I Am Not As Imaginative As Cathy Cruz Marreo Or Her Lawyer James M. Polyak

Law

In late 1973 or early 1974, my Nana took me to the Eagle Rock Plaza, near her house, to see Disney's Robin Hood. I was four. It was a rainy day, and I was wearing a damp rain slicker. As we were waiting outside the movie theater, I was dorking around on the side of the plaza's fountain. I slipped and fell into the fountain, thanks to a combination of wearing a slippery raincoat and being, even then, a clumsy twit. A kind gentleman lifted me out, and my Nana returned we, wet and embarrassed and angry about missing Robin Hood, to her house. Nobody in particular noticed, and I did not require medical attention.

Why the hell didn't we think to threaten to sue the Eagle Rock Plaza?

Well, because it was my own damn fault, and I knew it. And because Nana wasn't a leech on society, and neither were my parents. And because I was four years old and not allowed to litigate on my own.

Also, we didn't think to do it because we're just not as creative as Cathy Cruz Marreo or her lawyer, James M. Polyak of Redding, Pennsylvania.

See, Ms. Marreo was walking through the Berkshire Mall one day, intently texting on her cell, when she ran right into the rim of the mall's fountain and tumbled in. The Berkshire Mall had left a fountain right in the middle of the place, right where you might fall in if you were walking without paying any attention whatsoever to where you were going.

Someone in mall security saw this and leaked the security footage, which showed up all over the place. The tape is too grainy to recognize a face, though Ms. Marreo claims that a friend could recognize her walk. No, really.

Anyway, when something like this happens in modern America, someone must pay, and it won't be the person who was walking without looking where they were going. It's going to someone else. Someone else must, through creative thinking, foot the bill — for hurt feelings, if there is no actual injury.

Her attorney, James M. Polyak of Reading, said he plans to conduct an investigation into what happened.

"We are troubled by the fact that anyone at the Berkshire Mall responsible for releasing this video would find humor in an employee injured on the premises," Polyak said. "We intend to hold the appropriate persons responsible.

"No one from that security office came to her aid in a timely manner."

Yep. Ms. Morreo doesn't claim that she was injured, let alone seriously injured. She says she has a bruise. But the point is that she could have been. She could have been injured, and security didn't rush down to see if she was okay (never mind that the footage shows her walking away immediately). So if she had been injured, and needed help, she wouldn't have gotten it from security, and that's just awful, and someone has to pay. And everyone knows that in America, if you could have been injured, even if you weren't, you should have your hand out.

We could all be Cathy Morreo — to a certain point. We could all make an ass of ourselves in public through carelessness, and some of us do.

But most of us don't hire a lawyer. Most of us don't have our hand out. Some of us do. Those people suck. They're the reason that our courts are clogged, our insurance is high, and that lawyers are omnipresent.

If Ms. Morreo were to sue the mall because its employees widely distributed a security video of her making a fool of herself in public, it might present a few mildly interesting issues, though it would still be bogus.

But if she sues because no one rushed to check on her to assist with an injury she did not have, and her feelings were bruised as a result, well — I have to ask, Cathy, why can't be at least as mature as a four-year-old?

Last 5 posts by Ken

21 Comments

20 Comments

  1. Transplanted Lawyer  •  Jan 20, 2011 @6:16 pm

    1. I think the issue wasn't that she was scared by the unrealized potential for tangible physical injury from the fall. Polyak's comments suggest that the suit will be for some sort of invasion of privacy claim based on the circulation of the video of Marreo's humiliating splashdown.

    2. Of course, if the injury is that Marreo has been made into an internet laughingstock, filing a lawsuit in which the video is the centerpiece exhibit in evidence isn't exactly the way I would have gone about ameliorating the damage done to her public image. As tempting as it might be to dispense advice to the contrary, litigation is not always the best answer.

  2. Ken  •  Jan 20, 2011 @6:20 pm

    I don't know. I thought his comments were vague, and if it's the privacy angle, the bit about coming to help her is a non-sequitur.

  3. Turk  •  Jan 20, 2011 @6:57 pm

    I saw the Stephaneoplous interview and thought 90% of it was moronic. But that was due, in part, to the questions asked. I didn't see her blame anyone but herself for the fall.

    It was the release of the video that seemed to be her point, which is an interesting privacy question.

    And I agree with Transplanted Lawyer, that going to the media after flopping into the fountain isn't exactly the best way to salvage your dignity.

  4. Patrick  •  Jan 20, 2011 @7:45 pm

    Outside a restroom or changing room, who has an expectation of privacy in a mall? Does the video being released by a mall employee, rather than a teenaged customer who happened to have his phone camera pointed in the right direction when dumbass fell into the wishing well, change anything?

    Could she sue the teenager and win? I suppose we'll agree the answer is no. Why is the mall different? Does a mall have a special duty to protect the privacy of the people it surveils? If so, why? If not, can't we agree that the mall cop who did this should be fired for making his employer look bad, and move on?

