatively safe" means "completely safe". Driving a car is relatively safe, but we still have seat belts.

The internet is still pretty new.

Common use for about 20 years is "new"? Seriously?

Like any other company, they should place an adequate warning label on their product.

You are claiming the equivalent of a pair of scissors needs a warning "Do not stab in eye". That a coffee table needs a warning "Do not disassemble, reassemble into a pyre, tie a virgin to the pyre and ignite".

Just because it's possible for someone to be incredibly stupid with something does not mean there should be a warning. That just results in a giant list of warnings which will cause people to ignore the warnings that are actually important.

I don't buy into this thing that anybody who doesn't understand the risks of internet dating is stupid.

The stupid is believing that "Internet" makes it safe. Dating has inherent risks, and those risks are present no matter how the two people meet.

Why on earth would Internet dating be safer than meeting someone in a bar? Bar's still got a "membership fee" in the form of a cover charge or drink minimum. So it's as much of a filter as Match.com's membership fee. Yet you're not here demanding that bars post warnings about the dangers of dating.

[limpyhobbler]

297. Maybe it seemed safe. People don't necessarily know what's safe on the internet.

It's a pretty new technology.

Not everyone understands it.

[Confusious]

277. Warnings:

Being hit by a bat hurts.

Ground is hard, don't fall.

Water is dangerous if inhaled.

Fire is hot. Get to close, it hurts.

Unbelievable.

[Confusious]

278. If you had looked,

They do screen people now.

But the person had no criminal record.

So what else would you suggest? A full psych evaluation?

Maybe interview all of his prior acquaintances?

[Nine]

206. If Republicans had their way, very few people would be able to have their day in court.

As a Democrat, I am glad this woman has the opportunity to bring suit. If it's a frivolous suit, it will probably be thrown out. Our courts do have mechanisms in place to deal with frivolous suits, you know. And I trust that those mechanisms work better than having a bunch of people on the Internet read a couple paragraphs about the case and decide they know everything about it and are in a position to decide whether the plaintiff should be awarded damages.

I hope all of you bemoaning "frivolous lawsuits" will realize that you are parroting right-wing talking points.

[thucythucy]

229. Thank you!

This SO needed to be said!

This has to be among the most depressing DU threads ever.

So much victim blaming, and so much RW BS about "frivolous lawsuits."

On the plus side--PeaceNikki's post on the McDonald's hot coffee case is one of the best I've ever seen.

But for so much of the rest of it:

[Nine]

241. Yes, PeaceNikki has done a good job on this thread.

People seem to be under the impression that corporations will just throw away great gobs of money at plaintiffs just to avoid the inconvenience of going to court. Nikki's link reveals that in the McDonald's case, they never offered more than $800 despite the obvious weakness of their side's case.

[Confusious]

276. The number one creator of frivolous suits

Clogging the courts is corporations.

Am I parroting a republican talking point?

Was the company suing DU NOT a frivolous suit?

Should DU just have paid the money so they wouldn't be accused of "parroting republican talking points?"

I hear republicans use English. Maybe you should use... Japanese! Don't want to use the same words as the republicans, you know.

[NYC Liberal]

208. Idiotic. You can meet psychopaths or dangerous people anywhere...

whether it be at a bar, a friend of a friend, at church, wherever. People lie in "real life" too, and they can mask violent tendencies for quite a whole.

I would argue a place like Match.com is SAFER since you can communicate with a person and try to assess them before ever meeting them. Of course this isn't foolproof, but many times if you just talk to someone you can get a sense if something seems "off".

[alarimer]

213. I had a dating website accidentally expose my email address (and my real name).

I saw that their messages came to my email address, not to the box on the website.

Of course I also got their real names and email addresses. It wouldn't have been too difficult for them to get my home address from that, knowing where I lived and what my name is.

That could have been potentially dangerous right there and, because it was a security failure of some kind, might have been actionable if something had happened.

I do think there are situations where the dating site could be held liable.

Also, people rely on lawsuits when they are hurt in some way (product liability, that sort of thing, or something like this) because we have no true safety net in this country if you are badly injured and your life altered permanently.

I'm not saying Match is liable here. I don't know that. Let's face it, people basically suck and you should never trust strangers. Never, ever. Makes it kind of hard to go from being strangers to being friends or whatever, but it's a sad reality.

[Confusious]

274. You should never trust anyone you know

You are, by far, more likely to be murdered by them.

[leveymg]

230. She should sue her lawyer for taking this nuisance case.

Although, the defendant will probably settle for $50,000.

[Walk away]

238. I think she is doing the right thing. A big $$$ lawsuit is getting her....

and her terrible situation noticed. That is a good thing because on line dating is dangerous. It's Russian Roulette putting your faith in a person you have no other connection with. You can meet a creep through friend and family too but at least someone has firsthand knowledge of the person.

You could easily get hurt or killed. People should hear about it.

[Confusious]

272. I once met a crazy person on a bus

Talking to himself and shit.

I thought he was going to kill me.

Riding a bus with people you have no connection with is dangerous.

You could easily get hurt or killed.

We should shut buses down.

Ps of course, it's far more likely you'll be hurt of killed by someone you know, not a stranger.

[Walk away]

295. You don't get on a bus for the purpose of meeting a life partner...

At least most normal people don't. Bus companies aren't selling introductions to dates.

[Confusious]

296. Match isn't selling introductions to dates

You have to do it on your own.

And the bus analogy illustrates that you can find crazy people anywhere. A dating site will have the same ratio as riding on a bus. Probably lower.

You mentioned nothing about the fact that you are more likely to be murdered by someone you know rather then a stranger.

