1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Welcome to the new DBSTalk community platform. We have recently migrated to a community platform called Xenfono and hope you will find this change to your liking. There are some differences, but for the most part, if you just post and read, that will all be the same. If you have questions, please post them in the Forum Support area. Thanks!

Family sues after sex offender responds to DirecTV service call

Discussion in 'DIRECTV General Discussion' started by sigma1914, Aug 8, 2014.

  1. Aug 8, 2014 #1 of 358
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    14,573
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    http://www.wfaa.com/news/local/collin/Registered-sex-offender-responds-to-DIRECTV-service-call-270423511.html

     
  2. Aug 8, 2014 #2 of 358
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    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!!!!!
     
    1 person likes this.
  3. Aug 8, 2014 #3 of 358
    acostapimps

    acostapimps Hall Of Famer

    1,866
    50
    Nov 5, 2011
    Illinois
    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.
     
  4. Aug 8, 2014 #4 of 358
    TANK

    TANK Icon

    901
    2
    Feb 16, 2003
    FLORIDA
    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 .
     
  5. Aug 8, 2014 #5 of 358
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,184
    483
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    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.
     
  6. Aug 8, 2014 #6 of 358
    dpeters11

    dpeters11 Hall Of Fame

    16,184
    483
    May 30, 2007
    Cincinnati
    But it's closer to say that the sub doesn't have a record, the buddy he brought to the job one day did.
     
  7. Aug 8, 2014 #7 of 358
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  8. Aug 8, 2014 #8 of 358
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  9. Aug 8, 2014 #9 of 358
    HarleyD

    HarleyD Hall Of Fame

    1,357
    62
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  10. Aug 8, 2014 #10 of 358
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    I'm going to ask a different question. Suing? Isn't this a criminal matter? The family wants money? What?
     
    1 person likes this.
  11. Aug 8, 2014 #11 of 358
    HarleyD

    HarleyD Hall Of Fame

    1,357
    62
    Aug 31, 2006
    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.
     
  12. Aug 8, 2014 #12 of 358
    sigma1914

    sigma1914 DIRECTV A-Team DBSTalk Club

    14,573
    369
    Sep 5, 2006
    Allen, TX
    The guy was already dealt with criminally for this.
     
  13. Aug 8, 2014 #13 of 358
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    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.
     
  14. Aug 8, 2014 #14 of 358
    tonyd79

    tonyd79 Hall Of Fame

    12,971
    203
    Jul 24, 2006
    Columbia, MD
    And that should be the end of it.
     
  15. Aug 8, 2014 #15 of 358
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    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.
     
  16. Aug 8, 2014 #16 of 358
    inkahauts

    inkahauts DIRECTV A-Team

    21,500
    954
    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?
     
    1 person likes this.
  17. Aug 8, 2014 #17 of 358
    PCampbell

    PCampbell Icon

    1,639
    98
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.
  18. Aug 8, 2014 #18 of 358
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Sure, but the company would take responsibility, not say it's not our fault.
     
  19. Aug 8, 2014 #19 of 358
    damondlt

    damondlt New Member

    5,455
    232
    Feb 27, 2006
    Newfoundland...
    Because these companies hire thugs, just to save a buck.
     
  20. Aug 8, 2014 #20 of 358
    HarleyD

    HarleyD Hall Of Fame

    1,357
    62
    Aug 31, 2006
    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.
     
    1 person likes this.

Share This Page