  5. Lynx  •  Jan 20, 2011 @8:05 pm

    The extent of my Libel/Slander experience is High School mock trial, but if she isn't clearly recognizable, and can't show that she suffered real damage from the release of the video and her impacted reputation, I don't believe the privacy suit has any merit. This is the same if it's a mall employee or a passerby.

  6. Turk  •  Jan 20, 2011 @8:07 pm

    Why is the mall different? Does a mall have a special duty to protect the privacy of the people it surveils? If so, why?

    That would probably depend on whether there was any kind of local law on the subject, and perhaps whether the security film is owned/maintained by a public or private entity.

    Best guess is that no law was violated, but this being the digital age with lots of people raising privacy issues in recent years, it would be interesting to see if this jurisdiction (or others) have made any attempts to stop the dissemination of such films except to law enforcement personnel.

  7. Turk  •  Jan 20, 2011 @8:40 pm

    By the way, on a related issue, see Scott Greenfield's post about a court saying there is no right to record what police are saying while in public:

    http://blog.simplejustice.us/2011/01/20/no-rights-until-we-say-you-have-rights.aspx

  8. Shell  •  Jan 20, 2011 @11:06 pm

    Off the point but I had to step in and say – People *can* be recognized by the way they walk or stand or gesture, by people with the wit to do it. I got glasses for nearsightedness when I was fourteen and without realizing it had learned to recognize people at a distance in just that way because I couldn't see their features. The skill has served me well all my life.

  9. Loren Nason  •  Jan 20, 2011 @11:48 pm

    Here is an interesting twist and explains why she is a troll. According to ABC News she is also accused of 5 felonies including theft by deceptions and receiving stolen property. She is accused of stealing a co-workers credit card and racking up $5000 in charges. http://abcnews.go.com/US/fountain-falling-texter-cathy-cruz-marrero-dont-text/story?id=12685189

  10. Marco73  •  Jan 21, 2011 @6:50 am

    As Darth Vader would say, "Now the circle is complete."
    Maybe the Mall will give her a couple gift cards as a goodwill gesture, and stroke a very small check to her attorney to go away.
    Her criminal record will be attached to her fame forever. Any employer that performs any search on her name will find her clumsiness, litigation experience, and criminal record in a neat little package.
    Other than a child molester, is she going to come out of this as the most unemployable retail worker in the country?

  11. Robert  •  Jan 21, 2011 @10:13 am

    The lawsuit may be "bogus", she may have no expectation of privacy, but it was in bad taste for the security office to leak that tape.

  12. Ed  •  Jan 21, 2011 @11:29 am

    If you watch the video carefully, and look at her left leg immediately prior to her "tripping", you can tell that she was prepared to "trip". She lifts her leg abnormally high. It looks, to me, that she is preparing for a fall before she ever falls.

    just a thought

  13. BCP  •  Jan 21, 2011 @11:38 am

    Agree with Robert that releasing the tape was in bad taste, but if bad taste were actionable, the only person on the planet who would not be involved in a lawsuit would be that middle-aged Mexican man who really likes Dos Equis.

  14. Cappy  •  Jan 21, 2011 @4:23 pm

    “We intend to hold the appropriate persons responsible."

    Is it possible to sue yourself?

  15. W. Ian Blanton  •  Jan 21, 2011 @10:59 pm

    Ed: Actually she's just running on "auto-pilot" she steps up, as if she had comes to stairs – nowhere near high enough, and then tumbles.

    The video with the laughter is clearly after the fact (one of the voices says "is this TODAY!?", and yeah, is worth getting the security person who posted it fired for "violating policy".

    A Lawsuit? For DAMAGES? Lady, you must be outta you mind. (which the array of charges she's involved in seem to make that seem kinda likely)

  16. Scott Jacobs  •  Jan 22, 2011 @12:19 am

    "but it was in bad taste for the security office to leak that tape."

    Yeah it was… Hilariously bad taste. :)

    Sometimes I worry that all the idiots and their lawyers have learned about The Streisand Effect".

    But then people like this lady shows up, and I breath a sigh of relief.

  17. Hrdina  •  Jan 22, 2011 @7:21 pm

    I'm pretty sure I've made a similar comment on a previous posting:

    Before her recent threats to sue, only one person (if you believe her story) knew the identity of the person in the video. Now we all know her identity, and her criminal record to boot.

  18. mojo  •  Jan 24, 2011 @11:18 am

    As the Old Man used to say: "Never pass up an opportunity to keep your damn mouth shut."

  19. Mark  •  Jan 26, 2011 @1:03 pm

    Did you get to see the movie eventually? Because that is a good one.

  20. georg felis  •  Jan 28, 2011 @9:11 pm

    Well, if Dennis Kucinich can get 100k for an olive pit in the teeth, this fall into a pool which was not surrounded by a 15 foot tall wire fence and a pool alarm with lifeguard, should be worth a couple billion at least.

1 Trackback