# Family sues after sex offender responds to DirecTV service call



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/collin/Registered-sex-offender-responds-to-DIRECTV-service-call-270423511.html



> MURPHY, Texas -- A Collin County family made a call to DirecTV for service on their DVR in August 2012. They say DirecTV should be held responsible for who came to their home.
> 
> Two men responded to the call. One is named Wahren Scott Massey.
> 
> Massey has been a registered sex offender in the state of Texas since 1998. While DirecTV claims Massey was never an employee, he did go to the call with a subcontracted installer.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I agree 100% its Directvs Fault.
They want to outsource. Then that's on them.
I don't sub out my jobs to ANY one with any type of police record.
Customer didn't call Mastec for the install , They called Directv!!!!!


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I think it goes both ways for the blame, because no matter what anybody says they're representing Directv, 
so Directv should get blame for this also, but Mastec should of conducted background checks before hiring this person, and sending out for a install, plus the affected family don't know they're only dealing with Mastec subcontractors, They're dealing with Directv company as a whole, But the sue should be put on local Mastec also.


----------



## TANK (Feb 16, 2003)

> The information you have is incorrect. The subject you are speaking of has no affiliation with DirecTV whatsoever. *The actual installer was a Mastec contractor who, in violation of company policy, brought the subject with him*.
> 
> The relationship between Mastec and the contractor was terminated.* DirecTV installation contractors and sub-contractors are required to complete a background check before being allowed to perform any installation services."*


The installer is at fault for bringing the sex offender with him on the job, Mastec is at fault if they had knowledge of Massey doing work with the other installer.

Unless Massey was hired by Mastec ,I can't find fault with Directv .


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Yeah, I don't see how DirecTV has any fault here. If I was an installer, and picked up a friend that was not employed by either Mastec or DirecTV on the way to a job, liability wouldn't be with DirecTV.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I agree 100% its Directvs Fault.
> They want to outsource. Then that's on them.
> I don't sub out my jobs to ANY one with any type of police record.
> Customer didn't call Mastec for the install , They called Directv!!!!!


But it's closer to say that the sub doesn't have a record, the buddy he brought to the job one day did.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

TANK said:


> The installer is at fault for bringing the sex offender with him on the job, Mastec is at fault if they had knowledge of Massey doing work with the other installer.
> 
> Unless Massey was hired by Mastec ,I can't find fault with Directv .


That fault comes in because the customer has no control who comes to their door once a call to "Directv" is made for service.

You think it's directv.
And it's not.
Don't you think that's a problem?
I DO!

Directv hired the company correct?
Directv is who the customer deals with 100% correct?

So why should directv spout out "It's not our fault" when instead, they should have said yes , it's 100% our fault, that was our sub contractor, and apparently they didn't not follow the rules we have in place for, and we will make this right.
Then they can deal with Mastec since they are the people who hired them anyways.

Not us.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I have to take full responsibility over my subcontractors.
They screw up, the customer deals with me.
I don't tell them it's not my fault. 
I go after the sub, and he deals with me.
Not only would I sue the balls off Directv,and Mastec , that Tech would have needed emergency surgery to remove that cell phone from his Skull.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

The subscriber's covenant is with DirecTV

And DirecTV's covenant is with Mastec.

And Mastec's covenant is with the independent sub they hired.

I believe that the subscriber's legitimate beef is with DirecTV and that is who they should sue.

In turn I believe DirecTV could subsequently sue Mastec for recompense if damages are awarded to the subscriber.

And so on...


Hey, I watch Judge Judy. I know about these things.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

I'm going to ask a different question. Suing? Isn't this a criminal matter? The family wants money? What?


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> I'm going to ask a different question. Suing? Isn't this a criminal matter? The family wants money? What?


The sex offender's actions were criminal.

The harm that came from allowing the family to be exposed to the risks associated with the sex offender and his criminal actions are the result of negligence. That is a civil matter.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> I'm going to ask a different question. Suing? Isn't this a criminal matter? The family wants money? What?


The guy was already dealt with criminally for this.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> The sex offender's actions were criminal.
> 
> The harm that came from allowing the family to be exposed to the risks associated with the sex offender and his criminal actions are the result of negligence. That is a civil matter.


I disagree. Because the law says that a sex offender is supposed to let people know he is a sex offender. We have laws for a reason. For consequences. Where does the law say that others have to pay money?

This is ridiculous.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> The guy was already dealt with criminally for this.


And that should be the end of it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> I disagree. Because the law says that a sex offender is supposed to let people know he is a sex offender. We have laws for a reason. For consequences. Where does the law say that others have to pay money?
> 
> This is ridiculous.


Because there is no other restitution. 
Maybe they could careless about the money, but a lawsuit is a good start in a lesson learning process.
And maybe if Directv wasn't so quick to saying it's not my fault, "like so many of yous do here for directv"
It wouldn't have pissed off the victims so bad into a lawsuit.

Man up Directv.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

At what point do we stop blaming the companies and start blaming individuals? Sorry I blame the installer if he brought the friend along. Sometimes we need to hold responsible who does it not who's in charge. 

Now if this was a regular occurrence that DIRECTV didn't check it's sub contractors work hiring properly that'd be different but a one time fluke? By one person who blatantly didn't follow the rules on purpose?


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

Cant this happen with any service call from any company. How do we know how many times a sex offender has come into a home and the home owners did not know it.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

PCampbell said:


> Cant this happen with any service call from any company. How do we know how many times a sex offender has come into a home and the home owners did not know it.


Sure, but the company would take responsibility, not say it's not our fault.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> At what point do we stop blaming the companies and start blaming individuals? Sorry I blame the installer if he brought the friend along. Sometimes we need to hold responsible who does it not who's in charge.
> 
> Now if this was a regular occurrence that DIRECTV didn't check it's sub contractors work hiring properly that'd be different but a one time fluke? By one person who blatantly didn't follow the rules on purpose?


Because these companies hire thugs, just to save a buck.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

tonyd79 said:


> I'm going to ask a different question. Suing? Isn't this a criminal matter? The family wants money? What?


Criminal offense can and often does lead to civil action as well. It's actually pretty common to sue the party responsible for you being victimized.

So, say you called a utilty company about an issue.

And the company sens someone out. Maybe a direct hire or maybe a private contractor, it makes no difference, and while they are at your home one or more of the service people commits a crime against you or your family. Theft, violence, sexual assualt. Whatever.

You think the utility company bears no responsibility for failing to ensure that the person that they sent to go INTO YOUR HOME was a decent, respectable person and not a known criminal or allowing known criminals to tag along?

This guy was a known criminal. Whether he volunteers the information to you (Hi! I'm a pederast. Where's the satellite box?) or not people that you send on your behalf in a professional capacity are your responsibility.

The company is responsible for its' representatives.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Is DIRECTV responsible for doing background checks on all employees for the companies it hires or is it that company's responsibility?

Other than contractual requirements with a subcontractor (i.e the contractor must vet their employees), how far can DIRECTV go in setting a subcontractor’s hiring policies?

Should employees of a contractor be told they had to provide their personal information to the company theirs is contracting to?

Why isn’t Mastec responsible for whom they hire? Should Mastec perform background checks of the employees they send into people’s homes?

Further, IIUC, in Texas any employee who isn’t licensed by the state but works in customers’ homes must have a criminal background check. Assuming I understand this correctly, who is violation of this requirement; DIRECTV or Mastec? For that matter was this guy an employee of Mastec or just a ride along?

With that said, I work with a defense contractor and our customer, the DoD, performs a rather lengthy background check for the purposes of getting a security clearance. In this case both my company and the U.S. Office of Personnel Management would be at fault. Of course that's not really and apples to apples analogy.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

If this guy wasn't an employee of Mastec but rather just riding along with his friend, who is responsible for that? IMHO, certainly not DIRECTV and maybe not even Mastec but I'm not sure about that. 

However, for arguments sake lets assume DIRECTV is to be responsible, how should they have prevented this from happening? 

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Just a little warning, this is a charged subject so lets make sure we keep it civil. I'm just sayin' :grin:

Mike


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> If this guy wasn't an employee of Mastec but rather just riding along with his friend, who is responsible for that? IMHO, certainly not DIRECTV and maybe not even Mastec but I'm not sure about that.
> 
> However, for arguments sake lets assume DIRECTV is to be responsible, how should they have prevented this from happening?
> 
> Mike


It doesn't matter. 
Directv should have taken responsibility and delt with the customer that they claim are so "valued", went after Mastec like all business owners do when they hire subs, and discipline accordingly.

Not stuck their heads in the sand, and state it's not their fault.
When some if not most of it is.

When directv sends out a Tech, 
Do they tell you will send out a Mastec sub contractor to service you directv equipment?

No they say we will send out a "Directv" Technician.

That right there bares them 100% responsible.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> It doesn't matter.
> Directv should have taken responsibility , and delt with the customer, that they claim are so valued, went after Mastec like all business owners do, when they hire subs, and discipline accordingly.
> 
> Not stuck their heads in the sand, and state it's not their fault.
> When some if not most of it is.


What doesn't matter? :scratchin

The right thing _probably_ should have been to sanction Mastec but is DIRECTV legally liable for what happened? IMHO, no they're not.

Mike


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

> However, for arguments sake lets assume DIRECTV is to be responsible, how should they have prevented this from happening?
> 
> Mike


You can't, but you also don't look the other way, you take responsibility and pay the consequences for your sub contractors actions.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> What doesn't matter? :scratchin
> 
> The right thing _probably_ should have been to sanction Mastec but is DIRECTV legally liable for what happened? IMHO, no they're not.
> 
> Mike


You wait, the court will find Directv at fault.
Because of their negligence actions.

Really nothing else to say. I'll follow the story, and Directv will be paying.
Read the article, it fully explains what the lawsuit is about, and it's not just money.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

> You wait, the court will find Directv at fault.
> Because of their negligence actions.
> 
> Really nothing else to say. I'll follow the story, and Directv will be paying.


DIRECTV should hold Mastec responsible. They should put the financial fire to them as far their contract will let them. Maybe even push it beyond the contractual boundries.

However, I don't think it's fair to make DIRECTV legally responsible and I doubt they can be. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there is some language in the contract that limits their liability for the misconduct of Mastec's employees. I seem to remember reading that's pretty standard for suppliers/contractors/etc.

The other problem is if they admit any responsibility/liability they open themselves up to other law suits. The risk management departments heads will explode if they allowed that.

I am curious why they aren't naming Mastec in their law suit.

I also have to ask you how was DIRECTV negligent? You admitted there was nothing they could have done to prevent this from happening so where's the negligence?

I'm and engineer not a lawyer but it seems to me that they have to show negligence in order to win the suit.

Mike


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Because Mastec was not Hired by the account holder, Directv was.
Directv outsourced to Mastec. 
Boom your done!

Remember hardly anyone knows directv doesn't do their own work.
Only us .


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Direct needs to take the heat, take responsibility, and then they can battle it out with Mastec.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> If this guy wasn't an employee of Mastec but rather just riding along with his friend, who is responsible for that? IMHO, certainly not DIRECTV and maybe not even Mastec but I'm not sure about that.


The article said.....


> While DirecTV said Massey was not an employee, the police report from the incident said Massey and his partner "both stated they were independent contractors/installers" for DirecTV.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

> Because Mastec was not Hired by the account holder, Directv was.
> Directv outsourced to Mastec.
> Boom your done!
> 
> ...


I'm missing something. Where's the negligence? What did DIRECTV do that was negligent?

For that matter, why isn't Mastec responsible? You seem to be implying they're not at all responsible here and I'm a little confused as to what absolves them that responsibility.

Mike


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Because there is no other restitution.
> Maybe they could careless about the money, but a lawsuit is a good start in a lesson learning process.
> And maybe if Directv wasn't so quick to saying it's not my fault, "like so many of yous do here for directv"
> It wouldn't have pissed off the victims so bad into a lawsuit.
> Man up Directv.


Yeah. I'm sure that's why. They want money. If they get any, I hope they spend it on something fun they use all the time so they can say, "it's so great that that creep photographed our little girl so we can enjoy this."

I'm tired of lawsuits when the crime has been paid for.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Is DIRECTV responsible for doing background checks on all employees for the companies it hires or is it that company's responsibility?
> Other than contractual requirements with a subcontractor (i.e the contractor must vet their employees), how far can DIRECTV go in setting a subcontractor's hiring policies?
> Should employees of a contractor be told they had to provide their personal information to the company theirs is contracting to?
> Why isn't Mastec responsible for whom they hire? Should Mastec perform background checks of the employees they send into people's homes?
> ...


And it only applies to security clearance. The vast majority of defense work done by DoD suppliers is by people with no clearance and no background check by the government.


----------



## tonyd79 (Jul 24, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> I'm missing something. Where's the negligence? What did DIRECTV do that was negligent? For that matter, why isn't Mastec responsible? You seem to be implying they're not at all responsible here and I'm a little confused as to what absolves them that responsibility. Mike


Actually, if a ride on happened in violation of policy, how is Mastec responsible?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

> The article said.....


That's what they told the cops at the time. What do you think they would have said?

Conversely, we don't really know the status of the creep at the time which is why I said "If this guy wasn't an employee of Mastec". :grin:

Mike


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Oh brother...

The family has a case against the offender and certainly the Mastec employee bringing him along. Mastec is a bit of a stretch, but I could sort of see that, but suing DirecTV?

I feel for the family, but it sounds like they want money more than justice now.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

tonyd79 said:


> Actually, if a ride on happened in violation of policy, how is Mastec responsible?


As I've already stated I'm not sure whether Mastec is responsible or not.

However, keeping my question in context, I was asking damondlt why it seems he thinks Mastec bears not responsibility while DIRECTV is liable for all of it.

Mike


----------



## PCampbell (Nov 18, 2006)

damondlt said:


> Sure, but the company would take responsibility, not say it's not our fault.


I am saying this can happen and you may never know about it. There more of them out there than you might think. Just something to think about.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

PCampbell said:


> I am saying this can happen and you may never know about it. There more of them out there than you might think. Just something to think about.


Oh I agree with you.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Mike Bertelson said:


> That's what they told the cops at the time. What do you think they would have said?
> 
> Conversely, we don't really know the status of the creep at the time which is why I said "If this guy wasn't an employee of Mastec". :grin:
> 
> Mike





> "The actual installer was a Mastec contractor who, in violation of company policy, brought the subject with him."





> "DirecTV installation contractors and sub-contractors are required to complete a background check before being allowed to perform any installation services."


It sounds to me like DirecTV hired Mastec as a sub-contractor. Mastec hired the installer (whom apparently had a background check done), and the installer took a buddy with him.

I guess Mastec could have been verifing that installers were alone via telephone calls to the subscribers' homes. That could have potentially solved the problem. The installer might have been innocent, but I guess Mastec COULD put a virus on their installers' home computers and personal cell phones in order to make sure their employees aren't guilty of such things and haven't been caught yet. His buddy could have been planning on sharing the photo(s) with him.

Sounds to me like he wasn't an employee.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> It sounds to me like DirecTV hired Mastec as a sub-contractor. Mastec hired the installer (whom apparently had a background check done), and the installer took a buddy with him.
> 
> I guess Mastec could have been verifing that installers were alone via telephone calls to the subscribers' homes. That could have potentially solved the problem. The installer might have been innocent, but I guess Mastec COULD put a virus on their installers' home computers and personal cell phones in order to make sure their employees aren't guilty of such things and haven't been caught yet. His buddy could have been planning on sharing the photo(s) with him.
> 
> Sounds to me like he wasn't an employee.


So he lied about being an employee? Why lie about that?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> So he lied about being an employee? Why lie about that?


There was a woman going around town this past weekend saying that her mother was being taken off life support, and she needed $20 to get to Columbus. Apparently, someone was driving her all around town to ask people for $20.

He wanted in the house. The installer was probably paying him a few bucks to get done with jobs faster and move on to the next one.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> So he lied about being an employee? Why lie about that?


Maybe to imply he had a reason to be there other than to be a pervert. Maybe to waylay suspicion long enough to get away.

Ya think a guy who has a record is gonna admit he wasn't supposed to be there.

Like I already said, we really don't know the employment status of the creep but I'm sure it will come out as the law suit unfolds. Right now it's an interesting point and will have a huge effect on the outcome.

Mike


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

He already plead guilty and was locked up, so his employment shouldn't be hard to determine by now. And if he was just a tagalong, and not employed with the company, the lawyer would be foolish to even sue.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> He already plead guilty and was locked up, so his employment shouldn't be hard to determine by now. And if he was just a tagalong, and not employed with the company, the lawyer would be foolish to even sue.


No, his employment shouldn't be hard to determine. The article you posted though implied that HE wasn't employed by Mastec.

The lawyer wouldn't be foolish to sue. At the very worst, the court would throw out the suit. At best, he'd make a ton of money by suing DirecTV (you noticed he went after DirecTV, and not Mastec or the actual installer, didn't you?).


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> No, his employment shouldn't be hard to determine. The article you posted though implied that HE wasn't employed by Mastec.
> 
> The lawyer wouldn't be foolish to sue. At the very worst, the court would throw out the suit. At best, he'd make a ton of money by suing DirecTV (you noticed he went after DirecTV, and not Mastec or the actual installer, didn't you?).


Because Directv is the company that customers deal with.
NOT MASTEC
Directv called and sent Mastec to service a Directv customer using directv equipment. 
Customer called 1 800 531 5000
If Directv would have said, " sorry we don't have our own technicians, we sub that out to Mastec, here is their number, set up your appointment and just submit us the bill"

But they didn't.
They said we will send a Directv Technician out.

Again it's up to Directv to make sure their subs, are doing what their supposed to.

This thing happens all the time.
To every company, but they man up because they Hired them.

Go back to paying real employees.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

damondlt said:


> Because Directv is the company that customers deal with.
> NOT MASTEC
> Directv called and sent Mastec to service a Directv customer using directv equipment.
> Customer called 1 800 531 5000
> ...


Okay... an extreme example, but let's say that YOU sub-contract out to someone. This someone has an employee that passes all background checks. This same employee has a brother-in-law along with him that day (against rules). As the employee is working on whatever, the brother-in-law murders everyone in the house. You believe that YOU should be held liable?

It would have been nice if DirecTV sent out an apology, but as this case proves, that would have been a VERY bad idea.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

Taking the statement at face value that the bad guy was just a friend of the installer and not an employee then the only party with the slightest liability in this would be the installer who allowed the friend to ride with him and enter customers houses with him. If Mastec specifically permitted this practice then I could see liability extending to Mastec and by association DirecTV but if it is not a permitted practice then how can you blame Mastec? Did DirecTV handle this in the best way? Probably not but that does not make them legally liable.

