Documentaries on the McDonalds case

[Endless moron1]

Recently two documentaries came out on the McDonalds case, Don't Pick Up the Phone and Pervert: Hunting the Strip Search Caller. Has anyone seen them? I can't tell if they're actually the same.

[Endless moron1]

Someone uploaded the first part of the documentary on Dailymotion, but the picture frame is distorted. I never saw the original news show (20/20, or whatever), but it looked pretty tawdry. I think she said her original lawyers pushed her to go on that show, but she regretted it after.

[SteveBurke]

Haven't seen either of them, but thanks for posting the link.

[Endless moron1]

The suspected caller, David R. Stewart, was acquitted at his trial. He looked guilty, but I guess the jury didn't think they could convict him beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Endless moron1]

Ogborn sued McDonalds and won the trial, then McDonalds appealed and lost again at the appellate court. These are some quotes from the published appellate court opinion:

McDonald's corporate legal department was fully aware of these hoaxes and had documented them. The evidence supports the reasonable conclusion that McDonald's corporate management made a conscious decision not to train or warn store managers or employees about the calls.

The jury found, and we cannot disagree, that but for McDonald's failure to satisfy its duty to supervise or train its employees regarding this particular risk of which it was aware, Ogborn would not have been injured.

It is obvious from the record that the jury believed McDonald's owed a duty to train, supervise, or warn about these hoax calls, that it failed in that duty, and that the failure was the result of a reckless disregard for Ogborn's safety, security and well-being. The evidence justifies that conclusion.

"In such case, this Court will not usurp the prerogative of the jury to believe a witness or set of witnesses, as opposed to another set of witnesses, and will not disturb the jury's verdict." Rojo, Inc. v. Drifmeyer, 357 S.W.2d 33 (Ky. 1962)

We believe the jury found such behavior reprehensible because the evidence supports a conclusion that McDonald's consciously placed a higher value on corporate reputation than on the safety of its own employees. And while McDonald's cannot be accurately called a recidivist, the evidence demonstrated that over a ten-year period McDonald's repeatedly made this choice.

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ky-co ... 05641.html

[Endless moron1]

The Wikipedia page has some links to other cases, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_s ... _call_scam.

Also these two Google Answers pages have some old links, some of which are archived on https://archive.org/web:
http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=310915
http://answers.google.com/answers/threa ... 85829.html