"Woman sues Rogers Wireless Inc. for ruining her marriage"

[The Bread Guy]

Uh, yeah, this was ROGERS' fault....  : - shared in accordance with the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright  Act:

A Toronto woman is suing Rogers Wireless Inc. for ruining her marriage.

Gabrielle Nagy, who subscribed to Rogers wireless services, requested her billing be addressed to her family home under her maiden name. When her husband ordered additional services — internet and cable television — from Rogers in June 2007, Rogers bundled Nagy’s billing with her husband’s.

Ms. Nagy’s husband realized his wife’s infidelity when he saw hours-long conversations with a particular phone number and confronted Nagy. The two are now separated.

Ms. Nagy is suing Rogers for $600,000, citing negligence and breach of contract.

“The defendant breached the said duty of reasonable care by acting in a manner below the standard of conduct expected from the defendant […],” says Nagy’s statement of claim.

In documents filed on behalf of the defence, Rogers states “The marriage break-up apparently resulted from the fact the plaintiff was having an extramarital affair” and Rogers “is not responsible for the plaintiff’s affair or its consequences.”

The plaintiff is no longer a Rogers client.

Story link

 

[armyvern]

I think Moe has already beaten you to the punch with this one --- she placed it in "The Dumbest Thing I've heard today" thread. It is pretty dumb - reminds me of all the frivolous US lawsuits tying up their court system.

But, here's another gooder from down there ...

Sued by neighbours for smoking in her own backyard ~with a little bit of politics thrown in

ALBUQUERQUE, N.M. --
Linda Garcia's neighbors said her smoking in her backyard is a public nuisance, and have filed a lawsuit against her.

"To dictate how I am living or how I'm going to live, that's beyond comprehension," said Garcia.

"One woman sitting on her back patio smoking a cigarette is not a unreasonable nuisance," said Stephen Lane, Garcia's lawyer.

On Monday morning, a judge denied Lane's motion to dismiss the case. The case is going to trial next week and Lane said he has a solid case.

Attorney Charles Lakins is representing Garcia's neighbor. He said that he agrees that someone has the right to smoke in their own backyard, but Garcia's choices should not hinder his clients from enjoying their property as well.

Gubernatorial candidate Pete Domenici Jr.'s law firm is representing the plaintiff in this case. The trial begins May 17.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Thanks Vern - mods, feel free to move this one over, and thanks!

 

[PMedMoe]

Good one, Vern.  You'll be happy to know that the judge ruled in favour of Garcia.

Judge Rules In Backyard Smoking Trial

An Albuquerque couple that claim their neighbor's cigarette smoke is creating a health hazard had their day in court Monday.

Plaintiffs Jesus and Pat Martinez said their neighbor Linda Garcia's smoking in her own backyard hurt their quality of life, and filed a suit against Garcia.

But Monday, Judge Rosie Allred read her verdict in favor of Garcia.

"After hearing the facts, she said what Ms. Garcia was doing on her own property was not unreasonable," said defense attorney Stephen Lane.

More at link

Waste of frikken court time, thank goodness for an intelligent judge.  :

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Good one, Vern.  You'll be happy to know that the judge ruled in favour of Garcia.

Judge Rules In Backyard Smoking Trial

More at link

Waste of frikken court time, thank goodness for an intelligent judge.  :

No, an intellegent judge would have slapped the complainant with all court and legal costs for both sides.

 

[PMedMoe]

No, an intellegent judge would have slapped the complainant with all court and legal costs for both sides.

Or dismissed the case before it even got to trial.

 

[mariomike]

If the judge had ruled in favour of the complainant, my guess is that neighbours would start complaining about each other's backyard Bar-B-Q smoke.

I read that, "In Canada, charcoal is now a restricted product under the Hazardous Products Act. According to the Canadian Department of Justice, charcoal briquettes in bags that are advertised, imported or sold in Canada must display a label warning of the potential hazards of the product."