As to the statement of using DirecTV employees being a better practice, I agree and I would have to say DirecTV agrees too as thy have been actively taking markets back from subs, you just cant do it all at once. Where I live the Denver area was subbed to Ironwood but DirecTV took it in house a few years ago


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Alan
I would not be responsible for the murders, but the home owners would hold me responsible for my subs actions since I hired them.
That's why I have insurance.

But you are not using the right comparison. 
If my subs were stealing or damaging, or would do physical harm to my customers. 
Yes I would take full responsibility to the homeowner. 
Then I would deal with the sub contractor, whether it meant court, or just brutal beating, lol.

You have to understand, like it or not this is a reflection on Directv. 
They should have handled this with the customer, and then delt with Mastec. 
But instead they played that stupid billionaire game that's always played.
It's Not My Fault. 
So they will pay their brainless layers millions to not admit fault, rather than just set up a meeting with the victims discuss the matter. But nope.

In this case , The board of Directors at directv should have some compassion and concerns for the family, Instead of handing it to their YES man crook lawyers.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

damondlt said:


> I would not be responsible for the murders, but the home owners would hold me responsible for my subs actions since I hired them.
> That's why I have insurance.


The home owners would be dead, so insurance probably wouldn't help you. An exorcist, maybe, but not insurance.

Like I said, if the world wasn't so screwed up, I'd say that DirecTV should have apologized. However, that apology could have been used as an admission of guilt, where there isn't any. It's lawsuits like this that most likely kept them from apologizing.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I don't know about their sub-contractors, but Mediacom here has webcams installed in their vehicles. Of course, that couldn't stop someone from bringing along a "buddy" in a different vehicle, or possibly hiding him somewhere, but... where does it stop?

You can't be with your employees 24/7.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> The home owners would be dead, so insurance probably wouldn't help you. An exorcist, maybe, but not insurance.
> 
> Like I said, if the world wasn't so screwed up, I'd say that DirecTV should have apologized. However, that apology could have been used as an admission of guilt, where there isn't any. It's lawsuits like this that most likely kept them from apologizing.


Yep if the homeowners are dead, I wouldn't get paid, and I wouldn't be able to finish the job.
More than likely I would be facing manslaughter charges since I brought those animals to the house.

That's my risk, and part of the responsibility of subbing out work.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> I don't know about their sub-contractors, but Mediacom here has webcams installed in their vehicles. Of course, that couldn't stop someone from bringing along a "buddy" in a different vehicle, or possibly hiding him somewhere, but... where does it stop?
> 
> You can't be with your employees 24/7.


They are not Employees !
There lies the problem.
If they were Direct employees working for Directv, you know darn well you would have to change your tune.

That's the loophole, subs are an easy way to hire help, but get out of paying insurance and all the comp Benifits 
It's a big money saver.
But it's BS to think you can't get sued because of your subs actions.

There are rules for sub contractors in many states.
Our state not so much.
But a sub can't use any of my tools, trucks, or receive a weekly pay check.
And must have their own liability insurance.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

damondlt said:


> Yep if the homeowners are dead, I wouldn't get paid, and I wouldn't be able to finish the job.
> More than likely I would be facing manslaughter charges since I brought those animals to the house.
> 
> That's my risk, and part of the responsibility of subbing out work.


Technically, you would be responsible for bringing ONE of them to their house. You would never have allowed the actual (hypothetical) murderer to be there.

I'm not saying that Mastec did a good job of hiring someone. I'm simply saying that Mastec could have done their job. The employee is the one who broke the rules and allowed this to happen. If it's found out that Mastec was aware of his conduct, then they should be held liable as well.



damondlt said:


> They are not Employees !
> There lies the problem.
> If they were Direct employees working for Directv, you know darn well you would have to change your tune.
> 
> ...


One of them was a Mastec employee. The guilty party apparently wasn't. If the Mastec employee was a DirecTV employee and did the same thing, I'd still put the blame on the employee.

The family isn't going after Mastec, they're going after DirecTV. If the employee was a DirecTV employee, I'd be a little more open-minded about their lawsuit against DirecTV. It wouldn't mean I'd agree with it, but that I could understand it more.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> DIRECTV should hold Mastec responsible. They should put the financial fire to them as far their contract will let them. Maybe even push it beyond the contractual boundries.
> 
> However, I don't think it's fair to make DIRECTV legally responsible and I doubt they can be. I'm just guessing but I'll bet there is some language in the contract that limits their liability for the misconduct of Mastec's employees. I seem to remember reading that's pretty standard for suppliers/contractors/etc.
> 
> ...


Actually there is something DirecTV could have done. They could have chosen to have their installation and service done by direct hires.

They chose not to. Their choice. Their responsibility for the consequences.

The customer contacted DirecTV. DirecTV takes their money every month. DirecTV has the responsibility for their service and support.

DirecTV is answerable to the customer.

Mastec is answerable to DirecTV as their agent.

The sub is answerable to Mastec as their agent..

The customer is well within their rights to sue DirecTV, the company with whom they contracted for service.

DirecTV would be well within their rights to sue Mastec to recover the damages they incur from being sued.

Mastec would then be well within their rights to sue the sub to recover _their_ damages.

The sub could sue the perv but that's probably pointless and being the one who screwed up the sub _should_ be the one left holding the bag.

And all three are most likely insured/bonded against these kinds of lawsuits. Although the sub's insurance may deny coverage for stupidity.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

HarleyD said:


> Actually there is something DirecTV could have done. They could have chosen to have their installation and service done by direct hires.


Then DirecTV might have hired the employee, and the employee might have brought his friend along as well.

Everybody seems to keep glossing over the fact that the actual employee apparently passed a background check.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> One of them was a Mastec employee. The guilty party apparently wasn't.


According to the offender, he was working for them. Why is everyone ignoring or dismissing this?


----------



## slacker_x (Oct 9, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> Then DirecTV might have hired the employee, and the employee might have brought his friend along as well.
> 
> Everybody seems to keep glossing over the fact that the actual employee apparently passed a background check.


Its not that we're glossing over it, just that DirecTV is still ultimately responsible and will need to sue down the line.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> According to the offender, he was working for them. Why is everyone ignoring or dismissing this?


According to the article YOU posted, he wasn't.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> According to the article YOU posted, he wasn't.


Again...


> While DirecTV said Massey was not an employee, the police report from the incident said Massey and his partner *"both stated they were independent contractors/installers" for DirecTV.*


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Again...


I read that.

I'm People Magazine's 2015 Sexiest Man Alive.

What's your point?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> I read that.
> 
> I'm People Magazine's 2015 Sexiest Man Alive.
> 
> What's your point?


Ok, just believe DirecTV and not the admitted guilty guy.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Ok, just believe DirecTV and not the admitted guilty guy.


It's not that I think a corporation wouldn't lie, but forgive me this instance in which I think the sex offender might not be most ethical person in the equation.

If the offender is actually a Mastec employee, then it should come out in the case. That would mean that Mastec is at fault, and they should have the pants sued off them.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

The family don't know all the details or name of the company that do their installs, All they know is that they represent Directv with a Directv van and show their badges as Directv installers, But if it shows that Massey wasn't a employee, 
than it's more of the individual friend's fault, for violating Mastec's policy, 

But it's still under investigation, Plus we don't know the complete details other than what's reported, 

All would as evidence show that if the contract with Mastec said if Directv would or wouldn't be responsible with all Mastec employees regarding their policy, If it does than Directv share responsibility, 
If not than Mastec would be at fault


----------



## 242424 (Mar 22, 2012)

I just can't wait for YKW's spin on this one... lol


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Mike Bertelson said:



> If this guy wasn't an employee of Mastec but rather just riding along with his friend, who is responsible for that? IMHO, certainly not DIRECTV and maybe not even Mastec but I'm not sure about that.
> 
> However, for arguments sake lets assume DIRECTV is to be responsible, how should they have prevented this from happening?


There needs to be more than one incident to assign blame. There needs to be a pattern.

DirecTV has a policy in place ... they enforce their policy with their contractors ... their contractors enforce their policy with their sub-contractors. The policies that are in place forbid what occurred ... and when discovered the appropriate action was taken against the PERSON who violated the policy.

If there are unpunished violations then the next level needs to handle the problem. If the contractor is systematically not following the policy then there is a problem. Any proof of that? One violation is not a pattern of violations.

I don't understand the call for harsh punishment for something that was handled appropriately. Should the contractor be banned from ever doing any more work for DirecTV because of this one violation? Should DirecTV be forced to shut down their company because of this violation? Should Michael White become a registered sex offender because one subcontractor brought the wrong person along with them on the job?

Somewhere common sense needs to take the place of indignation.

BTW: As far as the sex offender (for those that did not read the link):
"A 12-year-old daughter, who is a gymnast, was stretching. She caught Massey taking photos of her on his cell phone and ran to her mother, who called Murphy police."

"He was charged with criminal trespass, and four months after the incident Massey pleaded guilty to attempted indecency with a child and attempted sexual performance of a child. Because of his criminal record, he went to prison for four years."


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> Alan
> _*I would not be responsible for the murders, but the home owners would hold me responsible for my subs actions since I hired them.
> That's why I have insurance.*_
> 
> ...


IIUC, you would not be responsible but your insurance should pay them off anyway? If you're not responsible then you are not responsible.

What possible legal argument would find someone not responsible but still required to pay damages? I'm just trying to understand.

Mike


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

I don't see where editing was done, but after Mike posted a quote by damondit, it appears I missed part of a post by him, so I'm replying to a post I've already replied to:



damondlt said:


> You have to understand, like it or not this is a reflection on Directv.
> They should have handled this with the customer, and then delt with Mastec.
> But instead they played that stupid billionaire game that's always played.
> It's Not My Fault.
> ...


I'm not denying this doesn't reflect badly on DirecTV. I'm simply saying that it's not DirecTV's fault.

DirecTV sub-contracted with Mastec. Mastec hired an employee that passed a background check. The employee then brought someone along with him on a call... which (I'm guessing) probably would have been against Mastec rules even if the guy wasn't a sex offender.

I feel for the family, as this could have gone a different way, but it's important to keep in mind that the only thing that happened was that a pervy guy took pictures. The mother called the police, and we can assume the phone was confiscated right away. The guy got jail time.

As I stated, in a perfect world, I think DirecTV should have received some sort of apology and some generous credits thrown their way. Unfortunately, it's not a perfect world, and any sort of apology would serve as an admission of guilt.


----------



## gaperrine (Dec 8, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> The family isn't going after Mastec, they're going after DirecTV. If the employee was a DirecTV employee, I'd be a little more open-minded about their lawsuit against DirecTV. It wouldn't mean I'd agree with it, but that I could understand it more.


So if I were to hire a subcontractor to pay my bills and they failed to pay my DirecTV bill, would DirecTV go after them for payment and leave me alone? I don't think so.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

damondlt said:


> You wait, the court will find Directv at fault.
> Because of their negligence actions.
> 
> Really nothing else to say. I'll follow the story, and Directv will be paying.
> Read the article, it fully explains what the lawsuit is about, and it's not just money.


Yep, this is so obvious I'm not sure why everyone doesn't agree. Just because they hire a sub-contractor doesn't absolve them of all responsibility.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

pdxBeav said:


> Yep, this is so obvious I'm not sure why everyone doesn't agree. Just because they hire a sub-contractor doesn't absolve them of all responsibility.


Is there any middle ground? 100% responsible even though DirecTV has a policy in place to protect against this type of circumstance plus the contractor they hired has a policy in place to protect against this type of circumstance. Some sub-contractor who passed the background check (not a criminal) broke a work rule and was immediately terminated for his violation.

The family claims that they want answers ... isn't that the answer? The family wants to know what DirecTV will do to prevent this from happening again and DirecTV has spelled out the policies they follow and how violation of the policy has led to enforcement. Apparently answers are not enough ... so two years later, long after the not employed by DirecTV or DirecTV's contractor person who should not have been on the visit is back in jail they sue ...

"Absolve of all responsibility" or "100% responsible" are not the only options. DirecTV have offered their explanation (and no ... they have not stated "it is not our fault"). They and their contractor have spelled out the fact and what they have done to prevent sub-contractors from violating their rules (enforced immediate termination). Not enough?

The family wants more than answers ... they want money - and they will get it (settlement terms undisclosed). DirecTV is not 100% responsible ... there was no negligence on their part. They wrote and enforced their policy to the best of their ability.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

gaperrine said:


> So if I were to hire a subcontractor to pay my bills and they failed to pay my DirecTV bill, would DirecTV go after them for payment and leave me alone? I don't think so.


From my understanding of the article, the subcontractor showed up and was doing his job. The problem is that he had a "friend" accompanying him that was up to no good.

I'm horrible at analogies, so I can't think how one would correct yours.

You hire a company to pay your bills. They hire an employee to pay said bills. That employee sticks a sex offender in with your check that takes pictures of DirecTV's daughter. - no, that doesn't work. I told you I'm horrible at analogies.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

James Long said:


> Is there any middle ground? 100% responsible even though DirecTV has a policy in place to protect against this type of circumstance plus the contractor they hired has a policy in place to protect against this type of circumstance. Some sub-contractor who passed the background check (not a criminal) broke a work rule and was immediately terminated for his violation.
> 
> The family claims that they want answers ... isn't that the answer? The family wants to know what DirecTV will do to prevent this from happening again and DirecTV has spelled out the policies they follow and how violation of the policy has led to enforcement. Apparently answers are not enough ... so two years later, long after the not employed by DirecTV or DirecTV's contractor person who should not have been on the visit is back in jail they sue ...
> 
> ...


It doesn't really matter what their policy is. Something happened that shouldn't have happened regardless of any policy. What if it was a DirecTV employee instead? Does it mean DirecTV the corporation isn't responsible because they have a policy?

And I have no idea what the settlement will or should be. That'll be decided by the courts. I'm not sure there needs to be negligence on DirecTV's part for them to be liable.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Again, this guy who did this had zero affiliation to anyone except he was a friend of the worker hired to go out there, and was not supposed to be there. How can Directv stop ANYONE from picking up a friend of theirs on the way and taking them to a job site?


That's the risk the company accepts when it goes into business.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability

"The owner of an automobile can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person to whom the car has been loaned, as if the owner was a principal and the driver his or her agent, _if_ the driver is using the car primarily for the purpose of performing a task for the owner."


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

pdxBeav said:


> That's the risk the company accepts when it goes into business.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vicarious_liability
> 
> "The owner of an automobile can be held vicariously liable for negligence committed by a person to whom the car has been loaned, as if the owner was a principal and the driver his or her agent, _if_ the driver is using the car primarily for the purpose of performing a task for the owner."


I delete my post becasue it had already been covered, i was to far behind, but...

You missed what I said. That has to do with someone doing something for the other person, and has a lto of gotchas to it. I mean you loan someone your car because theirs is in the shop and needs to borrow one.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Greed, greed, greed. A pathetic case all around.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> They are not Employees !
> There lies the problem.
> If they were Direct employees working for Directv, you know darn well you would have to change your tune.
> 
> ...


Actually, I personally wouldn't have. If a person was hired directly by directv and the same thing happened, he broke a rule, and there was no way for anyone to know, then no, I wouldn't hold them accountable, I'd hold the installer and his buddy responsible. Assuming they took swift action in firing the guy,and any other appropriate action.

I think this is one sad part of our society. We also want to hold companies and cities accountable, but never the actual individuals who cause the issues in the first place, when we should. A CEO that purposefully drives his company to do shady deals should be held accountable personally for those moves. But we don't hold him accountable, we bail his company out because it would be to catastrophic for the economy to shut down his bank.. etc....

Context is sorely lacking in how we hold people accountable. Its always someone else, and its always the company I can sue for money...

To me, if the guy had done a bad install, that would be more DIrecTVs fault than what happened here. Hes trained to do a job and he does it bad, that's the companies fault. He does something that has nothing to do with his job and is strictly forbidden by his job to be doing in the first place, that's not the companies fault, that's the guys fault, and as others have said, while directv can say sorry it happened, we will have it dealt with, and they can show compassion, they just cant say its our fault.

I still say that all of our opinions is based on terrible writing in that article and we are missing to many facts to know for sure one way or the other, and being this happened years ago, if the writer was actually any good, he'd have all the information he needed to make a good compelling article one way or the other.

I do hope you do let us know what happens, maybe we will see a trial and get all the facts, but who knows..


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> It doesn't matter.
> Directv should have taken responsibility and delt with the customer that they claim are so "valued", went after Mastec like all business owners do when they hire subs, and discipline accordingly.
> 
> Not stuck their heads in the sand, and state it's not their fault.
> ...


How do you know that Directv didn't? This article is terrible, has no real information and specifics, and the writer should be fired in my opinion. They said what the guy told the police ages ago, they never bothered to check and see if he lied? They had YEARS! Why isn't that in the article?

And of course someone who is going to sue is going to say they told us its not our fault. How do we know what Directv actually said? Maybe they where extremely compassionate, explained exactly how their system works, and that they called mastec and had them deal with the guy appropriately, which was to fire him, etc.. And that the only reason these people are suing is because Directv didn't also offer them all kinds of cash?

Its just too terrible an article and missing all the facts that are to important to really decide this IMHO.

As for Directv being at fault, I have a hard time blaming them for this guys actions. Everyone loves to sue the big guy at the top, but doesn't realize that if the big guy did everything reasonably responsible to make sure this didn't happen how can they be truly held at fault? If that's actually the case, then no, I don't hold them responsible, i hold the person who broke the law responsible.

If this is a systemic issue where directv does poor background checks and such, then that's a different story... Or even if their subcontractor does and they don't check on their practices and find this out...

Yeah, they may get money on the sympathy vote, but I sadly don't think they deserve it based on the little poor information that we have. We really need more info. What if the guy had been an employee and passed background, and it was the states fault that they hadn't properly updated their system to show he was a convicted sex offender? Then would you still hold Directv responsible? Even when they did everything right?

This just has to many holes to call it one way or the other. I also imagine this will never make it to court, Directv will offer them some money that a ambulance chaser is probably telling them to sue for in the first place.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> Actually there is something DirecTV could have done. They could have chosen to have their installation and service done by direct hires.
> 
> They chose not to. Their choice. Their responsibility for the consequences.
> 
> ...


I don't think having it done in house or out of house matters in this situation. They should bear the exact same amount of responsibility either way. Your chain of command is right IMHO. But that doesn't mean they have any responsibility in the first place. And I don't think they have much if any in this case, and I have a feeling, what responsibility they did have, was done almost immediately..


