Funt isn't smiling about this- Candid Camera verdict...
Pookie
>From courttv.com
Harsh reality: Unwitting traveler takes 'Candid Camera' to court
Philip Zelnick, seen during one of several trips through a phony
airport scanner, was not amused by the legendary TV show's prank.
By Laura Barcella
Court TV
"Okay, where's the candid camera?" Philip Zelnick demanded on June 15,
2001, when an airport security official in Bullhead City, Ariz.,
instructed him to climb atop an authentic-looking, but phony, X-ray
scanner machine.
It seemed fishy, but Zelnick, 35, complied with the request of the
"security official" - actually show host Peter Funt. By the time the
stunt was done, however, Zelnick appeared in no mood to "smile!", as
the show's guests are often entreated to do. Instead, he sued.
In a suit filed against Funt, "Candid Camera," the PAX television
network, the airport and the Mojave Country Airport Authority, Zelnick
claimed he incurred bruises and bleeding after becoming stuck in the
faux scanner. Though identical in appearance to scanners reserved for
carry-on luggage, the fake scanner did not emit real rays.
According to his lawyer, Andrew Jones, Zelnick's thigh was pinched in
the machine, forming a red, fist-sized "raspberry." His leg was also
punctured by a pen inside his pocket.
"It wasn't a deep wound," Jones told Courttv.com. But "anxiety,
distress, and humiliation" were after-effects of Zelnick's experience.
Zelnick sought an unspecified amount in damages for battery,
negligence, false imprisonment, misrepresentation and infliction of
emotional distress. Prior to the trial, Jones hesitated to speculate
about an outcome, saying, "I am hoping for a verdict that will be fair
to my client."
Six other unsuspecting travelers took a trip down the conveyor belt
that day. None, aside from Zelnick, suffered any injuries, and "Candid
Camera" broadcasted the stunt - sans Zelnick footage - as planned.
To Zelnick and his lawyer, the ill-fated gag was a classic example of
reality TV gone wrong.
"This was forcing someone to do something he didn't want to do," said
Jones. "It was an attempt to humiliate [Zelnick] openly, so that people
could laugh at him on TV, for personal profit and gain."
Lawyers representing the show could not be reached for comment, but in
a statement released on CandidCamera.com, the company had a very
different take on the incident. Responding to Zelnick's complaint, the
statement asserts that although a bruise was visible on the man's thigh
after he emerged from the machine, "no blood whatsoever was seen by
anyone at the airport."
In response to a New York Times article alleging that host Peter Funt
"did not express particular sympathy" for Zelnick, the company
expressed a "relative lack of sympathy for a legal action that seeks to
exaggerate and alter the facts of the incident." Exaggerated or not,
Zelnick's complaint against "Candid Camera" - a 54-year-old dinosaur
of reality TV- is, according to its Web site, the first the show has
incurred.
The Verdict
Zelnick v. "Candid Camera"
The Verdict
The Los Angeles jury, comprised of five men and seven women, found
"Candid Camera" and Peter Funt liable for negligence, false
imprisonment and intentional misrepresentation, but cleared them of
claims of battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
The jury awarded Zenlick a total of $300,000 in punitive damages, with
Peter Funt and the show ordered to pay $150,000 each.
Unhappy with the verdict, Peter Funt and "Candid Camera" plan to seek a
new trial. In a statement on CandidCamera.com, Funt is quoted as
saying, "We expressed our regret over Mr. Zelnick's injury within
moments of the incident and offered compensation. Clearly the jury was
not impressed with claims relating to his injury... I firmly believe
that this award will be dramatically reduced on appeal."
tiny dancer
"Pookie" <carrie...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1122678260.6...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Funt should pay up and shut up IMO.
td
>
Pookie
Why, Tiny? Its obvious this man wasn't "Traumatized". He got a boo boo.
Its not stunt that I believe should be done in this day and age of
criminals posing as police, but its not a $400,000.00 mistake, which is
you add it all up is just under what he got from all entities.
Also JMO, here is the note I sent Funt:
I think perhaps people are reacting with emotion rather than logic. I
have to say that if this were after 9/11/2001, it would be wholly
inappropriate in this climate of terrorism and profiling. Even though
Mr. Zelnick (likely) is not of ARAB descent, many can be mistaken in
profiling probes.
However, this WAS before that horrific day.