As far as lawsuits go, many times you read at a later date that they have been settled out of court for an "undisclosed amount".

 

[Greymatters]

No, an intellegent judge would have slapped the complainant with all court and legal costs for both sides.

Actually, the plaintiff has a chance of winning, based on breach of privacy laws.  There was a similiar case where a women successfully sued a bank for releasing private financial information to her husband - that too led to marital difficulties...

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Actually, the plaintiff has a chance of winning, based on breach of privacy laws.  There was a similiar case where a women successfully sued a bank for releasing private financial information to her husband - that too led to marital difficulties...

Sorry, I was discussing the case of the angry neighbours.

 

[Greymatters]

Well, what the heck, still might be useful information for comparison...

 

[PMedMoe]

We should just change the name of this thread to "Stupid Lawsuits".  ;D

 

[McG]

A Toronto woman is suing Rogers Wireless Inc. for ruining her marriage.

While Rogers appears to have screwed-up, the woman's predicament is all of her own making.
Awarding her $600,000 would seem like rewarding her cheating on her marraige and denying her responsibility.
Is there any precedent for punative damages ordered payed out to a third party (like a charity or the husband)?

 

[Retired AF Guy]

A Toronto woman is suing Rogers Wireless Inc. for ruining her marriage.

Rogers screwed-up her marriage? Sorry, I think she was doing a pretty good job of it herself, without any outside help.

 

[ModlrMike]

Rogers could argue "inevitable discovery". It's not unrealistic to think he would have found out at some point.

 

[PMedMoe]

We should just change the name of this thread to "Stupid Lawsuits".  ;D

Case in point.  This kid was charged with disorderly conduct for rapping an order at a McDonald's drive-thru.

Article Link

Not McGuilty.

That was the verdict from a Utah judge Tuesday in the case of a teen cited with disorderly conduct after he and some friends went through a McDonald's drive-thru, rapping an order into the speaker.

More at link

:

 

[Journeyman]

Further to the Rogers' being sued story

Nagy contends that she was so distraught at the unfolding of events that she lost her job. Her husband reportedly walked out on her and her two children, aged 6 and 7, without even telling her how he'd discovered the affair. It was only a subsequent communication from Rogers, attempting to cut off her service, that allowed her to pull all of the facts together.

And if you'd like just one more complication, she reportedly says that her lover, who was also married, managed to call Rogers, get hold of her password and then begin to harass her and her estranged husband.

I can't really comment on this woman and her actions though.....


...without pics  >

 

[SeanNewman]

Haha, that last part is hilarious (about the third guy using Rogers to get to her).

Her life would be complete if someone waited on her porch with those giant over-sized boxing gloves with a big Rogers logo on them and KO'd her when she opened the door.

 

[Greymatters]

Rogers screwed-up her marriage? Sorry, I think she was doing a pretty good job of it herself, without any outside help.

The release of her information and her marrriage situation are two different things. 

Regardless of whether she was cheating on her husband or not, a phone company that has a contract with a client is not allowed to arbitrarily hand over control of the phone and the billing information to any other person regardless of the relationship between their customer and another person.  If they did so without her consent, they are in the wrong, period. 

Regarding her marriage, based on her own comments, its unlikely that this can be cited as the cause of her marriage problems - but its a pretty strong propoganda statement for settling out of court.  She was probably advised by her lawyer to say this...

 

[Retired AF Guy]

The release of her information and her marrriage situation are two different things. 

Regardless of whether she was cheating on her husband or not, a phone company that has a contract with a client is not allowed to arbitrarily hand over control of the phone and the billing information to any other person regardless of the relationship between their customer and another person.  If they did so without her consent, they are in the wrong, period.

True, but if she hadn't been having an affair, they would have been no incriminating information to release, no break-up and she would probably still be happily married.

However, if the Roger's did release her password to her lover so that he could harass her, that (if true) is Rogers fault.

 

[mellian]

In reality, she is really suing for breach of privacy and contract with the whole 'ruined my marriage' as a way to hype the case.