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Again it's what the specifics that Directv has written in the policy for Mastec and it's employees, If it says in the policy that any violation of the policy should be held responsible from Mastec, But at least Directv should come out and apologize for this incident
But not to appear guilty, it's just the best thing to do. Mastec is at fault because they're the employers, But Directv is the representative of these subcontractors, Do anybody work for Mastec? And do you anybody know about the company policy and what it entails about violation and consequences?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

Interesting thread. Short on facts, long on opinions by armchair lawyers. :sure:


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

pdxBeav said:


> Yep, this is so obvious I'm not sure why everyone doesn't agree. Just because they hire a sub-contractor doesn't absolve them of all responsibility.


What is obvious? How was DirecTV negligent? What am I missing?

Mike


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Very true, Mystery Man!!

Whether it's DirecTV, AT&T, Duke Energy, et al, they all have tons of staff lawyers that handle frivolous lawsuits like this. I say frivolous, because you combine the facts of large corporation, sex offender and time, you can easily gather a room full of lawyers that will sue 'to get answers for the family'. 

It's funny that the only answer is $$. Find lawyer that would take this one pro bono! John Edwards wouldn't!!

Whether he was an employee of Mastec or not, DirecTV is the recipient of the lawsuit and will handle it down the chain. They will make no statement or apology until the suits are settled- and possibly not even then. That doesn't mean they're a bad company or have no heart. It's just SOP.

It wouldn't be any different if the person had dropped a wrench on the kid. Without the words 'sex offender' it wouldn't have made the local paper.


----------



## gaperrine (Dec 8, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> From my understanding of the article, the subcontractor showed up and was doing his job. The problem is that he had a "friend" accompanying him that was up to no good.
> 
> I'm horrible at analogies, so I can't think how one would correct yours.
> 
> You hire a company to pay your bills. They hire an employee to pay said bills. That employee sticks a sex offender in with your check that takes pictures of DirecTV's daughter. - no, that doesn't work. I told you I'm horrible at analogies.


My point was that DirecTV has a relationship with me, not my subcontractor, so they would come after me for payment. The family's relationship is with DirecTV, not their subcontractor, and that is why they are going after DirecTV. I am not judging the merits of the lawsuit, just stating why I think DirecTV is their target.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

If they didn't also sue Mastec, their lawyer is shoddy. The whole damn thing is shoddy, and pretty much a money grab. If I were to watch Jerry Springer, I'd probably see these people and their kin.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Let's assume the guy was employed as a subcontractor, like he said but nobody wants to accept, then is this lawsuit still bad?


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> If they didn't also sue Mastec, their lawyer is shoddy. The whole damn thing is shoddy, and pretty much a money grab. If I were to watch Jerry Springer, I'd probably see these people and their kin.


Talk about being judgmental ... geez. You know absolutely nothing about these people.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I know enough to smell a rat. 

You have info that indicates they're upstanding members of their community??


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Let's assume the guy was employed as a subcontractor, like he said but nobody wants to accept, then is this lawsuit still bad?


Let's assume Mastec is lying? No thanks. Show me proof that Mastec paid the sex offender, in violation of their contract with DirecTV requiring background checks on employees and subcontractors. Show me proof that Mastec knew that this unscreened person was accompanying their sub-contractor on service calls and did not act as their rules proscribe.

The sub contractor may have "employed" the sex offender to assist in his installs ... but *if* he did that it was a violation of Mastec's work rules (all employees and sub-contractors must pass the criminal background check). The offender was not paid by Mastec, his presence was not approved by Mastec. Unless you want to assume Mastec is lying.

In any case, where is DirecTV's fault? Would Mastec's lie make DirecTV more responsible? Where is the negligence?

Settlements are cheaper than fighting ... so I suspect the family will get a settlement with undisclosed terms. But for this case to actually be won, DirecTV has to have done something wrong. The easiest claim is negligence ... so prove that DirecTV was negligent. If you can't prove negligence then show me the crime. And show me how DirecTV, not Mastec or their unnamed sub-contractor, broke the law.

It seems to be much easier to assume that DirecTV is 100% wrong than take a reasonable look at the situation.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> You have info that indicates they're upstanding members of their community??


As the family is unnamed in the article we have limited information. There may be some information available by going back to the police reports and arrest records but the only thing we know about the family is that they are suing DirecTV. Apparently that makes them heroes.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> As the family is unnamed in the article we have limited information. There may be some information available by going back to the police reports and arrest records but the only thing we know about the family is that they are suing DirecTV. Apparently that makes them heroes.


It certainly doesn't make them villains , either.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Riiiiight, James! 

I'm going only on their reported actions. 

Maybe not villains, but certainly creeps. (Oh, yes, here I am judgmental as hell!).


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> I know enough to smell a rat.
> 
> You have info that indicates they're upstanding members of their community??


The evidence is in their favor, yes. They are suing for a decent amount of money however, but doesn't look like they're doing it to get rich or anything.

And they are suing Mastec as well, no evidence that their AV rated attorney is shoddy.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> I'm going only on their reported actions.
> 
> Maybe not villains, but certainly creeps. (Oh, yes, here I am judgmental as hell!).


It would have been better if the family would have stopped their lives for a few minutes when two strangers were in the house ... but apparently they took the presence of two men in their house casually. Mom stayed in the back bedroom with the baby, the 12 year old stretched. They were careless. Perhaps not criminally negligent, but when you invite strangers into your home it is probably best to act as if you are in public until they are gone.

I don't like to blame the victim ... but there is plenty of responsibility to go around.


----------



## TANK (Feb 16, 2003)

> The family's attorney said they attempted to contact DirecTV for an explanation as to how this happened but received no response so they decided to sue, seeking between $100,000 and $200,000 in damages and also to make sure this does not happen to other customers.


 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/09/directv-sex-offender-lawsuit-texas_n_5663584.html



> A Collin County family made a call to DirecTV for service on their DVR in August 2012.
> Crain said since the incident, he and the family have tried repeatedly to get DirecTV to offer some course of action and to explain how this could have happened.
> "We sent a certified letter that we know was received, tried to get through on the phone system, sent multiple e-mails that were received. We sent letters directly to legal counsel for DirecTV. We've contacted lawyers we know did work for DirecTV thinking they could get in, but to no avail," Crain said. "So, we filed this on the eve of the statute of limitations. This is not what they wanted to do. But we decided, as a family, we were not going to leave this public-safety concern alone."


http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/2014/08/08/family-sues-after-sex-offender-responds-to-directv-service-call/13768877/

The family's DVR needs repair,that would make any of us upset. They get a service call and a terrible thing happens to their little girl,now the family is furious. I would be furious . They try to get some response from D* repeatly with no sucess. I'm sure they are mad as all get out.

All D* had to do was give this family explanation and alot credits on their bill ( heck they give credits out all time ) and there would be no lawsuit.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Mike Bertelson said:


> What is obvious? How was DirecTV negligent? What am I missing?
> 
> Mike


Imputed negligence. DirecTV doesn't need to be directly negligent to be held responsible.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> It would have been better if the family would have stopped their lives for a few minutes when two strangers were in the house ... but apparently they took the presence of two men in their house casually. Mom stayed in the back bedroom with the baby, the 12 year old stretched. They were careless. Perhaps not criminally negligent, but when you invite strangers into your home it is probably best to act as if you are in public until they are gone.
> 
> *I don't like to blame the victim* ... but there is plenty of responsibility to go around.


Yet, that's exactly what you're doing. Unreal.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Yet, that's exactly what you're doing. Unreal.


More one liners and less reasonable thought. Thanks!

So no one is responsible except the multi-billion dollar company? And for those holding DirecTV responsible (especially 100% responsible) will you be paying your DirecTV bill this month, or will you refuse to support a company that acts in such an irresponsible manner? Hang em high but keep sending them money? Hypocrisy? At some point we reach absurdity.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It does look like DirecTV could have avoided the suit. The plaintiffs originally just wanted to have a discussion to prevent this situation in the future. When DirecTV never responded, they filed suit.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> More one liners and less reasonable thought. Thanks!
> 
> So no one is responsible except the multi-billion dollar company? And for those holding DirecTV responsible (especially 100% responsible) will you be paying your DirecTV bill this month, or will you refuse to support a company that acts in such an irresponsible manner? Hang em high but keep sending them money? Hypocrisy? At some point we reach absurdity.


One has nothing to do with the other. 
Only some of you blow this thing out of the water with lame brain post like this.
No one said or claimed Directv is a bad company.

The way they conducted business in this manner is unacceptable.

They should have did exactly as one poster stated, threw them some credits, not ignored the customer, while running away screaming it's not our fault.

They could maybe even assisted in pressing charges against Mastec employees.

But instead, ran like a bunch of babies. 
So yeah directv, Is 100% wrong.

And that's the beautiful part james, I don't have live my live by what a tv provider does. 
And neither should anyone else.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> It does look like DirecTV could have avoided the suit. The plaintiffs originally just wanted to have a discussion to prevent this situation in the future. When DirecTV never responded, they filed suit.


I wish I could double like your post. 
2 thumbs up


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> More one liners and less reasonable thought. Thanks!
> 
> So no one is responsible except the multi-billion dollar company? And for those holding DirecTV responsible (especially 100% responsible) will you be paying your DirecTV bill this month, or will you refuse to support a company that acts in such an irresponsible manner? Hang em high but keep sending them money? Hypocrisy? At some point we reach absurdity.


DirecTV and Mastec are responsible ... that's why Mastecis also named in the lawsuit according to dpeters. There's no responsibility on the family whatsoever, and for anyone to lay blame on them for this guy violating their daughter, is mind blowing. I guess if he were to rape her, her family is still somewhat responsible too? Do you realize how absurd you sound?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> DirecTV and Mastec are responsible ... that's why Mastecis also named in the lawsuit according to dpeters. There's no responsibility on the family whatsoever, and for anyone to lay blame on them for this guy violating their daughter, is mind blowing. I guess if he were to rape her, her family is still somewhat responsible too? Do you realize how absurd you sound?


Not as absurd as you setting up your strawman arguments so you have something you actually can argue. 

Why not jump to the full level of absurdity and say _what if_ Michael White had specifically selected this sex offender to ride along with the Mastec sub-contractor and specifically told him to rape and murder the entire family? If you are going to live in the land of strawman "IFs" you might as well do a better job coming up with your fictions.

What actually happened was bad (not rape, not murder, but bad) ... it has been dealt with in a court of law. Mastec took care of their responsibility by firing the sub-contractor who violated their work rule.

Do we know where this family allegedly sent their letter? Do we know who they allegedly talked to and when? The answers came pretty quick when the TV station actually contacted DirecTV and Mastec. I'd like to know what efforts the family actually made ... not allegations but records.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

James Long said:


> Not as absurd as you setting up your strawman arguments so you have something you actually can argue.
> 
> Why not jump to the full level of absurdity and say what if Michael White had specifically selected this sex offender to ride along with the Mastec sub-contractor and specifically told him to rape and murder the entire family? If you are going to live in the land of strawman "IFs" you might as well do a better job coming up with your fictions.


Did you or did you not imply her family is responsible? You said you don't like blaming the victim, but you are. Continue on with your absurdity, discussing this this with someone who blames her family is sickening.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

The parents were careless, but surely one doesn't expect a pervert will enter the home for an install. However, I —and I suspect most here—certainly wouldn't leave a minor child in the same room as adult strangers under any circumstance. The bulk of responsibility rests on the pervert himself, and his friend who brought him. Is it reasonable to expect Mastec to spot check their contractors for such possible violations? Yes. Is it reasonable for them to monitor every call? No. 

If the suit were filed solely to shake up procedures at Mastec and DIRECTV, I applaud it. 

If done for cash or just because they are pissed off, reprobates for sure.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

sigma1914 said:


> Did you or did you not imply her family is responsible? You said you don't like blaming the victim, but you are. Continue on with your absurdity, discussing this this with someone who blames her family is sickening.


Now we're back to the "100%" stupidity. There is enough blame to go around. Every family should take precautions when inviting strangers into their home ... the final gatekeeper is the family. Everyone has no criminal record before their first crime. Protect yourself against that.

I don't expect the father to follow the techs around the home with a firearm in his hand and a threat that he will shoot if he sees any activity he doesn't like (although it is Texas). But be reasonable. When there are strangers in the home act accordingly. Don't rely on corporate America to protect you and sue when they "fail".


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

gaperrine said:


> My point was that DirecTV has a relationship with me, not my subcontractor, so they would come after me for payment. The family's relationship is with DirecTV, not their subcontractor, and that is why they are going after DirecTV. I am not judging the merits of the lawsuit, just stating why I think DirecTV is their target.


So... you have friends. A friend of theirs bashes in your car windshield. You sue your friends?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

sigma1914 said:


> Let's assume the guy was employed as a subcontractor, like he said but nobody wants to accept, then is this lawsuit still bad?


If we were to assume that, I'd say they have a pretty strong case against Mastec... even if only one person there was aware of it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Based on the court document, it seems their primary purpose is policy. Even if they are awared the full amount, it doesn't seem like it would change their station in life.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

TANK said:


> The family's DVR needs repair,that would make any of us upset. They get a service call and a terrible thing happens to their little girl,now the family is furious. I would be furious . They try to get some response from D* repeatly with no sucess. I'm sure they are mad as all get out.
> 
> All D* had to do was give this family explanation and alot credits on their bill ( heck they give credits out all time ) and there would be no lawsuit.


Again, it needs repeating. A terrible thing didn't happen to their little girl. _*It could have.*_ I'm not saying the family shouldn't be upset by what happened (I certainly would), but a "terrible" thing?

My guess is that DirecTV's lawyers TOLD them not to make any comments. Obviously, that was a smart decision.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I still don't by directv never responded at all. I think they didn't like the response so started sending legal letters. To higher ups. Show me the certified letter that was sent. As soon as you start talking legal letters you have to go trough lawyers and should never expect a response since any response is usually used in a lawsuit. It's just sad.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> Based on the court document, it seems their primary purpose is policy. Even if they are awared the full amount, it doesn't seem like it would change their station in life.


Most people I know would have their station in life changed by $100,000. Heck, honestly, $20,000 or less would greatly improve their lives.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> The parents were careless, but surely one doesn't expect a pervert will enter the home for an install. However, I -and I suspect most here-certainly wouldn't leave a minor child in the same room as adult strangers under any circumstance. The bulk of responsibility rests on the pervert himself, and his friend who brought him. Is it reasonable to expect Mastec to spot check their contractors for such possible violations? Yes. Is it reasonable for them to monitor every call? No.
> 
> If the suit were filed solely to shake up procedures at Mastec and DIRECTV, I applaud it.
> 
> If done for cash or just because they are pissed off, reprobates for sure.


On EVERY occasion where I have someone in my home (DirecTV installer, etc.), I watch them like a HAWK. I don't have any kids, but I've known people who have had contractors steal stuff before, so even if I think this person is the nicest person in the world, I still watch them. If I was the father, the daughter would have been with her mother. I'm not blaming the family (sorry sigma1914) for doing differently, but their actions weren't the smartest IMO.



James Long said:


> There is enough blame to go around. Every family should take precautions when inviting strangers into their home ... the final gatekeeper is the family. Everyone has no criminal record before their first crime. Protect yourself against that.
> 
> I don't expect the father to follow the techs around the home with a firearm in his hand and a threat that he will shoot if he sees any activity he doesn't like (although it is Texas). But be reasonable. When there are strangers in the home act accordingly. Don't rely on corporate America to protect you and sue when they "fail".


+1


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> Most people I know would have their station in life changed by $100,000. Heck, honestly, $20,000 or less would greatly improve their lives.


True, but Collin County is the second wealthiest county in Texas. Now granted, there is HUD subsidized housing in Beverly Hills, but that's not the case here. It's really not hard to find info that the articles leave out.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> True, but Collin County is the second wealthiest county in Texas. Now granted, there is HUD subsidized housing in Beverly Hills, but that's not the case here. It's really not hard to find info that the articles leave out.


Just because you live in a WEALTHY location doesn't mean that money isn't tight for you. Multiple people I was referring to have fancy houses, etc.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Let's change the conversation here a little:

Let's go on the theory that this family isn't in it for the money. They simply want to change policy so that this doesn't happen to anyone else.

How would YOU change Mastec/DirecTV policy to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen again?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Someone doing it for the money would sue first, not after DirecTV or their attorneys didn't respond to the original request. It sounds like they didn't get any response. Admittedly I'm also basing it on a potential job title, though that could be the wrong person that he's not like the old commercial with the guy on his riding lawnmower saying he's "in debt up to his eyeballs". I'm giving a bit of benefit of the doubt here.

From the court document, they do seem to believe that Massey was employed by Mastec. If that is the case, then how the companies should resolve it is a lot simpler than if the installer took a friend on an install.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

dpeters11 said:


> Someone doing it for the money would sue first, not after DirecTV or their attorneys didn't respond to the original request. It sounds like they didn't get any response. Admittedly I'm also basing it on a potential job title, though that could be the wrong person that he's not like the old commercial with the guy on his riding lawnmower saying he's "in debt up to his eyeballs". I'm giving a bit of benefit of the doubt here.
> 
> From the court document, they do seem to believe that Massey was employed by Mastec. If that is the case, then how the companies should resolve it is a lot simpler than if the installer took a friend on an install.


I'm far from a lawyer, but I think there might be an advantage to contact DirecTV first. Someone else might know better.

If Massey was employed by Mastec, there would be records. If he IS an employee, the articles posted were a STRONG example of how far journalism has fallen. I would strongly support this family's lawsuit of Mastec.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I still don't by directv never responded at all. I think they didn't like the response so started sending legal letters. To higher ups. Show me the certified letter that was sent. As soon as you start talking legal letters you have to go trough lawyers and should never expect a response since any response is usually used in a lawsuit. It's just sad.


Really, I've had directv claim they would call me back 3 times, and weeks went on and never a call back.

No doubt in my mind Directv blew them off.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

dpeters11 said:


> Someone doing it for the money would sue first, not after DirecTV or their attorneys didn't respond to the original request. It sounds like they didn't get any response. Admittedly I'm also basing it on a potential job title, though that could be the wrong person that he's not like the old commercial with the guy on his riding lawnmower saying he's "in debt up to his eyeballs". I'm giving a bit of benefit of the doubt here.
> 
> From the court document, they do seem to believe that Massey was employed by Mastec. If that is the case, then how the companies should resolve it is a lot simpler than if the installer took a friend on an install.


Agree again.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> I still don't by directv never responded at all. I think they didn't like the response so started sending legal letters. To higher ups. Show me the certified letter that was sent. As soon as you start talking legal letters you have to go trough lawyers and should never expect a response since any response is usually used in a lawsuit. It's just sad.


