Women file suit against Idlewild for teen peeping Tom case

The women claimed that Idlewild should not have hired underage workers and should not have failed to supervise the juvenile employee. They said the teen was improperly allowed into changing areas without adult supervision.

Riiiight, because:

A) There are plenty of adults knocking down the door to get at that type of job

B) All 15 year olds can't be responsible for doing something they know is wrong

C) What if he were using the family changing area as a paying customer? Should they not allow anyone under 18 in said areas without supervision?

I started working at 15 and did this type of menial stuff without supervision. I knew better than to break the law. I'm not saying that Idlewild won't have to pay out something, but the reasons these women are giving I don't agree with one bit.

Isn't it a coincidence that the responsibility in these cases always extends to someone who has money? How did they "allow" him to do what he did? Should employers be required to hire a personal supervisor for every employee to make sure they aren't goofing off and doing what they were hired to do? They fired the employee and contacted the police. Other than installing solid walls between areas, which sometimes may not be possible because of ventilation, I'm not sure what else can be done.

And frankly, I'm getting of sick of these "someone did me wrong, so now I have mental anguish and psychological trauma" cases. It seems like the women's case is against the teen, not the employer. Perhaps they should be suing the maker of the camera phone and broom as well, since they "allowed" these pictures to be taken as well.

Sue solvent parties.

Sue the parents who gave the teen a camera phone. Heck, I know many places don't allow you to have your phone on you at work, and most places now have enacted policies for anyone on property to refrain from using camera phones in private areas like changing/restrooms. I don't think the park is responsible here.

They may pay because it could end up being cheaper, but they did the right thing by firing the employee.

Is it really negligent to assume that a ten-foot wall will keep people from looking over it? I can think of a lot of changing facilities and restrooms built this way (the restroom in Soak City at CP comes to mind).

I could not believe what I was reading when I read this. I have heard about so many lawsuits were people go after 3rd parties. but this one is one that takes the cake. The park is not at fault. I agree if your going to blame anyone outside of the individual, blame the parents. Like pointed out they bought him a camera phone. there are obviously a few discusions that need to take place. It seems that the park did everything they should have done.

Article indicates the kid's mom is also named in the suit so the parents are covered.

If you do something wrong while you are at work, someone else is hurt by your actions and that someone sues, you should expect that your employer will be named in the suit. Pretty typical.

Suing for negligence is not the same thing as being found neligent or even being negligent at all.

Not sure what the damages are in this case. No indication is given that any photos were actually distributed.

Why is it that someone has to make a post like that on every story about lawsuits? It never provides any rational argument one way or another.

Unfortunately, it can cost a lot of money to be found innocent of being negligent. Not to mention that fact that your name (or your company's) was repeatedly mentioned in the papers as being accused of some wrongdoing. Only once will it be mentioned that you were found not guilty. Oh, and if anything bad ever happens again, it will be reported that you were previously accused. Even if it has nothing to do with the present situation.

To many people, accused means guilty. In my local paper, there was a story of someone being accused of something. There were so many comments below the story asking why the person wasn't in jail because of what they did.

I find it interesting that they are making an issue of the fired empolyee's age. Like those over 18 could never be pervs.