Mr Cheeks is now suing on eight separate counts, including breach of contract, negligence, infliction of emotional distress, and fraud.
He might not get awarded the full amount for the reason you mentioned, but I think he’s probably got a good case on negligence and infliction of emotional distress.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve gotta imagine you can easily make a case that publishing something as life changing as winning $340 million and then backing out would inflict some serious distress. People quit their jobs and divorce spouses for less.
Based on the above, I think he would fail at number 1- a mistake of entering numbers on a website does not constitute “extreme and outrageous” conduct. As for point (2) he obviously loses at the “intentional” part, though there is a question as to whether not correcting the mistake for two days is “reckless.” He might win on point (3)- but seeing as how he would need to prove all three elements I don’t see him winning on this allegation.
Unfortunately, that means you’ve left no room for honest mistakes, which is an irrational notion. People are going to make mistakes. Some of them are going to involve mind-boggling sums of money. That doesn’t make it either extreme or outrageous per se.
The lottery drawing was on Saturday night. The website’s error was corrected on Monday, the first business day after it was discovered. Does that constitute “reckless”? I don’t think a reasonable person could conclude so.
Not checking your website when the numbers go “live” to make sure it correctly updated seems pretty reckless to me. If thousands of people are going to be viewing these changes, you at least take a peek when you update it.
Is “detrimental reliance” in that list? Like others, I’m skeptical about the “emotional distress” claim, but if he e.g. quit his job or bought a bunch of stuff because he thought he was rich and is now stuck with the consequences, those would be legitimate damages.
Someone on here said they posted the wrong numbers before the drawing occurred. Like saying the numbers for 2/23/24 are 6,16, 24, 30, 36, and 42.
If he purchased the ticket after today when they were posted wrong he may not have a case and be a grifter, if he purchased the ticket prior to them being posted he may have a case.
Looked it up. He bought the ticket after the incorrect numbers were posted while testing something the day before the drawing. He likely bought this ticket after seeing the numbers and he still might get the money.
Apparently when the real numbers posted it automatically shifted the test numbers over and both were listed. Which would trigger you to be confused if you actually checked your tickets after they were drawn.
The only case the lottery company might be able to use is to have their attorney request the call logs and see if the call he made to his friend to tell him about winning occurred before or after the time it was supposed to be drawn at.
Appears something similar happened before in another state and they paid the winnings for their mistake.
The test numbers were posted around noon the day before the drawing. After the drawing the correct numbers showed up and shifted the test numbers over and it sat on the website for 3 days having 2 sets of numbers.
That seems like some heavy lifting for what was essentially either a human data entry error, or some failure in automation.
I know it’s extremely disappointing, but no one here is really at fault. Clerical errors happen. No process is 100% fool proof.
The most I can see him getting back is whatever he spent as standard preparation for claiming a lottery jackpot, like legal counsel and financial planning consults he may done in preparation. And even then, it would seem like some validation with Powerball was warranted before anything else.
“Emotional distress” is not “made me upset”. It’s “murdered my wife and kids in front of my eyes so now I have PTSD and need therapy for life”.
Edit: To elaborate, see Jane W. v. President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 863 A.2d 821, 826–27 (D.C. 2004). You must be in physical danger to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress in Washington, DC.
The guy has no damages. He didn’t quit his job over this; he didn’t book tickets for a cruise around the world; he didn’t make an offer to buy a mansion with the money. He didn’t suffer any financial loss whatsoever.
Courts don’t decide whether someone deserves money because others were unfair to them. They decide whether someone deserves compensation for undue financial loss.
I expect him to either lose this case, win nominal damages (i.e. one dollar), or settle for a nuisance/PR amount.
Nope. See Jane W. v. President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 863 A.2d 821, 826–27 (D.C. 2004), which sets the precedent in Washington, DC where this case was filed. The incident occurred in Washington, DC.
You must be in physical danger to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress in DC. This case is where the DC Court of Appeals ruled that if you were not in danger then you’re not entitled to damages.
Feel free to cite a relevant DC authority to the contrary if you think I’m wrong.
I assume you have legal experience based on your posts, but I’m not sure if what your saying is exactly right for all jurisdictions. A quick googling shows that it varies from state to state, and that the physical harm can be things like lost sleep and decreased appetite.
That’s not an authority. “Authority” means a court case or statute. It doesn’t matter what the case is in other jurisdictions because this case was filed in DC court and DC law applies. That’s why I cited the DC Court of Appeals. It’s not pertinent to this particular case what the requirements are to establish a claim of negligent emotional distress in other jurisdictions.
I didn’t downvote those posts, but I did feel like the thread was aggressive when it didn’t need to be. I’d guess that a flippant/passive aggressive remark like “New to US civil law?” was (rightfully) upsetting to the user who clearly has an understanding of the law here. That user responded in kind and defended their original comment. However, they then kept responding to other users in a fairly aggressive fashion, even when those other users were communicating in alright way.
I totally get it. I’d be pissed if, after posting a well reasoned and researched comment on Kubernetes, someone responded saying “new to container orchestration?” I try (and sometimes fail) to express the more vulnerable feelings underneath anger online after dealing with my anger in meatspace. I find it results in more productive conversations. It’s hard to do that, so I’m not casting aspersions. I think that’s probably why people downvoted in this case though. People try to suppress and avoid aggression and conflict because those things are uncomfortable and used to be precursors to actual physical danger. It’s just biology and emotions at work.
He might not get awarded the full amount for the reason you mentioned, but I think he’s probably got a good case on negligence and infliction of emotional distress.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve gotta imagine you can easily make a case that publishing something as life changing as winning $340 million and then backing out would inflict some serious distress. People quit their jobs and divorce spouses for less.