Unfortunately, I don't think we have access to the certified letter. There is one however. It would be extremely stupid to put that in the court filing if it was never sent.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> From the court document, they do seem to believe that Massey was employed by Mastec. If that is the case, then how the companies should resolve it is a lot simpler than if the installer took a friend on an install.


Got a link or a reference to that document?

Mastec has made it fairly clear that their sub-contractor took an unauthorized unapproved person on the install ... NOT a Mastec employee or sub-contractor. When discovered that sub-contractor was summarily dismissed.

Delaying the suit until the last days they could file makes it looks like DirecTV did not quickly respond. Is the timeline in the court documents? Does the family say when, how and how often they claim to have attempted contact?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Certified mail, email, phone and contacting DirecTV attorneys. Some of those are certainly less effective. Did they contact Wiltshire that does their FCC work, etc.

Technically redacted but not in a material way.
http://courts.dallascounty.org/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=4922473

Who is Live Broadband, another defendent?

Changed link to one closer to the relevant document.

I think another thing to keep in mind about their attempting to contact DirecTV, I would think they would have done so just after the incident happened two years ago. If that's the case, there is plenty of time for a response.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> Technically redacted but not in a material way.
> http://courts.dallascounty.org/ViewDocumentFragment.aspx?DocumentFragmentID=11024579&CheckDocumentGroups=0


Case DC-14-08556 if anyone else goes looking.

It looks like "Live Broadband Inc" is a local dealer.

It appears that they have taken the "sue them all and let the courts figure it out" approach.

The claims in the court document are certainly not those in the TV station's report.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

My vague impression from the first reporting was that the pervert just took pictures of the girl while she was exercising, but the case adds "of a sexual nature". Could be anything, anything but o.k.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> Case DC-14-08556 if anyone else goes looking.
> 
> It looks like "Live Broadband Inc" is a local dealer.
> 
> ...


Here's another excerpt:



> 11.01 Plaintiffs are entitled to exemplary damages under Chapter 41 of the Texas Civil
> 
> Practice and Remedies Code, because Defendants' acts and/or omissions, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of Defendants at the time of the occurrence, involved an extreme degree of risk, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to others, and* Defendant had actual**, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of others. *


Bolding by me. I guess that doesn't mean anyone knew the sex offender was such, but that they (Mastec,Live Broadband and/or DIRECTV) knew there was a risk some installer would do something bad....?


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> My vague impression from the first reporting was that the pervert just took pictures of the girl while she was exercising, but the case adds "of a sexual nature". Could be anything, anything but o.k.


I was somewhat curious as to what the deal with the photographs were. Don't get me wrong, if she were wearing a parka sitting down on a chair, it'd be creepy as all get out, but they say she was a gymnast, so what's stopping a perv at a gymnastics meet from taking photographs. Ditto for the beach?

According to the court filing, it made it seem like Massey got her to pose for pictures for him. That's a little worse than the articles made it seem. :nono2:


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Really, much worse!

The court doc. also clearly states that Massey was in the employ of Mastec. (Assumed; it could theoretically be any one of the defendants.)



> are vicariously liable for the damages proximately caused to Plaintiffs by the conduct of WAHREN SCOTT MASSEY in that Mr. Massey was acting within the course and scope of his employment with Defendants.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

James Long said:


> The claims in the court document are certainly not those in the TV station's report.


Yes, the court document paints a MUCH stranger picture. I found multiple instances where the court document contradicts things stated in the TV station's report, or the other article posted.

Why is Massey liable for "false imprisonment"?

I do feel a little worse for the family now that I've found out that they're seeking damages for:


a. medical, hospital, psychiatric, pharmaceutical expenses, past and future;
b. physical pain and suffering, past and future;
c. mental anguish, past and future;
d. disfigurement, past and future;
e. loss of earnings/earning capacity, past and future; and
f. physical impairment, past and future.
What the heck happened that day????????


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> The court doc. also clearly states that Massey was in the employ of Mastec. (Assumed; it could theoretically be any one of the defendants.)


Yes, which I'd say puts a little blame on DirecTV, as the TV report apparently had them lying on it, but then that TV report is obviously a piece of crap after scanning the legal document.

I don't know what to think now...


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> "Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk involved, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare of others."


That is the part that I believe will be hardest to prove ... the "conscious indifference". The policies in place show that the companies are aware of the risks of sending people into customer's homes. The policies in place also show that they are not indifferent to those risks.

Under Texas law, who is responsible for obtaining and tracking criminal background checks? The employer? A company who contracts the employer? An out of state company who contracts the company who contracts the employer? Another out of state company who contracted the company who contracts the company who contracted the employer? The suit claims EVERYONE is responsible. (DirecTV in California should have had a record of the criminal background check on every sub-sub-sub-contractor?) Where does Texas law stand?


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Laxguy said:


> The court doc. also clearly states that Massey was in the employ of Mastec.


That is the claim of the plaintiffs. They also claimed that he was the employ of DirecTV and every other company defendant. They could claim that Massey was the Easter bunny too ... they don't have to prove anything in their claim.



Alan Gordon said:


> Why is Massey liable for "false imprisonment"?


That is as easy as trying to stop the girl from leaving the room ... even if he didn't really try.

The news article says she was stretching, saw him take pictures and ran to her mother. If he was standing in the doorway that could be construed as an attempt to keep her in her room (even if he stepped aside to let her pass) and imprisonment. Since he did not have the authority to keep her in the room it would be false imprisonment.

For a child, a man standing in or near your bedroom door can be threatening ... and that threat itself could lead the child to FEEL that she could not leave --- even though she did leave the room.



Alan Gordon said:


> I do feel a little worse for the family now that I've found out that they're seeking damages for:
> What the heck happened that day????????


Considering those are damages past and "future" it could be anything or nothing. A laundry list of everything that COULD be a remedy. They had to include it now (the day before the statute of limitations ran out) even though the child may not need anything in the future. (Of course, instill the victim mentality in the child and she could need it all.)

Responses and facts should help clear this up.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Alan Gordon said:


> I do feel a little worse for the family now that I've found out that they're seeking damages for:
> 
> 
> a. medical, hospital, psychiatric, pharmaceutical expenses, past and future;
> ...


I doubt we will ever know. But this appears to me to be a laundry list of things they could claim. I didn't see a claim that the pervert touched the child, so it's hard to see how d and f could ever be claimed. The others are possible, but except for a, long shots.


----------



## B_H (Sep 24, 2003)

Directv employee going to next job, stops at quick mart and robs it (or his unauthorized ride-along robs it). Is Directv responsible? Are all companies responsible for every crime committed by an employee while they're on the job? If so, then there would be no need for a law suit, the company would just pay out anyway.

However, I do feel Directv should have responded... no, I think Directv should have contacted the people with an apology without the people having to ask for it.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

James Long said:


> That is as easy as trying to stop the girl from leaving the room ... even if he didn't really try.
> 
> The news article says she was stretching, saw him take pictures and ran to her mother. If he was standing in the doorway that could be construed as an attempt to keep her in her room (even if he stepped aside to let her pass) and imprisonment. Since he did not have the authority to keep her in the room it would be false imprisonment.
> 
> For a child, a man standing in or near your bedroom door can be threatening ... and that threat itself could lead the child to FEEL that she could not leave --- even though she did leave the room.


Thanks!

That makes perfect sense, but I didn't figure that out.

As for your second reply, I was being somewhat sarcastic.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Alan Gordon said:


> Yes, which I'd say puts a little blame on DirecTV, as the TV report apparently had them lying on it, but then that TV report is obviously a piece of crap after scanning the legal document.
> 
> I don't know what to think now...


Well, in the absence of some facts, we are all in that boat. However, whether or not Massey was in the employ of one of the subs, or a subs' sub, should come out in the hearings. I'm guessing that the Plaintiffs will argue he was in the "constructive employ" of any and all of them.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Alan Gordon said:


> Yes, the court document paints a MUCH stranger picture. I found multiple instances where the court document contradicts things stated in the TV station's report, or the other article posted.
> 
> Why is Massey liable for "false imprisonment"?
> 
> ...


This part does seem to be kitchen sink type. From the criminal documents, there was no physical assault.
http://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1196380


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

Laxguy said:


> I doubt we will ever know. But this appears to me to be a laundry list of things they could claim. I didn't see a claim that the pervert touched the child, so it's hard to see how d and f could ever be claimed. The others are possible, but except for a, long shots.


As I told James, I was kind of joking.

However, D & F isn't that hard to figure out. As James stated, it's past and "future" damages. They're essentially claiming this experience could resort in the girl having mental issues... perhaps an eating disorder, cutting, etc. At least that's the conclusion I came to.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

B_H said:


> However, I do feel Directv should have responded... no, I think Directv should have contacted the people with an apology without the people having to ask for it.


I still think that if DirecTV responded, they could have put themselves in a worst position in this lawsuit. Any sort of apology could have been construed as an admission of guilt in this case.

I'm not a lawyer, but I think that's the case, no?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

B_H said:


> Directv employee going to next job, stops at quick mart and robs it (or his unauthorized ride-along robs it). Is Directv responsible? Are all companies responsible for every crime committed by an employee while they're on the job? If so, then there would be no need for a law suit, the company would just pay out anyway.
> 
> However, I do feel Directv should have responded... no, I think Directv should have contacted the people with an apology without the people having to ask for it.


We don't know that they didn't respond, though I'd be surprised if they did. They may have smoked out that these were litigious folk, in which case it's smarter to not say anything at all.

Your first Para seems like a rhetorical question. Is it?

How bout the employee who gets hired under a false/stolen ID and commits a crime within the home while on the job. If the hiring company performed due diligence in back checking, but were duped, how responsible are they? Or a regular decent guy, a long time employee with no record and no derogatory reports, who goes Manson on the spot with no warning?


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

dpeters11 said:


> This part does seem to be kitchen sink type. From the criminal documents, there was no physical assault.
> http://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1196380


This link is not letting me in. Comes up with 
<http://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/ErrorOccured.aspx?aspxerrorpath=/CaseDetail.aspx>


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Odd, working for me. Or just go here, into criminal and search for Wahren Massey, or case #401-80506-2013

http://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> Odd, working for me. Or just go here, into criminal and search for Wahren Massey, or case #401-80506-2013
> 
> http://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/


The deeper links send us to the home pages ... but a little search finds the cases.

Massey's is pretty much "no documents available" other than titles. It would be interesting to see what he said he did when he pled guilty. That should be close to the facts or the courts would not accept the plea.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

James Long said:


> The deeper links send us to the home pages ... but a little search finds the cases.
> 
> Massey's is pretty much "no documents available" other than titles. It would be interesting to see what he said he did when he pled guilty. That should be close to the facts or the courts would not accept the plea.


Oh, yes it would! Are such normally available? Can someone post the relevant excerpts?

My using the site that Mr. Peters linked to isn't going well.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I'm not seeing much.

Two charges, pled guilty.
Charge Information
Charges: Massey, Wahren Scott Statute Level Date 1. Attempt to Commit SEXUAL PERFORM CHILD EMPLOYEE/INDUCE/AUTHORIZE (Attempted) 43.25(b ) Third Degree Felony 08/07/2012 2. Attempt to Commit INDECENCY W/A CHILD EXPOSES (Attempted) 21.11(a)(2) State Jail Felony 08/07/2012 

Release June 2017 unless paroled, he was turned down in March.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

dpeters11 said:


> I'm not seeing much.
> 
> Two charges, pled guilty.
> Charge Information
> ...


The "attempted" would be a key word in filtering the list of damages the family is claiming on their daughter's behalf.

The conversation between Massey and the girl seems to change based on the media reporting the story. In any case, it does not appear that he ever touched the child. But as described above (the "imprisonment" claim in the lawsuit), it doesn't take much to break a law. Especially when one is already labeled for life as a sex offender.

(Massey apparently is well deserving of the sex offender label from actions he took in 1989 and 1993.)


----------



## gaperrine (Dec 8, 2002)

Alan Gordon said:


> So... you have friends. A friend of theirs bashes in your car windshield. You sue your friends?


???

If i had contracted my friend to come to my house and not break my windshield but he subcontracted that job to someone who came to my house and smashed my windshield, yes, I would sue my friend.

What's your point?


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Laxguy said:


> Greed, greed, greed. A pathetic case all around.


Go team Directv!

Sent from my iPad using DBSTalk


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> *I have to take full responsibility over my subcontractors*.
> They screw up, the customer deals with me.
> I don't tell them it's not my fault.
> *I go after the sub, and he deals with me.*
> Not only would I sue the balls off Directv,and Mastec , that Tech would have needed emergency surgery to remove that cell phone from his Skull.


You can deal with the subcontracting *company* itself, not the subcontracting individual as they are not doing any business with you directly, they are hired by the subcontracting company. You are not legally allow to do that


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Because these companies hire thugs, just to save a buck.


I can speak for Mastec, they do a background check before hiring anyone.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Remember hardly anyone knows directv doesn't do their own work.
> Only us .


If you look closely at the DirecTV® vans, by law they have to state the company name that is doing business, this info is on both of the front doors. If you don't get a DirecTV® van, is obvious you are dealing with a sub


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

tonyd79 said:


> Yeah. I'm sure that's why. They want money.


About a year ago, a tech driving a DirecTV® van slightly hit a car at a red light, according to all reports, there was no damage to either vehicle besides some minor paint scratches on the bumper of the affected car. The driver of the car got out very normal to inspect the damage and upon seeing that it was a DirecTV® van, according to witnesses, he dropped on the floor, claiming back injuries and requesting an ambulance.

SO yeah, when individuals see big companies, they think this is my time to become a millionaire


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> If you look closely at the DirecTV® vans, by law they have to state the company name that is doing business, this info is on both of the front doors. If you don't get a DirecTV® van, is obvious you are dealing with a sub


Here's a photo of a MasTec van from MasTec's web site.

Obvious??


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Do Mastec techs have their own personal vehicle besides Directv company vans?, I've seen personal vehicles with ladders and equipment that did my install, are they subcontractors? I'm guessing most are subs and some are independent, Do independent installers flash a certified ID tags like every installer with Directv logos?


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

HarleyD said:


> Here's a photo of a MasTec van from MasTec's web site.
> 
> Obvious??


I agree that it is not very visible in that pic but I know when the Denver market was subbed to Ironwood it was plainly labeled on both front doors below the DirecTV logo


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HarleyD said:


> Obvious??


Edited for emphasis: 


peds48 said:


> If you don't get a DirecTV® van, is obvious you are dealing with a sub


peds didn's say the door signs were obvious - he said a non-DirecTV van was obvious.

(Also the sign laws may vary from state to state. If the vehicle is used in interstate commerce federal laws would also apply.)


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

James Long said:


> Edited for emphasis:
> 
> peds didn's say the door signs were obvious - he said a non-DirecTV van was obvious.
> 
> (Also the sign laws may vary from state to state. If the vehicle is used in interstate commerce federal laws would also apply.)


That IS a non-DirecTV van.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

HarleyD said:


> Here's a photo of a MasTec van from MasTec's web site.
> 
> Obvious??


Comon, dude, this is an advertisement. When have you seen a TV add with cables hanging all over the place?

This is probably a "show" vehicle and that guy is a "model"


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

Some residents are going to be weary of installers in their house, especially in that area of the incident, They might go as far as contacting their boss, if he is actually an employee or have any priors.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Comon, dude, this is an advertisement. When have you seen a TV add with cables hanging all over the place?
> 
> This is probably a "show" vehicle and that guy is a "model"


Peds all Mastec employees drive directv vans. 
The ones that don't sub off of Mastec.
My brother has Directv installers that sub off Mastec.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> You can deal with the subcontracting *company* itself, not the subcontracting individual as they are not doing any business with you directly, they are hired by the subcontracting company. You are not legally allow to do that


Um no . You are wrong!

I can go after whom ever sets foot on my job.
I've ran my own business going on 13 years. I know the laws and the laws that apply to me hiring subs.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Let me ask you peds, when a Mastec sub, comes to your home and does a crappy install, and the customer calls directv and complains, what happens?
Answer carefully


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

HarleyD said:


> Here's a photo of a MasTec van from MasTec's web site.
> 
> Obvious??


I wouldn't be surprised if some people here claim it's the customer's responsibility to run the van's VIN to see who owns it.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Peds all Mastec employees drive directv vans.


Correct.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Um no . You are wrong!
> 
> I can go after whom ever sets foot on my job.


You can of course, it does not mean that you have anything to do with the outcome. DirecTV® can't fire any of Mastec's employees or its subs, they can of course suggest

So if you hire a cleaning company and you are not happy with one of the company's employees, you can't just go to that specific individual and deal with him directly, you MUST deal with the cleaning company.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Let me ask you peds, when a Mastec sub, comes to your home and does a crappy install, and the customer calls directv and complains, what happens?
> Answer carefully


Some one else goes to fix the install.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

acostapimps said:


> Some residents are going to be weary of installers in their house, especially in that area of the incident, They might go as far as contacting their boss, if he is actually an employee or have any priors.


That is what IDs are for. The one guy employed by Mastec, should of have an ID badge, the creep shouldn't. This is why I would never let anyone in my home if they dot have an ID. and I don't let someone home that Ia have not call even if they have an ID. One day, the water company was changing its meter to a wireless version, so that they can take the readings without coming to the house, the employee from the water company came yo knock on my door, and I apologize to him and said that since I din ton call the water company he was not coming in until I clued the company an make an appointment myself. A few days later another guy came with ID in hand to do "its thing"


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Some one else goes to fix the install.


How about back charge.
Funny how Directv accepts fault and responsibilities for their subs then.
But all of a sudden in this case directv feels they aren't responsible?
Good thing the pedi file didn't take offensive pictures of Directv's HR, wow Directv would have sued the crap out of him then.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> How about back charge.


In your (proposed) case, Mastec back charges the sub, NOT DirecTV®. Mastec then pays the next guy that goes there to fix NOT DirecTV®


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> In your (proposed) case, Mastec back charges the sub, NOT DirecTV®. Mastec then pays the next guy that goes there to fix NOT DirecTV®


Who pays the first guy?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Who pays the first guy?


Mastec

PS. To be "politically" correct, Mastec pays the sub contracting company which in turn, the sub contorting company, pays its employee


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

They work for free?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Getting paid by Mastec means they work for free?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

No your claiming Mastec pays their employees, OK where does Mastec get their money from ?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

And who else does Mastec install for?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> No your claiming Mastec pays their employees, OK where does Mastec get their money from ?


Obviously from their client which is DirecTV®


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> And who else does Mastec install for?


Why would that matter?

