Does the Fountain Lady Have a Good Care?

Does the fountain lady have a good care?

        After the woman fell into the fountain, she hired a lawyer to fight with the mall. The fountain lady considered she was the victim in this case because no one cared about her feeling after she fell, and the security posted the video online without her allowance that made her embarrassed. In my opinion, this lady has the care of negligence, but not defamation, invasion of privacy, and intentional influence of emotional distress.

        First, the lady is not attacked by defamation. Defamation means that the lady has a bad reputation because other people made up the video. However, this video was not fake, it was not made up by others. So, the fountain lady has no care from defamation.

        Secondary, the lady is not in the situation of invasion of privacy. She walked in the public that has no privacy at all. People should not expect having privacy in the public. Invasion of privacy usually means people unlawfully expose the victim’s information, false light, and affect the victim’s personal gain. In this case, there is no conflict of interest between the lady and the mall. We can not clearly see the lady’s face in the video.

        Thirdly, the lady is not qualified by intentional influence of emotional distress. It means that people do the terrible things recklessly with purpose to make the lady has emotional distress. But, in the video, no one had the purpose to post the video. People in the mall posted the video online just because they thought it was funny, they are not intentional to do such a thing.

        Last, the lady had infringement because of negligence. In law, we define negligence is that stuff in mall did not give reasonable care to her, and caused the harm to the fountain lady. She repeated that there was no one helped her, and the managers from the mall gave her response after two days, it did hurt her feeling.