This.
He’s going to get something for emotional distress.
I’m not a lawyer either, but it’s fun to pretend like I am one when arguing on the internet 😁
Based on the above, I think he would fail at number 1- a mistake of entering numbers on a website does not constitute “extreme and outrageous” conduct. As for point (2) he obviously loses at the “intentional” part, though there is a question as to whether not correcting the mistake for two days is “reckless.” He might win on point (3)- but seeing as how he would need to prove all three elements I don’t see him winning on this allegation.
id personally thing any mistake when dealing with that quantity of money is extreme and outrageous
and 2 would be in the reckless clause not the intentional
Unfortunately, that means you’ve left no room for honest mistakes, which is an irrational notion. People are going to make mistakes. Some of them are going to involve mind-boggling sums of money. That doesn’t make it either extreme or outrageous per se.
The lottery drawing was on Saturday night. The website’s error was corrected on Monday, the first business day after it was discovered. Does that constitute “reckless”? I don’t think a reasonable person could conclude so.
Not checking your website when the numbers go “live” to make sure it correctly updated seems pretty reckless to me. If thousands of people are going to be viewing these changes, you at least take a peek when you update it.
Is “detrimental reliance” in that list? Like others, I’m skeptical about the “emotional distress” claim, but if he e.g. quit his job or bought a bunch of stuff because he thought he was rich and is now stuck with the consequences, those would be legitimate damages.
Someone on here said they posted the wrong numbers before the drawing occurred. Like saying the numbers for 2/23/24 are 6,16, 24, 30, 36, and 42.
If he purchased the ticket after today when they were posted wrong he may not have a case and be a grifter, if he purchased the ticket prior to them being posted he may have a case.
Looked it up. He bought the ticket after the incorrect numbers were posted while testing something the day before the drawing. He likely bought this ticket after seeing the numbers and he still might get the money.
Apparently when the real numbers posted it automatically shifted the test numbers over and both were listed. Which would trigger you to be confused if you actually checked your tickets after they were drawn.
The only case the lottery company might be able to use is to have their attorney request the call logs and see if the call he made to his friend to tell him about winning occurred before or after the time it was supposed to be drawn at.
Appears something similar happened before in another state and they paid the winnings for their mistake.
The test numbers were posted around noon the day before the drawing. After the drawing the correct numbers showed up and shifted the test numbers over and it sat on the website for 3 days having 2 sets of numbers.
That seems like some heavy lifting for what was essentially either a human data entry error, or some failure in automation.
I know it’s extremely disappointing, but no one here is really at fault. Clerical errors happen. No process is 100% fool proof.
The most I can see him getting back is whatever he spent as standard preparation for claiming a lottery jackpot, like legal counsel and financial planning consults he may done in preparation. And even then, it would seem like some validation with Powerball was warranted before anything else.
“Emotional distress” is not “made me upset”. It’s “murdered my wife and kids in front of my eyes so now I have PTSD and need therapy for life”.
Edit: To elaborate, see Jane W. v. President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 863 A.2d 821, 826–27 (D.C. 2004). You must be in physical danger to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress in Washington, DC.
The guy has no damages. He didn’t quit his job over this; he didn’t book tickets for a cruise around the world; he didn’t make an offer to buy a mansion with the money. He didn’t suffer any financial loss whatsoever.
Courts don’t decide whether someone deserves money because others were unfair to them. They decide whether someone deserves compensation for undue financial loss.
I expect him to either lose this case, win nominal damages (i.e. one dollar), or settle for a nuisance/PR amount.
New to US civil law?
Nope. See Jane W. v. President & Directors of Georgetown Coll., 863 A.2d 821, 826–27 (D.C. 2004), which sets the precedent in Washington, DC where this case was filed. The incident occurred in Washington, DC.
You must be in physical danger to claim negligent infliction of emotional distress in DC. This case is where the DC Court of Appeals ruled that if you were not in danger then you’re not entitled to damages.
Feel free to cite a relevant DC authority to the contrary if you think I’m wrong.
I assume you have legal experience based on your posts, but I’m not sure if what your saying is exactly right for all jurisdictions. A quick googling shows that it varies from state to state, and that the physical harm can be things like lost sleep and decreased appetite.
https://www.forbes.com/advisor/legal/personal-injury/negligent-infliction-emotional-distress/
That’s not an authority. “Authority” means a court case or statute. It doesn’t matter what the case is in other jurisdictions because this case was filed in DC court and DC law applies. That’s why I cited the DC Court of Appeals. It’s not pertinent to this particular case what the requirements are to establish a claim of negligent emotional distress in other jurisdictions.
Loving that the only dude who posted valid legal precedent in the same jurisdiction is getting down voted.
And then Lemmy users will complain how ass Reddit is for exactly this lmao.
I didn’t downvote those posts, but I did feel like the thread was aggressive when it didn’t need to be. I’d guess that a flippant/passive aggressive remark like “New to US civil law?” was (rightfully) upsetting to the user who clearly has an understanding of the law here. That user responded in kind and defended their original comment. However, they then kept responding to other users in a fairly aggressive fashion, even when those other users were communicating in alright way.
I totally get it. I’d be pissed if, after posting a well reasoned and researched comment on Kubernetes, someone responded saying “new to container orchestration?” I try (and sometimes fail) to express the more vulnerable feelings underneath anger online after dealing with my anger in meatspace. I find it results in more productive conversations. It’s hard to do that, so I’m not casting aspersions. I think that’s probably why people downvoted in this case though. People try to suppress and avoid aggression and conflict because those things are uncomfortable and used to be precursors to actual physical danger. It’s just biology and emotions at work.
I gave it some thought and you are right. I will edit my comments to remove the snark.
I appreciate you.