But they also do installs for ATT plus they do work for the government. Pretty much Mastec does something in each of the 48 states . They deal with infrastructure. DirecTV® is their smallest business


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Really, not according to their website.
http://www.mastec.com/en/industries/installation-fulfillment/satellite-TV-contract.aspx
:Representing face and Brand:
Really don't think their smallest client would put their face and logos all over the vans.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Really, not according to their website.
> http://www.mastec.com/en/industries/installation-fulfillment/satellite-TV-contract.aspx


Try here.

http://bit.ly/1ss3Xxx

Fulfillment is their smallest part of their organization


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

That has nothing to do with Directv, stop trying to derail.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> That has nothing to do with Directv, stop trying to derail.


What are you "talking" about? You asked a question and I answered. Mastec fulfillment for DirecTV® (known as AT) is a tiny part of their business.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

If I'm going to put someone's name solely on my vans, they play a Huge part in my business. 
Which also imply they work under directv, for directv.

So they should just admit they are responsible for that animal that they sent to their customers house.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Mastec Advanced Technologies is a fulfillment for DirecTV®, they only do DirecTV® related work and as such use DirecTV® branded vehicles. This has nothing to do with how big or how small that part of their business is. Mastec does not work for DirecTV®, they do work FOR DirecTV®, very different. DirecTV® is a customer for Mastec


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> What are you "talking" about? You asked a question and I answered. Mastec fulfillment for DirecTV® (known as AT) is a tiny part of their business.


No like usual you put a spin on a thread, I don't care about Mastec other subdivisions.
Has nothing to do with this thread. 
You just proved it's pointless for a customer to go after Mastec, because they are subs Hired by others. 
That leaves no choice for the customer to go after Directv, They hired them, they subbed the job to them.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> No like usual you put a spin on a thread, I don't care about Mastec other subdivisions.


Are you feeling OK today? Do I need to remind you who asked the question below. I will give you a hint, it was you////



damondlt said:


> And who else does Mastec install for?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Mastec Advanced Technologies is a fulfillment for DirecTV®, they only do DirecTV® related work and as such use DirecTV® branded vehicles. This has nothing to do with how big or how small that part of their business is. Mastec does not work for DirecTV®, they do work FOR DirecTV®, very different. DirecTV® is a customer for Mastec


We are all well aware what Directv does with Mastec.

DIRECTV has 20 million customers.
Directv Hires as a sub, Mastec to service and install new service.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> You just proved it's pointless for a customer to go after Mastec, because they are subs Hired by others.
> That leaves no choice for the customer to go after Directv, They hired them, they subbed the job to them.


Not sure wire you are getting this from. You seem to be avoiding the facts. All Mastec employees, must be "approved" (for lack of a better term) by Mastec. Any sub MUST go to my shop to fill out paper work (including BC), and take a drug test which is paid by Mastec.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

When Directv has a customer service call, who do they call to fix it?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> We are all well aware what Directv does with Mastec.
> 
> DIRECTV has 20 million customers.
> Directv Hires as a sub, Mastec to service and install new service.


Exactly, thank you. but Mastec is not a "sub" but rather and authorized contractor. Mastec then subs the work out to smaller companies.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Not sure wire you are getting this from. You seem to be avoiding the facts. All Mastec employees, must be "approved" (for lack of a better term) by Mastec.  Any sub MUST go to my shop to fill out paper work (including BC), and take a drug test which is paid by Mastec.


So what?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> When Directv has a customer service call, who do they call to fix it?


They can call DirecTV® and or Mastec. Mastec only if within warranty period.(90 days)


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> So what?


So lets ignore the facts&#8230;. Amazing&#8230;..


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Exactly, thank you. but Mastec is not a "sub" but rather and authorized contractor. Mastec then subs the work out to smaller companies.


YOU'RE EITHER A SUB OR EMPLOYEE.

Authorized contractor is payed with either a 1099 or W2?

So what don't you understand about subs and employees?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> They can call DirecTV® and or Mastec. Mastec only if within warranty period.(90 days)


BS 
Directv doesn't tell you to call Mastec. 
And that's not what I said.

I said who does directv call, when the customers have a service call?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

I was not referring to an employee, but rather Mastec as a whole in regards to DirecTV®. Mastec is the authorized Contractor for DirecTV® since they are the “first inline” Smaller companies then “feeding off” of Mastec. These are the sub contracting companies.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> So lets ignore the facts&#8230;. Amazing&#8230;..


Lots of jobs require background checks and certification. Again so what?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> BS
> Directv doesn't tell you to call Mastec.
> And that's not what I said.
> 
> I said who does directv call, when the customers have a service call?


Well, DirecTV® does not "call" anyone. Depending on the customers market, the work order gets assigned accordingly. In this case Mastec got the service call


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Lots of jobs require background checks and certification. Again so what?


Then they are doing as much as they can to protect their customers. This includes Mastec.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> I was not referring to an employee, but rather Mastec as a whole in regards to DirecTV®. Mastec is the authorized Contractor for DirecTV® since they are the "first inline" Smaller companies then "feeding off" of Mastec. These are the sub contracting companies.


And Mastec is a sub contractor off of Directv. If you say no, then they are employed by directv.
Take your pick it's one or the other.
Directv has to pay Mastec some how. Otherwise they can't pay their subs and employees.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Then they are doing as much as they can to protect their customers. This includes Mastec.


No one said they weren't. 
But directv is still responsible for Mastec actions toward DIRECTV customers. 
As much as yous don't want to admit it.
It's Directv's paid hired tech, sent to fix Directv's equipment.
A person calls directv for service, we have no control over how they handle it after the phone is hung up.

That's part of the business., The other part is accepting responsibility.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> And Mastec is a sub contractor off of Directv. If you say no, then they are employed by directv.


Nope is neither. DirecTV® is just a client for Mastec, as is the government, National Grid, Dominion, Transcanada, etc


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> No one said they weren't.
> But directv is still responsible for Mastec actions toward DIRECTV customers.
> As much as yous don't want to admit it.
> It's Directv's paid hired tech, sent to fix Directv's equipment.


Nope, they aren't. DirecTV® can't do anything about Mastec employees. Any "beef" DirecTV® may have with Mastec employees must be take care by Mastec. Basically, the person or company whose name is on your paycheck can deal with you. I dont need to answer to anyone at DirecTV®


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Nope is neither. DirecTV® is just a client for Mastec, as is the government, National Grid, Dominion, Transcanada, etc


 So Mastec doesn't pay taxes?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Nope, they aren't. DirecTV® can't do anything about Mastec employees. Any "beef" DirecTV® may have with Mastec employees must be take care by Mastec. Basically, the person or company whose name is on your paycheck can deal with you. I dont need to answer to anyone at DirecTV®


No but if Directv call up Mastec and says fire that guy I don't want him going to anymore of my customers homes. YOUR FIRED


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

I'm done with you because all of this was covered like 50 pages ago. Maybe you should go back and read some.

It was stated Multiple times that Directv should have dealt with the customer . Made it right with victim, then Directv should have went after Mastec to recoupe their losses maybe even file addtional charges to help insure the policy is fully inforced.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Exactly, thank you. but Mastec is not a "sub" but rather and authorized contractor. Mastec then subs the work out to smaller companies.


But who is the prime contractor? Mastec or Live Broadband?



peds48 said:


> Nope is neither. DirecTV® is just a client for Mastec, as is the government, National Grid, Dominion, Transcanada, etc


Actually, Mastec is the contractor to DirecTV...or Live Broadband I'm not sure from the filing. If we assume Mastech is the prime contractor, that makes the techs either employees or subs.

Do a searching is seems Texas law requires anyone not licensed by the state but performs work in a customers home to have a background check.

IIUC, who would be responsible for this check. Did Massey work for Bassett or Mastech and who is responsible for performing and maintaining the background checks.

If Bassett was the sub to Mastech and if Texas law requires a background check of anyone performing work inside a customers home, then who is responsible for the background?

I have lots of questions but few answers. :grin:

Mike


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I could imagine a lot of fingerpointing in the courtroom with Mastec and Directv, if it comes to that in the lawsuit.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> No but if Directv call up Mastec and says fire that guy I don't want him going to anymore of my customers homes. YOUR FIRED


Not necessarily. There would be an investigation and Mastec could just relocate that person to another position that does not deals with DirecTV® customers. Point here is that is up to Mastec wether or not to terminate some one, not DirecTV®


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> But who is the prime contractor? Mastec or Live Broadband?
> 
> Actually, Mastec is the contractor to DirecTV...or Live Broadband I'm not sure from the filing. If we assume Mastech is the prime contractor, that makes the techs either employees or subs.


Exactly. Prime contractor or Authorized Contractor. Then there are employees (w2) and subs (1099) or report to Mastec not DirecTV®


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> IIUC, who would be responsible for this check. Did Massey work for Bassett or Mastech and who is responsible for performing and maintaining the background checks.
> 
> If Bassett was the sub to Mastech and if Texas law requires a background check of anyone performing work inside a customers home, then who is responsible for the background?
> 
> ...


If the tech worked for Mastec, mastec is responsible for doing the BC. But if the creep is just a ride along, he is not authorized to perform any DirecTV® on Mastec behalf


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Exactly. Prime contractor or Authorized Contractor. Then there are employees (w2) and subs (1099) or report to Mastec not DirecTV®


I'm a prime contractor too. It doesn't mean I don't get sent a 1099 from a home owner,or even other dealers of whom houses we always build for. I also sent out many 1099, to masons, electricians, plumbers.

You have no clue, if Directv is paying Mastec to perform work, you can bet you bottom dollar they most certainly are using it as a write off as a business expense. 
And Mastec has to claim what they got paid as income.
That makes Mastec a SUB.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Comon, dude, this is an advertisement. When have you seen a TV add with cables hanging all over the place?
> 
> This is probably a "show" vehicle and that guy is a "model"


Tell ya' what.

Theres a MasTec equipment yard at 1200 N. Main St, Avon Park FL, 33825.

Go to Google Maps for this address and check out the street view. That's no advertisement.

There are about half a dozen vans just like that one in the picture. They do say MasTec on each door, in letters about 1.5" high directly beneath the Foot-High DirecTV cyclone logo. If youaren't looking for it, you won't notice it.

You know what? I'll save you the trouble...


----------



## Yoda-DBSguy (Nov 4, 2006)

TANK said:


> The installer is at fault for bringing the sex offender with him on the job, Mastec is at fault if they had knowledge of Massey doing work with the other installer.
> 
> Unless Massey was hired by Mastec ,I can't find fault with Directv .


Bottom line is simply this:
If not for the call to directv, the offerder wouldn't have been there.

DirecTV, Mastec, the MAstec employee as well as the actual offender could; and all should be sued.

The customer called DirecTV directly. As all companies do these days, I'm 100% sure that DirecTV indicated that they would setup a service call for a particular date if not for a specificly time range. Or stated that an installer would be contacting them prior to arriving.

Ultimately it's the reposnsibility of the Company as to what vendors or subcontractors they "contract" with. It was their choice to employee or contract the job to NOT the customers choice or even option for that matter.

If not but for the actions of all individuals involved this entire ordeal would have never taken place. The only party that was not at fault at all was the home owner and their family!


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Many believe that the parents share some responsibility for the kid's exposure to a pervert. 

As I said before, if they did this to really shake things up in the procedures by DIRECTV to monitor their subs and their subs' subs, great. (And the procedures in the subs).

But it seems like a money grab to me.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Many believe that the parents share some responsibility for the kid's exposure to a pervert.
> 
> As I said before, if they did this to really shake things up in the procedures by DIRECTV to monitor their subs and their subs' subs, great. (And the procedures in the subs).
> 
> But it seems like a money grab to me.


The amount they're seeking is far from a money grab.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> The amount they're seeking is far from a money grab.


$100,000 is a lot for some, and I am not sure it's limited to that amount. (Pain and suffering etc. Might be an additional award.) And perhaps their lawyer felt that asking for more increased the chance of dismissal.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> $100,000 is a lot for some, and I am not sure it's limited to that amount. (Pain and suffering etc. Might be an additional award.) And perhaps their lawyer felt that asking for more increased the chance of dismissal.


It's not that much for this area.... Murphy is in the same county as me.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> It's not that much for this area.... Murphy is in the same county as me.


Maybe you know something about the family, but most counties in most states have a wide range of income and education levels.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

peds48 said:


> Comon, dude, this is an advertisement. When have you seen a TV add with cables hanging all over the place?
> 
> This is probably a "show" vehicle and that guy is a "model"


When the tech comes to my house that's exactly what the truck looks like, even thought it's a contractor.

Mike


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Maybe you know something about the family, but most counties in most states have a wide range of income and education levels.


Very true, but it's not hard to deduce that kind of info. If the plaintiff is who I think he is, his profession is generally well paying and not conducive to someone who's in a lot of debt. But I have no way to confirm that they are the same person.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> And Mastec is a sub contractor off of Directv. If you say no, then they are employed by directv.
> Take your pick it's one or the other.
> Directv has to pay Mastec some how. Otherwise they can't pay their subs and employees.


On my kitchen remodel install we had a contract with a particular company. They were the contractor and most everyone that did the work in the house were subs (the installers for the actual cabinets were employees but everyone else was a sub-contractor).

For a lot of what I do there is a prime contractor who contracts to the Navy. They then sub-contract work to us; we work for them and not the Navy. We are also a contractor directly to the Navy; a contractor not a sub.

However, if I understand you correctly there are no contractors to DirecTV everyone is a sub-contractor? Do I have that right and if so why is it that way instead of the Mastec being a contractor to DirecTV?

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

sigma1914 said:


> It's not that much for this area.... Murphy is in the same county as me.


I think that's not much for any area these days. It certainly wouldn't be life changing to any family. If they won, and subtracting lawyers fees and what not, what's left wouldn't last long.

IMHO, it's clear that the amount and the law suit is to make a point. I believe that they believe it's the principle of the situation and not a get rich quick scheme.

Mike


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

HarleyD said:


> There are about half a dozen vans just like that one in the picture. * They do say MasTec on each door,* in letters about 1.5" high directly beneath the Foot-High DirecTV cyclone logo. If youaren't looking for it, you won't notice it.


That is all I am pointing out., thanks Is not like they are trying to hide who they are.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> That makes Mastec a SUB.


Sub is a third party, Mastec is the "middle" guy between DirecTV® and smaller companies. This makes Mastec a prime or direct contractor


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> When the tech comes to my house that's exactly what the truck looks like, even thought it's a contractor.
> 
> Mike


And what is the name of the contracting company?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Mike Bertelson said:


> On my kitchen remodel install we had a contract with a particular company. They were the contractor and most everyone that did the work in the house were subs (the installers for the actual cabinets were employees but everyone else was a sub-contractor).
> 
> For a lot of what I do there is a prime contractor who contracts to the Navy. They then sub-contract work to us; we work for them and not the Navy. We are also a contractor directly to the Navy; a contractor not a sub.
> 
> ...


Exactly my point.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Sub is a third party, Mastec is the "middle" guy between DirecTV® and smaller companies. This makes Mastec a prime or direct contractor


I'm a General Contractor, but I'm still self employed.
And I still work for homeowners.
So they spend money to pay me, I have to claim that money as income.
Mastec does exactly the same thing with directv.
They are their own company that gets hired to perform work for Directv. Mastec is subbed the work from directv.
Then in turn, Mastec takes the contracts and subs out the work to its sub contractors which is the 3rd party you speak of.

MASTEC is the 2nd party
That's like me Hiring an electrician to do all my electric, but he never sets foot on the job, instead he subs the job out to a 3rd party.
I DON'T DEAL WITH THE 3RD PARTY.
Neither does directv, they deal with the 2nd party which is Mastec.

The company they hire for their service is Mastec.
What happends from that point on has nothing to do with Directv's customers.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

Yoda-DBSguy said:


> Bottom line is simply this:
> If not for the call to directv, the offerder wouldn't have been there.
> 
> DirecTV, Mastec, the MAstec employee as well as the actual offender could; and all should be sued.


Oh, they all are named in the suit.

Lets see ... Massey goes with a Mastec sub-contractor's employee to the job.
The sub-contractor's employee is at fault.
The sub-contractor that hired the guy who brought Massey is at fault.
DirecTV's contractor Mastec that hired the sub-contractor company is at fault.
DirecTV that hired Mastec is at fault. Should we stop there?

If the customer had not ordered a replacement DVR the offender would not have been there.
(Oops ... gotta stop before getting to that level.)

How about we blame the 20 million current and countless former customers who kept DirecTV in business long enough to sell the customer service and hire Mastec (and the chain of subs)? How about we blame the FCC for granting satellite licenses to DirecTV -- without those licenses DirecTV would not be sending people to install their equipment? The "if only" game is more fun without rational limits.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> That is all I am pointing out., thanks Is not like they are trying to hide who they are.


Not exactly promoting it either.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

HarleyD said:


> Not exactly promoting it either.


Why would they want to "promote it"? If you want to know, you will look and will find, for those that don't care, they wont find it.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> The company they hire for their service is Mastec.
> What happends from that point on has nothing to do with Directv's customers.


The plaintiff would disagree. They are DirecTV's customers ... and what happened after DirecTV hired Mastec certainly changed their lives.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> The plaintiff would disagree. They are DirecTV's customers ... and what happened after DirecTV hired Mastec certainly changed their lives.


That I agree with you, what I mean is the customer shouldn't have to deal with anyone but Directv. 
But fact is Directv doesn't tell you to set up appointments with Mastec, so what do you really expect a customer to do?

I'm not worried, because I'm present for all service calls.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> I'm not worried, because I'm present for all service calls.


Unfortunately Mr White has far too many service calls to follow that example.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

peds48 said:


> And what is the name of the contracting company?


It's been a long time so I don't remember. Whom ever serves RI and SE CT.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> I'm a General Contractor, but I'm still self employed.
> And I still work for homeowners.
> So they spend money to pay me, I have to claim that money as income.
> Mastec does exactly the same thing with directv.
> ...


If I understand the IRS definitions correctly aren't you then the contractor to the homeowner and anyone you hire is either your employee or a contracted to you and thus a sub to the homeowner?

I know it's been twenty five years since I was self-employed but that's the way it used to work.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I have edited a couple of posts. Please keep it civil and no personal comments.

Mike


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> If I understand the IRS definitions correctly aren't you then the contractor to the homeowner and anyone you hire is either your employee or a contracted to you and thus a sub to the homeowner?
> 
> I know it's been twenty five years since I was self-employed but that's the way it used to work.
> 
> Mike


Yes,
I'm contracted by the home owner, and also get contracted by a few local home building companies whom sell Log home kits.
All of which I'm my own boss, and I have 13 employees of my own.
I also have 5 different sub contractors I use to do certain things I chose not to do.