On Court TV they showed his bruise, which looked like it probably hurt
but he certainly wasn't what I would even call "wounded" physically. I
find it hard to believe he was really wounded emotionally as well,
especially after hearing his comments talking with Lisa Bloom of
Courttv. He maintains that he may have accepted the offer to appear on
the show, but his attorney had advised him not to. He admitted that
pranks are fun and that he had been a fan of the show.
I believe that the simple verdict was enough of a deterrent to your
show, or if it hasn't deterred you from portraying police
officers/security, I believe it should. Because we are in such a
dangerous age, where many crimes are committed by those POSING as cops.
Its a scary world out there, many women raped by those posing. So, I
don't think that's a real great idea.
But I don't think in the PRE-9/11 era, what your show did was so
troubling. I save words for reprehensible to low-lives like John
Evander Couey, Joseph Duncan, and this horrid woman I read about today
named Yelena Ivanov
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0726051fingers1.html
I hope that YOUR show wins the APPEAL!!! I think perhaps some amount
maybe $500 would be appropriate BUT this is a mockery of our justice
system.
tiny dancer
Just because I don't like Funt/candid camera. It used to be okay, back in
the olden days. The stunts they pull now, I don't know, I just don't like
them the couple times I've seen 'em.
td
Pookie
Gotcha...I see where you are coming from. I'd probably wish the same on
some rather-annoying game show hosts myself.
And watching Peter Funt address the jury in the Punitive stage, made we
want to sock it to him just for being annoying, but I said no no no if
I were truly a jury-woman that would be wrong...wrong, Carrie. He was
rather annoying and arrogant when professing his lack of arrogance.
Honestly, I didn't even know Candid Camera still existed. Although I
see that Clint's daughter, er...wife, Dina Eastwood is now co-host. She
seems so pleasant and real cute in a non-sexual way. Kind of like Eva
LaRue who co-hosted for a while.
tiny dancer
I didn't know that, about Dina Eastwood. I wonder why she'd want to do a
show like that? In fact I've always wondered why he married her, and why
she married him for that matter? His previous *choices* always seemed to
be the rather pale looking blonde's, in Frances' case, rather pale looking
red? orange? heads. ;)
td
>
Mer
Number one this is a repeat of the case that took place in 2003, the
appeal was exhausted and Candid Camera has paid the settlement. As far
as actual injuries and trauma, they were there, they were very real. I
was Mr. Zelnick's partner when this all happened, and while we are no
longer together, I still will defend this lawsuit that he brought
against Mr. Funt. Mr. Funt thinks he is beyond reproach, this lawsuit
was to show him that he is not, he must still abide by the laws any
average citizen would. It was to send him a message that, he cannot
play dress up in an airport for his own amusement.
EnEss
"Mer" wrote:
> Number one this is a repeat of the case that took place in 2003, the
> appeal was exhausted and Candid Camera has paid the settlement.
I was wondering about this myself. I saw this months and months ago on
CourtTV and I knew at the time it was a repeat broadcast of an already tried
case. I couldn't understand why anyone would be posting about this now, as
if it's something that just occurred.
> As far
> as actual injuries and trauma, they were there, they were very real. I
> was Mr. Zelnick's partner when this all happened, and while we are no
> longer together, I still will defend this lawsuit that he brought
> against Mr. Funt. Mr. Funt thinks he is beyond reproach, this lawsuit
> was to show him that he is not, he must still abide by the laws any
> average citizen would. It was to send him a message that, he cannot
> play dress up in an airport for his own amusement.
I think it was a just verdict, too, and that Funt and co. got off lightly,
all things considered, w/ just the damages they were assigned. They played a
prank on an unsuspecting airlines customer attempting to go about his own
business, and all for the sake of trying to create "entertainment" for couch
potatoes sitting in their homes in front of their boob tubes. The "harmless"
prank turned otherwise when the unsuspecting party was injured, and Funt and
his people are responsible. IMO, it matters not that the man's injuries are
minor and the emotional trauma he claims to have suffered is arguable.
Making a show like "Candid Camera" (particularly in this day and age) has
inherent risks that go w/ it, and if Funt & co. don't get this, they need a
rude awakening--which I hope this lawsuit may have provided.
When I was a little kid in the 1960s, Candid Camera was fun to watch and my
family rarely missed an episode. We all laughed over the pranks and the
humorous reactions of the unwitting victims. I never heard of anyone getting
hurt or even being seriously angry when they learned it was a joke. But in
this new culture of a hyper-litigious USA, anyone trying to pull off a show
like this I say is naive and idiotic and just asking for trouble. I hope
Funt has learned something from this. If not, maybe he'll go to jail next
time.
NS
(add sbc before global to email)