Affair Revealed - Woman Sues Rogers Wireless

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

A Toronto woman is sueing Rogers Wireless for ruining her marriage because her husband found about her affair when their accounts were bundled.

New Article here: http://news.nationalpost.com/2010/05/17/woman-sues-rogers-wireless-inc-for-ruining-her-marriage/

I heard the woman on the radio today - she is sueing for $600,000. She also lost her job because she was so traumatized she couldn't do her work properly and so was fired, leaving her unemployed with 2 children to support.

I agree that Rogers should not have bundled her account with her husbands without her express permission, however, I am having a difficult time with holding Rogers responsible for the breakup of her marriage and job loss.

Here is a more detailed account:
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/lo...es-rogers-100517/20100517/?hub=TorontoNewHome

 

[Darth Rotor]

A Toronto woman is sueing Rogers Wireless for ruining her marriage because her husband found about her affair when their accounts were bundled.

The bundling problem had naught to do with a phone.

 

[KingMerv00]

Simple question. Was the company the proximate cause of her damages? I say no but if she can convince a jury otherwise...

Edit: OK the question isn't really that simple.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Rogers violated privacy and contractual laws. I was reading the comments in regards to this case on another site and someone came up with an interesting scenario...(I paraphrase).

What if these long phone calls she was making were to a crisis centre (say she was seeking concil/help for an abusive relationship). Husband sees the bill and phones the number and then beats the wife. Would Rogers be held responsible for the beating?

It's going to be an interesting case.

 

[The Kilted Yaksman]

So, the US isn't the only country in the world where people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. If it had happened that a cousin had found out about the affair and told her husband, would she be suing that cousin?

 

[KingMerv00]

If it had happened that a cousin had found out about the affair and told her husband, would she be suing that cousin?

While I still hold that she has no case, your analogy is flawed because the cousin has no legal duty to keep information private.

 

[qayak]

So, the US isn't the only country in the world where people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

Well, she isn't suing them for her actions, she is suing them for theirs which are, in fact, illegal. It is completely a privacy issue and no matter what type of cheating b**** she is, she has a right to privacy.

 

[bpesta22]

I'd find for her and make the company pay $1

 

[TsarBomba]

Is the USA losing its edge in one of the last areas where we were still the leader of the world--frivolous lawsuits?

 

[Zep]

You have inspired vexatious litigants the world over!

 

[KingMerv00]

Ya know what? I'm stupid.

This case is in Canada. All of the legal crap I am citing only applies to the US.

 

[hgc]

You have inspired vexatious litigants the world over!

I love the term vexatious litigant.

 

[KingMerv00]

I love the term vexatious litigant.

Throw in the word "tortious" and we'll talk.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

Ya know what? I'm stupid.

This case is in Canada. All of the legal crap I am citing only applies to the US.

Merv - I found your links educational and thanks. If it's Common Law it might very well apply to Canada.

 

[Fat Bottom Gurl]

I love the term vexatious litigant.

I am totally thinking this Vexatious word should be used in signature status lines. Re: Vexatious Poster. Super Vexactious Poster. Master Vexatious Poster.

Awesome word!

 

[Bob Blaylock]

This sounds like perhaps a minor screwup on Rogers' part, but the primary blame for this woman's losses rests not with Rogers, but with herself.

Her husband would surely have found out about her infidelity one way or another; and sooner or later, she would have had to face the consequences thereof. She did this to her marriage, and her family, and her life in general.

What really gets me is this quote, from the second article:

“Everything that I held dear -- especially my job -- is gone.”​

Especially her job? What about her marriage, and her family? I suppose if that was what she had held most dear, perhaps she wouldn't be in the mess she is in now. Rogers didn't do this to her; she did it to herself.

Stupid bitch! I hope she loses this case, and I hope she gets stuck with huge legal fees. Does Toronto have a “loser pays” law, holding the losing plaintiff of a lawsuit responsible for the defendant's legal expenses? I hope so.

 

[kerikiwi]

I can see that a traumatised person may lose a job because of impaired performance. I just can't see what the trauma was, other than being exposed as the cheat she is.
But she isn't seriously claiming the breakup of the marriage was the loss of something she valued, is she?

 

[fitzgibbon]

So, the US isn't the only country in the world where people refuse to take responsibility for their own actions.

We get an awful lot of U.S. TV programming up here. Probably your most influential export aside from Coke.

 

[Rolfe]

I'm not sure why she doesn't have a case, on principle. Just because you lot disapprove of her for being an adultress, doesn't make the privacy issue any less of a point. Suppose she'd been making private calls for some other purpose, that she wanted to conceal from her husband. Someone suggested a helpline for abused wives. There are a number of possibilities.

Unless you take the view that a woman has no right to keep anything in her life private from her husband, I don't see why she doesn't have a case on principle.

Rolfe.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I'm not sure why she doesn't have a case, on principle. Just because you lot disapprove of her for being an adultress, doesn't make the privacy issue any less of a point. Suppose she'd been making private calls for some other purpose, that she wanted to conceal from her husband. Someone suggested a helpline for abused wives. There are a number of possibilities.

Unless you take the view that a woman has no right to keep anything in her life private from her husband, I don't see why she doesn't have a case on principle.

In principle—on legal technicalities—she probably does have a case. But the simple truth is that it was not Rogers that ruined her marriage, her career, and her life; and it is not Rogers that should pay the price. She did this to herself, and to her family; and she's trying to dump the blame on Rogers for her own failures.

I like a good David vs. Goliath fight as much as the next guy, but this time, I'm rooting for Goliath.