They don't work with my crew at all. 
But I'm still in charge of over seeing all of the subcontactors.
That's what the Home owners or authorized dealers pay me for.
That a General contractor.

That's What Mastec is to Directv

Directv Hired Mastec to over see and take care of their service and tech department.

Now Mastec subs out their jobs to other independent companies.
and Peds works under the 3rd party.
Peds boss works under the 2nd party which would be Mastec.
Mastec cuts peds boss a check for all the work they've done, my guess every 30 days.

Then peds boss pays him, every 2 weeks on the books, unless he is self employed, which I doubt.

Now Directv gets a bill from Mastec for the amount that went out from Mastec to pay all of its subs , again maybe 30 days might be quartly, might even be a set price, doubt that though.

Then Directv pays the amount, and claims that amount as a business expense.
In turn Mastec is sent a 1099 proving that Directv paid that money to them.
Mastec then has to claim that money, so in turn they send 1099 to peds boss for the expenses they paid peds boss.

Then peds boss who files a W2 on peds can in turn write off what he paid peds all year.

Then peds boss takes a withholding for his taxes, which then he could have deductions of his own, like married, EIC, which gets deduced off his withholdings, that may or may not give him a refund.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Very rarely Mike do you get a home owner that pays cash.
Homeowners that are building houses are most times getting money from the bank, the banks will send you a 1099 also.
But even the homeowner will send you a 1099 too, just depends. They can write off money and reduce their tax payout, they will.
Billion dollar companies like Directv will never let Mastec work for cash.
When Mastec does work for Directv, 
Directv is their boss. 
Directv is supposed to oversee their operations when it comes to the Directv side of things.
Why else would directv put their logos all over their vans.
They want customer to know who they are.


----------



## acostapimps (Nov 6, 2011)

I bet in the lawsuit they would want every document presented including: Directv internal policy Mastec internal policy Monitoring recorded for service call, Cellphone from suspect, Employee work records Third party contractors paperwork if any
Background check records from employee Police records License records from Mastec Certification records from employee
Suspect arrest records Those are the ones that comes to mind. But I could be wrong on how this process works


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

It would be better to eliminate everything you don't KNOW ... no guessing ... from the explanation.



damondlt said:


> Yes,
> I'm contracted by the home owner, and also get contracted by a few local home building companies whom sell Log home kits.
> All of which I'm my own boss, and I have 13 employees of my own.
> I also have 5 different sub contractors I use to do certain things I chose not to do.


You apparently perform contract labor. Do this and I will pay you that. I could hire a contractor to fix my plumbing or replace a wall in my home. Or even to cut my grass. The contract may be complicated or simple, written or verbal ... but it is basically piecework. Do this and I will pay you that.

If you don't do "this" I won't pay you. If you choose to have someone else do "this" or part of the "this" I am paying for I'll still pay you (assuming my contract for you to do this allowed you to sub-contract the work).

If I paid for a master plumber to work in my home and they sent an apprentice I probably would not pay ... if the contract specified "a master plumber" will perform the work - and no weasel words such as "we hire master plumbers" (but can send an apprentice) I could demand the plumber I paid for. If I paid for a wall to be replaced and there was an electrical outlet in that wall or plumbing that required a sub-contractor to complete the work I'd expect to know the details up front - but I'd pay my contractor and not worry if he paid his sub-contractors or not. That is his business (unless the contract stated otherwise).



damondlt said:


> Now Directv gets a bill from Mastec for the amount that went out from Mastec to pay all of its subs , again maybe 30 days might be quartly, might even be a set price, doubt that though.


DirecTV should get a bill from Mastec for the amount DirecTV agreed to pay for the work performed. What Mastec pays its subs should be irrelevant. Not DirecTV's problem. Mastec is performing contracted work for DirecTV. (Unless the contract is "time and materials" ... which helps Mastec when a job takes longer, helps DirecTV when a job takes less time and is more of a pass through with markup.)

The part where I believe you are disagreeing with others on is what kind of business DirecTV is running. DirecTV's business is retail - satellite service and equipment sales and leasing. People buy the satellite service and buy or lease the equipment for a fee. Any labor involved is secondary to DirecTV's main business.

If I walk into a bicycle store and buy an unassembled bike I am buying a product. I may pay extra and get the bike assembled by someone at the store ... but the assembly fee is incidental to the purchase of the bike.

You are trying to claim that DirecTV is the contractor when DirecTV is a retailer who, along with performing work on their own, pays contractors to assist with certain tasks. Mastec is a contractor for DirecTV (not an employee) performing certain tasks. Mastec sub-contracts certain work to other companies and individuals.

Not every company is a contractor.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Why else would directv put their logos all over their vans.
> They want customer to know who they are.


If DirecTV wanted to pay me enough money I'd drive around in a van with their logo on it. Consider it advertising. Local satellite companies that perform their own work with their own vans could also have the DirecTV logo on their van (although usually not as prominent - in my experience). Those companies may even get some money from DirecTV for having the logo on their vans.

It is reassuring when a customer who is getting their DirecTV system installed or serviced has a tech arrive in a logo covered van. Part of the service that DirecTV is paying Mastec for is imaging (marketing). The local heating and cooling business may not be owned and operated by a brand of heating or air conditioning system. But they could advertise the product they sell on the side of their service vehicles ... just like Mastec is advertising the product they service on the side of their service vehicles.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> I'm a General *Contractor*, but I'm still self employed.


Exactly my point. You would not call yourself a "General *Sub*contractor" correct?


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> That's What Mastec is to Directv
> 
> Directv Hired Mastec to over see and take care of their service and tech department.
> 
> ...


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> When Mastec does work for Directv,
> Directv is their boss.


Well, not sure "boss" is the right term. DirecTV® is Mastec's client


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> Directv is supposed to oversee their operations when it comes to the Directv side of things.
> Why else would directv put their logos all over their vans.
> They want customer to know who they are.


DirecTV does not oversee Mastec operations, but there are expectations that must be met.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

James Long said:


> If DirecTV wanted to pay me enough money I'd drive around in a van with their logo on it. Consider it advertising. Local satellite companies that perform their own work with their own vans could also have the DirecTV logo on their van (although usually not as prominent - in my experience). Those companies may even get some money from DirecTV for having the logo on their vans.
> 
> It is reassuring when a customer who is getting their DirecTV system installed or serviced has a tech arrive in a logo covered van. Part of the service that DirecTV is paying Mastec for is imaging (marketing). The local heating and cooling business may not be owned and operated by a brand of heating or air conditioning system. But they could advertise the product they sell on the side of their service vehicles ... just like Mastec is advertising the product they service on the side of their service vehicles.


And also Mastec (and its employees and subs) makes money on sales of DirecTV® .


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Well, not sure "boss" is the right term. DirecTV® is Mastec's client


This is true. Outsourcing work turns employer/employee on its' head.

DirecTV is purchasing a service from Mastec. That makes DirecTV the customer/client.


----------



## prushing (Feb 14, 2007)

James Long said:


> Oh, they all are named in the suit.
> 
> Lets see ... Massey goes with a Mastec sub-contractor's employee to the job.
> The sub-contractor's employee is at fault.
> ...


It all rolls downhill. You could sue the party only, but he probably has no money. So you go after the person who he came with, which also has no money. So you go after the company that hired him, which only had a little but of money. So you go after the original company you dealt with.

If it was truly a non employee that came with an employee, DTV has no fault. Mastec may or may not have liability for their employee's actions.

If DTV ends up having any liability, they would then turn around and sue Mastec for breach of contract and hiring criminals or fine them per terms.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

Some important distinctions:

1) DIRECTV would only be negligible if they did not take reasonable steps to prevent a reasonably possible damage. We know DIRECTV took the first step: they required all people working on behalf of DIRECTV to have a background check. (And that Mastec also did, for that matter.) Second step: We know that Mastec has a policy of no ride-alongs. (And I presume DIRECTV knew about that policy.) We also know that DIRECTV has a feedback mechanism if Mastec uses unsuitable people... customer service calls. I don't know if they track service feedback down to the mastec person, though I'm pretty certain they do. 

Thus for DIRECTV to be negligible, the plaintiff must reasonably prove that DIRECTV knew this person had a history of such behavior. For Mastec to be negligible, plaintiff has to prove Mastec would know. 

2) The police report could have mistakes. Or the bad guy could have lied.... Just because the police report said they were both working for DIRECTV in some manner, doesn't make it so. Nor even likely. Obviously the one guy was. Massey probably was not. (And likely said he did as a way to hopefully explain why he was there.)

3) DIRECTV should have apologized (and see my point #4). Yet likely has no legal responsibility. 

4) I suspect that at some level DIRECTV probably apologized, though it might have been at the CSR level, in the case the word somehow did not get up to the higher levels. The DIRECTV employees I personally know and have known are all customer focused. They would have found a way to do the right thing. I believe that customer focus comes from the top and is prevalent throughout DIRECTV's DNA. 

5) There are might be limits to the size of the lawsuit. 

6) This feels like a money grab. Of course the court documents will list all the reasons DIRECTV needs to pay $200k: therapy, medicine, private tutors, yada, yada. And, for less malicious reasons, might need to. If she really is traumatized in the future, they need to sue for it now. Still feels like a money grab to me. But I have not read the court documents yet. And likely won't. 

Peace,
Tom


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Wow, first time I've seen a post from TR in an age. Good to see you back. (And I've been spouting number 6, having read the documents.)


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> Some important distinctions:
> 
> 1) DIRECTV would only be negligible if they did not take reasonable steps to prevent a reasonably possible damage. We know DIRECTV took the first step: they required all people working on behalf of DIRECTV to have a background check. (And that Mastec also did, for that matter.) Second step: We know that Mastec has a policy of no ride-alongs. (And I presume DIRECTV knew about that policy.) We also know that DIRECTV has a feedback mechanism if Mastec uses unsuitable people... customer service calls. I don't know if they track service feedback down to the mastec person, though I'm pretty certain they do.
> 
> Thus for DIRECTV to be negligible, the plaintiff must reasonably prove that DIRECTV knew this person had a history of such behavior. For Mastec to be negligible, plaintiff has to prove Mastec would know.


How do you know for sure that imputed negligence doesn't apply in this case?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Wow


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

pdxBeav said:


> How do you know for sure that imputed negligence doesn't apply in this case?


IIUC, wouldn't you have to show that DirecTV was responsible for the actions of either Mastec or Bassett for that to apply?

Other than the requirement for a background check (and probably so contractual limits on liability), DirecTV doesn't have any control over who is hired by Mastec. DirecTV is Mastec's client so do they become responsible for the actions of a subcontractor? I really have no clue but it seems a stretch. Then again the only thing I've learned about the law is that what's legal and what's right isn't always the same thing. :grin:

Mike


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Exactly my point. You would not call yourself a "General *Sub*contractor" correct?


The title doesn't mean anything. A home owner can either pay me to build their entire house, or they may act as the GC, either way I get a 1099.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Well, not sure "boss" is the right term. DirecTV® is Mastec's client


Okay, Home Owners are my Clients. 
I'm not paying them.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> It would be better to eliminate everything you don't KNOW ... no guessing ... from the explanation.
> 
> You apparently perform contract labor. Do this and I will pay you that. I could hire a contractor to fix my plumbing or replace a wall in my home. Or even to cut my grass. The contract may be complicated or simple, written or verbal ... but it is basically piecework. Do this and I will pay you that.
> 
> ...


So your saying Directv only the salesman?
Wow that's interesting. 
So does that mean when you call tech support you're talking to Mastec employees? 
Because I won't call directv anymore than when I need service, I'll just call Mastec and set up my own Troubleshooting and service calls.
Should still be free with protection plan right?
Or only $50 without it?


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> The title doesn't mean anything. A home owner can either pay me to build their entire house, or they may act as the GC, either way I get a 1099.


Interesting. I've always just paid the contractor. I don't even have a clue how to give them a 1099.

A friend who had a couple of rental properties had to file 1099s for work on the rentals but I've never heard of a homeowner doing that. I was always under the impression that for work on my own home it's the responsibility of the contractor to report the income.

OK, I just looked it up. I only have to file a 1099 if I make payments in the course of my "trade or business" (Link). DirecTV may have to file something but a homeowner hiring a general contractor doesn't.

Mike


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> So your saying Directv only the salesman?
> Wow that's interesting.


No. I am saying that DirecTV is not a building contractor. To a hammer everything is a nail ... Not every business is a contractor.

I realize that there is the desire to simplify DirecTV down to a one word description to make their business type easier to understand. But DirecTV is not a small business with a couple of dozen employees doing primarily one type of work. It is a major international corporation doing several types of work. There are a lot more moving parts than can be simplified into one word ... and that one word would not be "salesman".



damondlt said:


> So does that mean when you call tech support you're talking to Mastec employees?


Is Mastec contracted by DirecTV to answer the phones?

Read my posts and you'll see what I'm saying. There is no need to change what I said into what you wish I said. If you don't understand that is fine. Larger business models can be complicated.


----------



## Tom Robertson (Nov 15, 2005)

pdxBeav said:


> How do you know for sure that imputed negligence doesn't apply in this case?


First there has to be negligence. At each level, from what I've read in this thread and the posted articles, the employer has taken reasonable steps to prevent damages: background checks, policies against ride alongs, etc. So what is necessary is some information or proof that, at least at one level, someone knew the employee took people with him *and* that the knowledge was ignored.

If negligence is established, then the calculus of negligence can be engaged to assign the who is or isn't responsible. And would be based upon who knew what (and/or should have reasonably known.)

To *µß's* point, he's right, DIRECTV had the reasonable assurances against negligence of their vendor. So now for DIRECTV to take on responsibility, it must be shown that DIRECTV should have reasonably known that Mastec was previously negligent or had information, however obtained, that Mastec was negligent. And, again, that DIRECTV did not act upon any information.

And this case likely doesn't reach into inherent negligence. DIRECTV and Mastec took steps to prevent things like this. They didn't leave a sponge inside the patient on the operating table (classic case of inherent negligence.)

Peace,
Tom


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

After 13 pages my biggest surprise is that we have had noone who is actually an attorney weigh in on this.

Surely there are attorneys on these boards. 

Or aren't there?

Maybe attorneys don't watch TV.

Or maybe they don't dispense opinions for which they can't charge at least $150/hr.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Uncalled for! There are members of the bar here, but they don't identify themselves as such. And they are under no obligation to do so. 

Me, I took business law in grad school, so I know everything about the law........

_Absolutely not._


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I still say even an attorney here wouldn't have a clue that's perfect because the article is terrible and doesn't really tells us all the important details to really know why happened.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I still say even an attorney here wouldn't have a clue that's perfect because the article is terrible and doesn't really tells us all the important details to really know why happened.


I forwarded the court documents from here to 2 lawyers I'm friends with - both said from what's in there, it's a good case to submit, doesn't seem like a money grab (due to the amount), and would need to see DirecTV's defense to have a better opinion.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

HarleyD said:


> After 13 pages my biggest surprise is that we have had noone who is actually an attorney weigh in on this.
> 
> Surely there are attorneys on these boards.
> 
> ...


Or are attorneys in a very different area of law. I know of at least two (though the one I know personally hasn't been active here in years).


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Tom Robertson said:


> First there has to be negligence. At each level, from what I've read in this thread and the posted articles, the employer has taken reasonable steps to prevent damages: background checks, policies against ride alongs, etc. So what is necessary is some information or proof that, at least at one level, someone knew the employee took people with him *and* that the knowledge was ignored.
> 
> If negligence is established, then the calculus of negligence can be engaged to assign the who is or isn't responsible. And would be based upon who knew what (and/or should have reasonably known.)
> 
> ...


There was negligence. That isn't in question. The question is whether the negligence that occurred can be attributed to DirecTV and that's where the "imputed negligence" aspect comes into play. Nobody here knows for sure if DirecTV will be held liable for the negligent act, but to say that DirecTV can't be liable because they have policies and that they didn't know about the negligent act is simply not correct. The laws regarding this type of situation are more complicated than that.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

pdxBeav said:


> There was negligence. That isn't in question. The question is whether the negligence that occurred can be attributed to DirecTV and that's where the "imputed negligence" aspect comes into play. Nobody here knows for sure if DirecTV will be held liable for the negligent act, but to say that DirecTV can't be liable because they have policies and that they didn't know about the negligent act is simply not correct. The laws regarding this type of situation are more complicated than that.


I guess the question is this; if you have policies in place to prevent something from happening and someone ignores those policies and the something you're trying to prevent happens, are you liable for that?

More to the point; if I'm a client of a company and our contract has clauses to prevent this from happening and a sub-contractor violates the policies can I be held liable for that?

Mike


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

pdxBeav said:


> There was negligence. That isn't in question. The question is whether the negligence that occurred can be attributed to DirecTV and that's where the "imputed negligence" aspect comes into play. Nobody here knows for sure if DirecTV will be held liable for the negligent act, but to say that DirecTV can't be liable because they have policies and that they didn't know about the negligent act is simply not correct. The laws regarding this type of situation are more complicated than that.


I am under the impression the laws also state things need to be reasonable and such. In other words not only policies in place but is it reasonable to assume the polices in place are enough and cover what should be covered as well, and enough to be properly instilled.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

pdxBeav said:


> There was negligence. That isn't in question. The question is whether the negligence that occurred can be attributed to DirecTV and that's where the "imputed negligence" aspect comes into play. Nobody here knows for sure if DirecTV will be held liable for the negligent act, but to say that DirecTV can't be liable because they have policies and that they didn't know about the negligent act is simply not correct. The laws regarding this type of situation are more complicated than that.


It has to first be established that Mastec was negligent before DIRECTV could be found so. And that's not established that the sub was negligent, but I do think that's the first step by Plaintiff.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

IMO, DirecTV does have liability here. Say I hired a contractor to perform work at my house and he sub-contracts the electrical work to an electrical company who sends out an employee to do the work at my house. Now, let's say that the employee decides to bring a friend to the job to get the work done faster. The friend screws up and the work that he does starts an electrical fire and burns down my house.

My insurance company is going to sue the contractor that I hired because he was the only person who had any direct responsibility to me. The contractor can definitely try to get the money back from the sub-contractor, who can try to get it from the employee. My contractor did nothing wrong. However, he is ultimately responsible for the actions of the companies/people he hires, even if those companies/people then sub the work out to someone else.

In the DirecTV case, DirecTV is the "contractor", Mastec is the Electrical company, the Mastec employee is the employee and Massey is the friend.

Now, on the other hand, I really don't see any damages that warrant monetary compensation here.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> In the DirecTV case, DirecTV is the "contractor", Mastec is the Electrical company, the Mastec employee is the employee and Massey is the friend.