Lets ignore those crazy facts in favor of fear mongering.

[tjwash]

239. She should have sued them for 100 million

Sad.

I see the "stupid lawsuit" people have flooded the thread. Pity. This is what the power elite want...people waving torches and pitchforks about "stupid lawsuits" while lawyers that work for companies like Pfizer and Verizon slowly take away our collective access of the court systems to regular people by tort reform.

Judging from some of the ignorant comments on this thread, that there are folks with zero clue whatsoever about what it really takes to see someone in court.

Pretty depressing that what used to be the peoples right to justice when they are wronged has been slowly removed over the decades, and to see people here on what is supposedly a democratic message board getting in such lockstep behind it, or, just flat out ignorant that it is happening.

Someday the same folks screaming about "frivolous lawsuits" and peppering this thread with snide sarcastic remarks may need to file a lawsuit against someone who screws them, or needs to right a serious wrong. What you are going to find, is that you do not get to see a judge in a lot of cases anymore, but instead you get the privilege of having your case decided by an arbitrator that is paid by the people that have wronged you in the first place.

If that happens, I really hope that the next thing that goes though your heads is what a lot of you have just typed above in this thread.

[PeaceNikki]

240. Exactly. Thank you.

[msanthrope]

251. You've had excellent and informative posts on this thread. Don't let the assholes get you down. nt

[PeaceNikki]

284. thanks

[Tumbulu]

257. I agree with msanthrope

you've done a super job- thanks!

[PeaceNikki]

285. thanks, I don't understand how some can be so arrogant

[redqueen]

248. Great post.

I remember the comments about the woman who sued McDonald's, and how the truth about her lawsuit never quite got the same level of exposure that all the hate and ridicule for her did.

The over the top level of hostility directed at this woman is something I'm more used to hearing from my RW neighbors when they talk about the need for tort reform. It's sad and disturbing to see it here.

[senseandsensibility]

252. And we the people pay for the court system,

so they are trying to deny us the use of something we pay for. What a deal, huh? As we can see from this thread, though, their efforts are successful even among Democrats.

[Confusious]

280. There are a lot of legitimate lawsuits every day.

This isn't one of them.

Just because I think it's an ambulance chaser trying to get money, that doesn't mean I think people shouldn't have their day in court.

Nor do I think some cases aren't bullshit, like the people who sued DU for copyright infringement.

Nor do I think that just because its a corporation, it's OK to try and extort money from them.

Leave the black and white thinking to the republicans.

[justiceischeap]

283. I wish I could rec this post.

Since I saw the documentary "Hot Coffee" I've been urging people to watch it. Many don't have a clue how the right and corporations are colluding to take away our ability (our rights) to file lawsuits. How in some states a cap has been put in place, so if you sue a doctor for malpractice, you can only get the maximum amount decided by legislators and lobbying firms.

Again, I will urge all to watch "Hot Coffee." If you by chance have HBO, you can download the HBO GO app and watch it through HBO GO.

[snooper2]

286. "there are folks with zero clue whatsoever about what it really takes to see someone in court."

We've been learning from Orly Taitz

[Confusious]

294. Forgot about THAT frivolous lawsuit.

Lawsuits.

[NYC Liberal]

302. She should be free to bring her lawsuit. That doesn't mean every lawsuit should be taken seriously.

The courts are well equipped to deal with so-called "frivolous" lawsuits and they do so every day. Many bad ones are dismissed all the time. This lawsuit is a fucking joke and no it's nothing like the McDonald's coffee case, which was a legitimate suit.

What's sad is that some people apparently believe it's impossible to both be against right-wing "tort reform" and also point out legitimately silly or stupid lawsuits. I oppose "tort reform" because, as I said above, the courts and judges are more than capable of sorting out legitimate lawsuits from frivolous ones.

[LTR]

266. Crazy people on dating sites?

No shit?

[Jamaal510]

273. This is a dumb lawsuit,

but I think most of us can agree that Match.com is a rip-off. I tried it when I was 18 and paid to have my profile membership upgraded, and I still didn't get any results. I emailed a few women, and none of them responded. It's better than EHarmony in the sense that they don't sell out your personal info when you delete your profile, but I would not recommend either site at all.

[ecstatic]

293. Is it time for a Catfish-Manti Te'O-Match Bill?

I feel horribly for this woman, but shouldn't most adults have had at least 15 years of experience with the Internet by now? I could see this type of thing being a surprise back in 1998, but it's 2013!

[DevonRex]

303. The lawsuit is doing women a service. And men, too.

She may not collect a penny. Fine. But other women, perhaps as trusting, need to be jerked to reality. I don't care if they never said they performed background checks or if this guy hadn't had a record previously anyway.

The folks at dating services are salesmen and women. They can lull nice customers into a false sense of security, not by what they say but by what they imply. And it's a service the customers already want, right? So it's an easy sale. It's the security aspect they'll emphasize to women. How they screen the potential matches, etc. When really what they mean is that they're looking for education and income and hobbies. Not a psychological profile to decide if the guy's a psychopath from hell. Or woman from hell as the case may be.

It's their job. They don't expect psychos to turn up. This time one did. Maybe there have been other instances in which the victim didn't sue because of exactly the reaction people are having here.

[Auntie Bush]

305. Good for her...1 million dollars for each stab wound.

Add another mill for all the head damage and another one for all the shit she has taken from all too many DUers.

If manufacture produces something he felt was safe and some careless/stupid person gets seriously hurt of killed...who get sued?...the manufacture! So why shouldn't she sue?
Match.com put out a defective product! They will be more careful who they take as clients next time. Maybe a life or two will be saved.