No, in that case DirecTV® is "you". But your analogy does not apply since the problem did not happen in DirecTV®'s headquarters (your home in your analogy)


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

peds48 said:


> No, in that case DirecTV® is "you". But your analogy does not apply since the problem did not happen in DirecTV®'s headquarters (your home in your analogy)


It's the same thing peds.

You guys are amazing. 
Fact is Directv hired this company, stop trying to act like that isn't the case.
Some of you guys are making Directv look even more dumb just by saying some of the stuff you're saying , just to go all out and defend them.

Money grab, lol. Yea $100,000 
Most of that will pay their lawyers.
Unreal.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Mike Bertelson said:


> Interesting. I've always just paid the contractor. I don't even have a clue how to give them a 1099.
> 
> A friend who had a couple of rental properties had to file 1099s for work on the rentals but I've never heard of a homeowner doing that. I was always under the impression that for work on my own home it's the responsibility of the contractor to report the income.
> 
> ...


Most home owners don't have 500,000 dollars cash to build a house.
Contractor deals with the bank.

Any cash given over 10,000 has to be documented on where it came from.
Otherwise it's tax fraud.
Any money over $500 has to be claimed.

If a home owner wants to pay me $20,000 in home improvements, your darn right they want to write it off on their taxes, and when they do such I have to claim I received that money, or that an audit.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> You guys are amazing.


The moderator in me reminds you that the topic of this thread is a lawsuit against DirecTV ... not you guys. Please don't wake the moderator.



damondlt said:


> Fact is Directv hired this company, stop trying to act like that isn't the case.


I don't believe anyone has. We all know the money chain and have discussed it to exhaustion.

There is disagreement over the responsibility chain ... Both DirecTV and their contractor have policies in place that require background checks and they enforce those policies. The sub-contractor who violated the policy by bringing a person who would not pass a background check into a DirecTV customer's home was punished for their negligence.

The witch hunt to find Mastec negligent because they hired a negligent sub-contractor or DirecTV negligent because they hired Mastec is where we disagree. It would only be negligent for Mastec to hire that sub-contractor if Mastec knew there was a problem with that sub-contractor following the rule. It would only be negligent for DirecTV to hire Mastec if DirecTV knew that there was a problem with Mastec following the rule. Got proof of that? Anyone?



damondlt said:


> Money grab, lol. Yea $100,000
> Most of that will pay their lawyers.
> Unreal.


$100k to $200k is only the beginning ... there are also other damages past present and future that the suit wants awarded.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Any cash given over 10,000 has to be documented on where it came from.


The form is "Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business".
"Form 8300 is a joint form issued by the IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and is used by the government to track individuals that evade taxes and those who profit from criminal activities." - IRS

The form tracks one transaction ... the person giving the business cash does not have to report where they got the cash (unless they are acting as an agent). There are separate forms for financial institutions, casinos and transactions occurring outside of the US. (None of the forms for large cash payments are a 1099.)


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

James Long said:


> The form is "Form 8300, Report of Cash Payments Over $10,000 Received in a Trade or Business".
> "Form 8300 is a joint form issued by the IRS and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and is used by the government to track individuals that evade taxes and those who profit from criminal activities." - IRS
> 
> The form tracks one transaction ... the person giving the business cash does not have to report where they got the cash (unless they are acting as an agent). There are separate forms for financial institutions, casinos and transactions occurring outside of the US. (None of the forms for large cash payments are a 1099.)


No one said 1099 was for cash payments.
1099 are sent out to prove money was paid to non employees.
I get them and I send them.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

James Long said:


> The moderator in me reminds you that the topic of this thread is a lawsuit against DirecTV ... not you guys. Please don't wake the moderator.
> 
> I don't believe anyone has. We all know the money chain and have discussed it to exhaustion.
> 
> ...


And fortunately, the law allows responsibility to move up the chain even if someone in the chain had no knowledge of the action or wasn't directly negligent. Prior knowledge isn't necessarily required.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

pdxBeav said:


> And fortunately, the law allows responsibility to move up the chain even if someone in the chain had no knowledge of the action or wasn't directly negligent. Prior knowledge isn't necessarily required.


I would have to change the opening of that statement to And UNfortunately, ... I am not going to get into any discussion of the validity of the statement, but to me that is what has become so wrong with society that it is felt that a wrong must be paid for financially. Sometimes when someone commits a wrong and that person has no money you simple get nothing. From what I have read it looks like Mastec and DirecTV both have policies to prevent what happened from happening and the fact the installer violated those policies should not make the companies responsible. We need to stop this whole "somebody has to pay" mentality, if the responsible party cant pay, well i guess lifes a b**ch


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> No, in that case DirecTV® is "you". But your analogy does not apply since the problem did not happen in DirecTV®'s headquarters (your home in your analogy)


No, In this case the Becker family is "me". The analogy does apply because the Beckers are customers of DirecTV who them farmed out the work to others. DirecTV didn't do anything wrong. Yet they are ultimately responsible for the actions of agents working on their behalf. Had Massey stolen a truck and pretended to be a DirecTV tech with no assistance, then DirecTV would have no responsibility. However, since the tech who actually was working tor Mastec (and by extension DirecTV) brought Massey to the Becker family's house, they are ultimately responsible.

BTW - It's very possible (and maybe even likely) that DirecTV's contracts with with HSP's indemnify DirecTV from any clams that arise due to actions of the HSP's or their agents. I know that my company has indemnification agreements with all of our vendors protecting us from lawsuits due to defective products. We can still be sued (and possibly lose). But the vendors of the products have agreed to pay all expenses of any lawsuits.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> Had Massey stolen a truck and pretended to be a DirecTV tech with no assistance, then DirecTV would have no responsibility.


Why not? This is something that DirecTV has no control over. same as in this case (according to you)

DirecTV and Mastec both have plans in place to prevent such things, but they can't control what an employee decides to do after that employee has gone through such plans.

how could DirecTV and Mastec prevented their employee from having a ride along?

neither Mastec or DirecTV have fault on this case. this is just a money grab


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Why not? This is something that DirecTV has no control over. same as in this case (according to you)
> 
> DirecTV and Mastec both have plans in place to prevent such things, but they can't control what an employee decides to do after that employee has gone through such plans.
> 
> ...


Both DirecTV and Mastec have supervision responsibility over their agents. If you came into my house during a service call, went nuts and tore apart my house, DirecTV would have a financial responsibility to repair my house. If you brought a friend with you on the service call and he tore apart my house, DirecTV would have the same financial responsibility.

Fault is different than responsibility. If you have an accident that's your fault while driving your van, that's not Mastec's fault. It's not the automobile insurance company's fault. But, Mastec's auto insurance company is responsible for paying for damages caused by your accident and Mastec is responsible to pay the insurance premiums to the insurance company.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

peds48 said:


> how could DirecTV and Mastec prevented their employee from having a ride along?


I mentioned this in a previous post, but the local cableco has cameras in their vans. It might still be possible for an employee to hide someone out of sight of the camera (I don't know), and while it might not be financially feasible, that wouldn't stop someone from coming along to a call in a second vehicle.

The thing is this though. When is enough enough? Should there be three persons for every call. One to do the work, another to keep an eye on them, and a third person to keep the second person honest? How about a camera installed on the installer themself that can be remotely accessed, as well as have all installations recorded in full?

I'm still confused as to what happened and how it happened, which is why I've been mostly silent the past couple of days. My basic opinion is that unless DirecTV or Mastec is found to have actually played a part in allowing these events to occur, I simply find it sad that they can be sued for such.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Yes, the whole thing is sad. But companies who send people out have a duty to safeguard the homes they visit. Some feel both Mastec and DIRECTV should be hung out to dry, and others don't. If both companies had procedures in place to safeguard, and if neither had anyway of knowing this breach by an employee (or two, or an employee and his friend) was to occur, or perhaps even likely to occur, there could be a tort. Or a tart, or a torte!


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Yes, the whole thing is sad. But companies who send people out have a duty to safeguard the homes they visit. Some feel both Mastec and DIRECTV should be hung out to dry, and others don't. If both companies had procedures in place to safeguard, and if neither had anyway of knowing this breach by an employee (or two, or an employee and his friend) was to occur, or perhaps even likely to occur, there could be a tort. Or a tart, or a torte!


No one feels Mastec and directv should be hung out to dry. 
You take it that way over any disagreement one has over directv .
That's the first problem right there!

Some up us just feel Directv should accept responsibility and not run and hide like a bunch of cowards.

$100,000 yep that hanging them out to dry from their 50 billion net worth.

Directv should be begging that family to take $200,000 and help them put it in a trust fund for that girl to go to college.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> No one feels Mastec and directv should be hung out to dry.


No one? There sure are a lot of harsh words being spoken that state or imply otherwise.



damondlt said:


> Some up us just feel Directv should accept responsibility and not run and hide like a bunch of cowards.


I don't believe they have run and hid like a bunch of cowards. The family claims they did not get a response ... perhaps they did not get the response they wanted ($$$$$). Perhaps they (and we on the Internet) would have complained more if DirecTV had responded with $$$$$ ..... "some guy came into your home and took pictures of your daughter ... here, have NFL Sunday Ticket for free." Not enough? Here have $200k? Now they are buying the family's silence.

There is NO amount of money that will undo what was done. At some point compensation seems dirty. Hey girl, stick your legs in the air for a sex offender to take pictures and you get $200k in compensation. Sounds like prostitution. NFL Sunday Ticket for free or other DirecTV credits sounds like cheap prostitution.

DirecTV did not intend to send a sex offender into that home that day. Neither did Mastec. They took steps before that day to try to prevent such an occurrence and took immediate action after the event occurred. Was their response enough? What response would be enough to "compensate" for something that cannot be undone?


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

If there is no accountability up and down the line then all the policies are meaningless.

If "Hey, I told him not to." absolves you from responsibility for your agents then there is no responsibility at any level.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

HarleyD said:


> If there is no accountability up and down the line then all the policies are meaningless.
> 
> If "Hey, I told him not to." absolves you from responsibility for your agents then there is no responsibility at any level.


Agree. We just do not know what policies are in place, nor how they are monitored.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Agree. We just do not know what policies are in place, nor how they are monitored.


Which begs the question of enforceability of the policies. If as many have stated, DirecTV and MasTec had no control, then their policies would appear to be unenforceable, or unenforced and therefore worthless.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

HarleyD said:


> Which begs the question of enforceability of the policies. If as many have stated, DirecTV and MasTec had no control, then their policies would appear to be unenforceable, or unenforced and therefore worthless.


No policy is foolproof. Government, the Military, Police Departments, and the Bar Association all have policies of the highest standards yet there are corrupt politicians, military personnel, policemen, and lawyers. It's not a perfect world.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

HarleyD said:


> If there is no accountability up and down the line then all the policies are meaningless.
> 
> If "Hey, I told him not to." absolves you from responsibility for your agents then there is no responsibility at any level.


The person that has been stated by BOTH parties to have been a Mastec employee has been fired. That's the accountability part.

We have two different stories as to whether or not Massey was an actual employee, so his employment is a question mark, but he's in prison.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> No one feels Mastec and directv should be hung out to dry.
> You take it that way over any disagreement one has over directv .
> That's the first problem right there!
> 
> ...


Actually in all honestly I kind of thought you wanted them hung out to dry.

And firing someone is a big deal
IMHO and if you have employees you know what I mean. I have had to fire people for many different reasons and while some are easier it's still not a good feeling.

I think the college fund etc is way over reaching what happened. Unless there's more to it. I think him in jail is what is just.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

Alan Gordon said:


> The person that has been stated by BOTH parties to have been a Mastec employee has been fired. That's the accountability part.
> 
> We have two different stories as to whether or not Massey was an actual employee, so his employment is a question mark, but he's in prison.


That's only part of the accountability, and it offers zero accountability to the aggrieved customer.


----------



## longrider (Apr 21, 2007)

HarleyD said:


> That's only part of the accountability, and it offers zero accountability to the aggrieved customer.


So you are saying that even though Mastec had a policy which would have prevented the situation (no ride alongs) and when the policy was violated they took the appropriate action (fired the employee) they should still have to pay the family? I am sorry but to me that is just a money grab even if it is a small amount compared to other money grabs


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

longrider said:


> So you are saying that even though Mastec had a policy which would have prevented the situation (no ride alongs) and when the policy was violated they took the appropriate action (fired the employee) they should still have to pay the family? I am sorry but to me that is just a money grab even if it is a small amount compared to other money grabs


So your saying the family had a registered sex offender in their home ogling and photographing their minor daughter and they should just suck it up?

And clearly MasTec did NOT have a policy which would have prevented the situation because it happened. The policy addresses it, and leaves them recourse against the tech that violated it, but it didn't prevent squat.

But, this is devolving into tense exchanges and firmly entrenched positions. I need to scratch this thread off my list. It's nothing but opinions and opinions are like...well, you know the saying.

We disagree. It happens all the time and since none of us are authorities I'll leave it at that. This is headed in an ugly direction and I don't wish to engender any hard feelings with anyone else.

It will be interesting to see how it plays out.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Actually in all honestly I kind of thought you wanted them hung out to dry.
> 
> And firing someone is a big deal
> IMHO and if you have employees you know what I mean. I have had to fire people for many different reasons and while some are easier it's still not a good feeling.
> ...


If they are registered sex offenders they wouldn't be hired in the first place.
I don't take sex offenders lightly, My wife and her 3 sisters grew up with a pedifile for a step dad.


----------



## Alan Gordon (Jun 7, 2004)

HarleyD said:


> That's only part of the accountability, and it offers zero accountability to the aggrieved customer.


If I was the customer, I would have complained. I probably would have tried to get some credits for the bad experience.

I would have wanted the offender in prison and the installer fired.

I guess I'm not as litigous as some folks.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

HarleyD said:


> That's only part of the accountability, and it offers zero accountability to the aggrieved customer.


the creep is in jail NOT for violating company policies but for doing harm to this family. That is accountability for the customer. Same goes with the employee, had he not done what he did, he would still be working.


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

James Long said:


> I don't believe they have run and hid like a bunch of cowards. The family claims they did not get a response ... perhaps they did not get the response they wanted ($$$$$). Perhaps they (and we on the Internet) would have complained more if DirecTV had responded with $$$$$ ..... "some guy came into your home and took pictures of your daughter ... here, have NFL Sunday Ticket for free." Not enough? Here have $200k? Now they are buying the family's silence.


It may be possible that agreements with Mastec prevented them from accepting responsibility. If Mastec has indemnified DirecTV against lawsuits caused by Mastec actions, I would think that there would also be a clause preventing DirecTV from any actions that would make a lawsuit more likely to occur. Formally accepting responsibility is definitely something that would make lawsuits more likely.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

damondlt said:


> No one feels Mastec and directv should be hung out to dry.
> You take it that way over any disagreement one has over directv .
> That's the first problem right there!
> 
> ...


I certainly believe DirecTV should have responded to the family; should have reassured them, and explained why this shouldn't have happened.

However, I can't say I agree with money part. Admitting liability an paying them a settlement isn't going to happen. Not in this case or practically any other for that matter. It sets a precedent and opens them up to more litigation. I'd very surprised to see any company do that in this day and age.

Mike


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

Leave the personal comments out of this discussion. Last Warning.

Mike


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

HarleyD said:


> And clearly MasTec did NOT have a policy which would have prevented the situation because it happened. The policy addresses it, and leaves them recourse against the tech that violated it, but it didn't prevent squat.


Having a policy that is stated, followed and enforced is a good start. Not having one would be negligent.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

HarleyD said:


> And clearly MasTec did NOT have a policy which would have prevented the situation because it happened.


Sorry, but that's a tautology or some other type of false argument.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

HarleyD said:


> Which begs the question of enforceability of the policies. If as many have stated, DirecTV and MasTec had no control, then their policies would appear to be unenforceable, or unenforced and therefore worthless.


To what lengths should a company go to enforce such a policy?

They could put GPS and cameras in their trucks but what about independent contractors? How do you ensure they're following the policy?

Policies are a deterrent. Laws are a deterrent too. However, they don't prevent the crime from happening. Does that mean the law is unenforceable?

Mike


----------



## Bill Broderick (Aug 25, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> Which begs the question of enforceability of the policies. If as many have stated, DirecTV and MasTec had no control, then their policies would appear to be unenforceable, or unenforced and therefore worthless.


Based on that logic, we should repeal all laws since they are all unenforceable. The best that the government can do is to punish someone who violates the law, just as the best a company can do is to carefully vet prospective employees and then hope that the threat of termination prevents employees from violating policies.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Bill Broderick said:


> Based on that logic, we should repeal all laws since they are all unenforceable.


There is no law or policy that can prevent crime or this to happen. However, what stops most folks from doing illegal activities are the consequences and/or punishments. Nobody or no law can stop someone from committing murder, however when someone does, that person (if caught) must face the consequences which more the majority of us is enough to not even think about it


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

This is why civil suits are frequently filed apart from criminal charges and prosecution. The criminal justice system metes out punishment. The civil case is to make the damaged party whole.

It's actually pretty common.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

HarleyD said:


> The civil case is to make the damaged party whole.
> 
> It's actually pretty common.


and this is the part most folks take advantage of, specially when dealing with multi-billion dollar companies.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

HarleyD said:


> This is why civil suits are frequently filed apart from criminal charges and prosecution. The criminal justice system metes out punishment. The civil case is to make the damaged party whole.
> 
> It's actually pretty common.


And if they really don't feel whole after the guy is thrown in jail, I think these people have made it harder and more dramatic for their daughter than it actually was, but of course that's solely based on that terrible article, so again, not enough info to know for sure.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> If they are registered sex offenders they wouldn't be hired in the first place.
> I don't take sex offenders lightly, My wife and her 3 sisters grew up with a pedifile for a step dad.


Oh let me clear that up. I'm not talking about that guy. He should be burned at the stake. I have zero sympathy for someone of that nature.

I'm talking about the friend who may or may not have even know he was a sex offender that brought him along against the rules.


----------



## paulman182 (Aug 4, 2006)

I don't see that a financial award is justified since the plaintiff was evidently not damaged in any way.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

paulman182 said:


> I don't see that a financial award is justified since the plaintiff was evidently not damaged in any way.


Unfortunately today's society is sue happy. Someone hurts your feelings you can run to the courts claiming emotional distress, pain and suffering. Get a good lawyer and twelve idiots for jurors and you can become a millionaire.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

paulman182 said:


> I don't see that a financial award is justified since the plaintiff was evidently not damaged in any way.


Having a pedophile take pictures of your daughter isn't damaging?

If a company killed your family member, you wouldn't seek damages?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> Having a pedophile take pictures of your daughter isn't damaging?
> 
> If a company killed your family member, you wouldn't seek damages?


There's a huge difference between being photographed without permission and a family member being killed.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> There's a huge difference between being photographed without permission and a family member being killed.


They're both very damaging, IMO.

So a pedophile taking pictures of your daughter, telling her don't tell, isn't damaging?


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

sigma1914 said:


> They're both very damaging, IMO.
> 
> So a pedophile taking pictures of your daughter, telling her don't tell, isn't damaging?


The daughter wasn't photographed naked or performing a sexual act. The parents allowed two strangers into their home and allowed them unattended access. All the rules, laws, and policies work as long as people "obey" them. The service tech "disobeyed" company policy and brought along the pedophile. That's where most of the blame and guilt is. The rest of the blame and guilt lies with the parents.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

MysteryMan said:


> The daughter wasn't photographed naked or performing a sexual act. The parents allowed two strangers into their home and allowed them unattended access. All the rules, laws, and policies work as long as people "obey" them. The service tech "disobeyed" company policy and brought along the pedophile. That's where most of the blame and guilt is. _*The rest of the blame and guilt lies with the parents.*_


Haha. Nice job stirring up this thread when it looked like it finally died. It's obvious you're just trying to stir the pot and some are taking the bait. At least that's the only explanation for your comments. Good job. lol.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> They're both very damaging, IMO.
> 
> So a pedophile taking pictures of your daughter, telling her don't tell, isn't damaging?


FWIW, girls these days post worse pictures on their Instagram of Facebook profiles

And also the phone was removed from this individual so that is the end of those pictures, something can't be same about the Facebook pics


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Whether MysteryMan is trying to stir the pot or not, I don't know. But he has a valid point. Parents need to be vigilant at all times. Even with older kids, I don't allow them alone anywhere near service personnel coming into our house.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

And somewhere in the past 300+ posts these points have been made repeatedly.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

See James we can agree.
Let the thread die already.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

pdxBeav said:


> Haha. Nice job stirring up this thread when it looked like it finally died. It's obvious you're just trying to stir the pot and some are taking the bait. At least that's the only explanation for your comments. Good job. lol.


If what I stated stirs the pot too bad. The truth isn't always pleasant. Had the service tech "adhered" to company policy and not bring the pedophile with him the incident would not have happened and there would be no thread of discussion. Parenting is a 24/7 responsibility. Had the parents taken their responsibility "seriously" and not allow two strangers unattended access in their home the pedophile would not have had the opportunity to commit the offense and again there would be no thread of discussion. Now what part of this don't you understand?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> If what I stated stirs the pot too bad. The truth isn't always pleasant. Had the service tech "adhered" to company policy and not bring the pedophile with him the incident would not have happened and there would be no thread of discussion. Parenting is a 24/7 responsibility. Had the parents taken their responsibility "seriously" and not allow two strangers unattended access in their home the pedophile would not have had the opportunity to commit the offense and again there would be no thread of discussion. Now what part of this don't you understand?


You sound ridiculous by the way.
The parents let a Directv Technician into their house that Directv told Mastec to send.
So how do the parents have any more control over what happend?
They were fully present the who time, that would explain why the pedifile is in jail.
But you keep placing the Blaim on what ever makes directv look better.
I'm sure someday directv will have your back if you have a pending lawsuit.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

damondlt said:


> You sound ridiculous by the way.
> The parents let a Directv Technician into their house that Directv told Mastec to send.
> So how do the parents have any more control over what happend?
> They were fully present the who time, that would explain why the pedifile is in jail.
> ...


While you have a right to your "opinion" of me sounding ridiculous may I remind you opinions are like rectums, everybody has one. Yes, the parents were present but they allowed unattended access to their home giving the pedophile his opportunity. Do you allow strangers unattended access while in your home or on your property? Yes or no, had the service tech adhered to policy and not bring the pedophile with him the incident would not have happened? Yes or no, had the parents not allowed unattended access in their home "while they were present" the pedophile would not have had the opportunity to commit the offense?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

MysteryMan said:


> While you have a right to your "opinion" of me sounding ridiculous may I remind you opinions are like rectums, everybody has one. Yes, the parents were present but they allowed unattended access to their home giving the pedophile his opportunity. Do you allow strangers unattended access while in your home or on your property? Yes or no, had the service tech adhered to policy and not bring the pedophile with him the incident would not have happened? Yes or no, had the parents not allowed unattended access in their home "while they were present" the pedophile would not have had the opportunity to commit the offense?


Clearly they were not unattended. One person can't be everywhere. 
Maybe if the Crack head didn't bring his pedifile friend in the first place that would have been that.
But it's not up to the home owners or parents to monitor whom directv sends out.
If it was Directv would have handed over Mastecs number and said , here make your service appointment.

So maybe for our safety , we should cancel directv , then we won't have to worry about whom they send? 
Or is that still the parents fault?
What if this was your wife alone in the house?
She is a parent and adult, that mean her spouse should have been there?

Maybe directv needs to do a better job monitoring whom Mastec guys are, since Directv is the ones sending their people to our houses representing them.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

damondlt said:


> Clearly they were not unattended. One person can't be everywhere.


More that one parent was home ... and it would not have been hard to ask the child to stop stretching or join the mother with the baby while the strangers were in the home.



damondlt said:


> Maybe if the Crack head didn't bring his pedifile friend in the first place that would have been that.


You got proof that the sub-contractor was on crack (or any other drugs)? Or is this just another derogatory comment designed to stir up emotionally charged conversation? What facts are in evidence?



damondlt said:


> But it's not up to the home owners or parents to monitor whom directv sends out.


DirecTV knows the type of person they want to have represent their brand in subscriber homes and specifies people by that type. Parents see who actually shows up ... and while I do not expect a parent to do a criminal records check (or a virtually trivial check to see if the person is on the sex offender's registry) when a person enters their home, the parent is the final gatekeeper.

Passing the obligation of monitoring who has access to one's children off to a multi-billion dollar corporation that does not have the job of child care is not a good idea. Had the parents been more vigilant this would have been a story about the sex offender who showed up at their home ... not a sex offender who actually gained access to a 12 year old child.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

James Long said:


> ....Had the parents been more vigilant this would have been a story about the sex offender who showed up at their home ... not a sex offender who actually gained access to a 12 year old child.


Spoken exactly like someone who has no children. Unless a parent is with their kids 24/7 then it's the parents' fault if something happens, right? You can't have it both ways so be careful how you answer.


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Hey James, normal people don't hang out with convicted sex offenders, and bring them on ride alongs to their chosen career.
And if you don't have any kids of your own, then you really don't have any ground to stand on.

But thanks James thanks to your input, I now know, don't trust any directv Technician around my kids , or in my home.
So from now own when directv says they are sending out a tech, I'll make sure the local sheriff's department is on call.
Just so my kids can play in the house during a service call.
Would that be enough for you james?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&ei=dr70U_SlL9OwyASznILoCg&url=http://www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DfU6LTX5QSpE&cd=5&ved=0CCgQtwIwBA&usg=AFQjCNElZ-Uix-S2yxfdEZABEcv_7ejS0g


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Oh, good. Nancy Grace.


----------



## MysteryMan (May 17, 2010)

dennisj00 said:


> Oh, good. Nancy Grace.


 :rotfl:


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

Point is even her friend defending directv wasn't placing blame on the parents.

Makes me wonder whom I'm even talking to on these forums.

Maybe we should start doing back round checks here.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

sigma1914 said:


> Having a pedophile take pictures of your daughter isn't damaging?
> 
> If a company killed your family member, you wouldn't seek damages?


I think at this point her parents making a huge case and getting publicity about it after the guy is convicted and in jail is probably being more damaging to her than the actual act was. Not dealing with something and moving on. Making her feel like she should feel violated her whole life by this. Etc.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

What's sad, is you guys are defending the pedifile and blaming the parents. 
Don't you guys see something wrong with that?


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I think at this point her parents making a huge case and getting publicity about it after the guy is convicted and in jail is probably being more damaging to her than the actual act was. Not dealing with something and moving on. Making her feel like she should feel violated her whole life by this. Etc.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


So in other words , sweep it under the rug?
Yea that solves things.
Of course that's what Directv , Mastec and the Pedifile wants.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> So in other words , sweep it under the rug?
> Yea that solves things.
> Of course that's what Directv , Mastec and the Pedifile wants.


Not at all what I said. And putting the guy in jail is not sweeping it under the rug.

Teaching kinds about consequences of actions is important. Jail is a big consequence.

I still say we don't have enough full info to not if DIRECTV did what they should have or not.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Not at all what I said. And putting the guy in jail is not sweeping it under the rug.
> 
> Teaching kinds about consequences of actions is important. Jail is a big consequence.
> 
> ...


And directv and Mastec had no hand in him going to jail.
The parents and police department did.
1 point for Parents and Police
ZERO for Directv and Mastec.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

damondlt said:


> What's sad, is you guys are defending the pedifile and blaming the parents.
> Don't you guys see something wrong with that?


I can't blame the parents at all but I will say my parents would never leave me alone in my room with the door open while someone we didn't know was roaming the house when I was little. I don't recall how old she was though. If she's a teenager then I think it's a bit much to do anything other than make sure she knows someone will be in the house.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## damondlt (Feb 27, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> I can't blame the parents at all but I will say my parents would never leave me alone in my room with the door open while someone we didn't know was roaming the house when I was little. I don't recall how old she was though. If she's a teenager then I think it's a bit much to do anything other than make sure she knows someone will be in the house.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


They left a 12 year old alone in a common area of her own house.
Really?
"Quick kids, directv tech is here better lock yourselves in your bedroom and dial 91 and when I tell you press the other 1"

Sad.


----------



## Mike Bertelson (Jan 24, 2007)

I've done a little cleanup. Last warning. Discuss the topic and not each other AND keep it civil.

Mike


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

If Nancy Grace is shocked and outraged, nothing happened worth reporting....

Also, no one is saying the parents are responsible for a pervert entering their home under false pretenses, but that most parents don't leave a twelve year old alone with strangers.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> If Nancy Grace is shocked and outraged, nothing happened worth reporting....
> 
> Also, no one is saying the parents are responsible for a pervert entering their home under false pretenses, but that most parents don't leave a twelve year old alone with strangers.


So if you're at a public venue with your 12 year old child you'll never let them go into a restroom without you going in too to make sure nothing happens to them? And you wouldn't let your 12 year old play in front of your house without you being out with them? And I don't mean 90% of the time. It must be 100% of the time or you don't practice what you preach.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Not exactly parallel situations, now, are they? The closer one is unaccompanied in a public restroom, where I'd be close by in the case of a daughter, and accompanying in the case of my son. Unless I knew they were empty, and then I'd simply keep an eye on the door. Very simple.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

pdxBeav said:


> So if you're at a public venue with your 12 year old child you'll never let them go into a restroom without you going in too to make sure nothing happens to them? And you wouldn't let your 12 year old play in front of your house without you being out with them? And I don't mean 90% of the time. It must be 100% of the time or you don't practice what you preach.


So the next time someone you don't know is in your house doing work, are you going to keep a close eye on them and your kids or are you going to let the policies of their home office protect your kids?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

I keep an eye on ANYONE that's working in my house. I've even taken an HR2x to the bedroom and installed it myself and reported the code back to the installer. (That was back in the days that I used installers)

And if anyone took their cell phone out to take ANY pictures - they would be escorted out. Even if no 12 year old was involved.

I would of at least, closed the door to her room or asked her to go to her room. What if she had been laying out sunning on the deck?

YES, the parents did have some responsibility in this event. NO, there should not have been someone on the offenders list entering the house, but that ship sailed.

I doubt ANYONE checks the ID / identify of everyone entering their house.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> I keep an eye on ANYONE that's working in my house. I've even taken an HR2x to the bedroom and installed it myself and reported the code back to the installer. (That was back in the days that I used installers)
> 
> And if anyone took their cell phone out to take ANY pictures - they would be escorted out. Even if no 12 year old was involved.
> 
> ...


So you'll never allow anyone to work on/in your house if it involves more than one person? Because what would happen if one person had to go back to their truck to get a tool? Would you insist that the entire crew go with them so you can herd them around together to ensure that you can see all of them 100% of the time?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

pdxBeav said:


> So you'll never allow anyone to work on/in your house if it involves more than one person? Because what would happen if one person had to go back to their truck to get a tool? Would you insist that the entire crew go with them so you can herd them around together to ensure that you can see all of them 100% of the time?


Not at all. I'm just saying I keep an eye on anyone in the house and that any parent does have some responsibility to keep the kids alert to someone in the house. Simple common sense.

There's way too much drama in this thread . . Maybe they should call Nancy and get on the show.

I'm reminded of a CBS News report one night that a child was killed on an ATV. The parent's response? "I can't believe that dealer would sell me something that would kill my child".


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

Laxguy said:


> Not exactly parallel situations, now, are they? The closer one is unaccompanied in a public restroom, where I'd be close by in the case of a daughter, and accompanying in the case of my son. Unless I knew they were empty, and then I'd simply keep an eye on the door. Very simple.


Not sure how keeping an eye on the door would prevent something bad from happening if someone was already in there with the intent to do harm. If you are outside watching the door you are still leaving them alone with strangers if someone is in there.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> Not at all. I'm just saying I keep an eye on anyone in the house and that any parent does have some responsibility to keep the kids alert to someone in the house. Simple common sense.
> 
> There's way too much drama in this thread . . Maybe they should call Nancy and get on the show.
> 
> I'm reminded of a CBS News report one night that a child was killed on an ATV. The parent's response? "I can't believe that dealer would sell me something that would kill my child".


But what I'm saying is that let's say you have a two person crew working at your house and you are there watching them the entire time. One of them then needs to go out to the truck to get a tool. On his way out he's out of your sight for 30 seconds and then decides to take a picture of your daughter during that time. Obviously, you aren't to blame at all, but according to your posts, the parents do share some of the blame. At least that's what Internet forum posters would be saying.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

pdxBeav said:


> But what I'm saying is that let's say you have a two person crew working at your house and you are there watching them the entire time. One of them then needs to go out to the truck to get a tool. On his way out he's out of your sight for 30 seconds and then decides to take a picture of your daughter during that time. Obviously, you aren't to blame at all, but according to your posts, the parents do share some of the blame. At least that's what Internet forum posters would be saying.


No, my daughter would not be available for pictures . . . parents do have responsibilities. Read my post above, the door would be closed.

Of course, he could go out to the truck and bring back an uzi and level the place. That's different.


----------



## 456521 (Jul 6, 2007)

dennisj00 said:


> No, my daughter would not be available for pictures . . . parents do have responsibilities. Read my post above, the door would be closed.
> 
> Of course, he could go out to the truck and bring back an uzi and level the place. That's different.


Ok. Although we greatly disagree I do appreciate the civil tone of the debate.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

pdxBeav said:


> Ok. Although we greatly disagree I do appreciate the civil tone of the debate.


As an adult, you have to remember that we're responsible for a lot of things that may not be totally under our control. . .

Teenagers drinking in your house, your dog that bites a neighbor, a neighbor kid that falls in your backyard and breaks a leg - or worse drowns in your pool. Too many examples. And too much to watch 24/7, but we're still responsible. That's one reason you have homeowner's insurance.

I record / watch episodes of 'Judge Judy' every day. . . the one thing she doesn't like (other than pit bulls) is 'It's not my fault'.


----------



## fudpucker (Jul 23, 2007)

Is there an "everything else" sub forum for topics that have nothing to do with DirectV?


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

fudpucker said:


> Is there an "everything else" sub forum for topics that have nothing to do with DirectV?


Yes. . . the OT . . not sure if it's 'Off Topic' or what . . . http://www.dbstalk.com/forum/9-the-ot/


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

pdxBeav said:


> Not sure how keeping an eye on the door would prevent something bad from happening if someone was already in there with the intent to do harm. If you are outside watching the door you are still leaving them alone with strangers if someone is in there.


Well, yes, there could be a mad serial killer or rapist lurking in the stall of the ladies room. If the former, we're all dead. If the latter, my daughter would have the sense to leave immediately, or yell for help. If in a place where I had doubt, I'd wait for a normal looking Mom to go in first.

It seems I'm talking about the precautions I'd take, [which are far more than the litigious family took (none)], and which will leave some room for the most extreme bad outcomes. One cannot protect against everything on behalf of one's child.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

damondlt said:


> And directv and Mastec had no hand in him going to jail.


Because "no harm" was done to them so they could not prosecute. They did all they could do, fire the irresponsible employee and perhaps with help wont the prosecution in case any info they have could be made available


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

pdxBeav said:


> Spoken exactly like someone who has no children. Unless a parent is with their kids 24/7 then it's the parents' fault if something happens, right? You can't have it both ways so be careful how you answer.


That seems to be the problem with this topic. No middle ground. I believe it is a good idea that when there is a stranger in the house that EVERYONE in the house is made aware that there is a stranger in the house so that they would behave accordingly. I didn't say anything about 24/7 parental accompaniment ... but teaching kids how to behave when strangers are present is important.

Apparently the two people that this family had never met were not treated like strangers. Or stranger danger was not taught in their home. Were ANY precautions taken when these two men entered their home or did they give total trust because they saw a familiar company logo? "People may not be who they seem to be" is a good lesson that should be learned before there is a problem.

The sex offender got what he deserved (according to the court system): more jail time.
The sub-contractor that brought him into the home got what he deserved: fired - no more work from MasTec or DirecTV.

By asking parents to take some responsibility in raising their own children I'm not saying this incident was 100% the parent's fault. Just not 0%. No, the sheriff doesn't need to be at the door to greet and frisk every stranger who enters the house. That suggestion is just silly. But the awareness should be present: There is a stranger here. Act accordingly.


----------



## HarleyD (Aug 31, 2006)

dennisj00 said:


> As an adult, you have to remember that we're responsible for a lot of things that may not be totally under our control. . .
> 
> Teenagers drinking in your house, your dog that bites a neighbor, a neighbor kid that falls in your backyard and breaks a leg - or worse drowns in your pool. Too many examples. And too much to watch 24/7, but we're still responsible. That's one reason you have homeowner's insurance.
> 
> I record / watch episodes of 'Judge Judy' every day. . . the one thing she doesn't like (other than pit bulls) is 'It's not my fault'.


Likewise corporations are responsible for a lot of things that may not be totallly under their control.

Reality. What a concept.


----------



## bjdotson (Feb 20, 2007)

I don't think the case against Mastic will succeed. There is a principle in law called "reasonable precautions"; if you have made reasonable precautions to prevent something happening, it mitigates you liability quite a bit. That said however, once those precautions have proven ineffectual, they are no longer reasonable and you must adjust you precautions accordingly. I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV, but I have run across this issue a few times in my life.


----------

