By
The evening started out
innocently enough; Ingrid Lyne, a recently-divorced mother of three embarked on
what was meant to be a step into the unfamiliar world of online dating.
However, following a series of events almost too gruesome to fathom, the
40-year-old registered nurse was found dead the next morning, dismembered
in a recycling bin not far from her home. The sole suspect? The unassuming man
she met online just a few weeks earlier.
By all accounts, his was
just a garden variety profile on one of the dozens of popular online dating
sites. However, as the investigation focused on him and his history, his
troubled past became clearer, begging the question: who is to blame here?
Criminal
versus civil responsibility
Without question, and without a chance of pre-trial
release, the prime suspect will face the full wrath of Washington State’s
criminal penal code, assuming he is found guilty of the second degree murder
charge he is facing. The culpability does not necessarily stop there, as the
victim’s bereaved family may also make a claim under the state’s wrongful death laws, which provide
financial compensation to family members of one killed due to the negligence or
intentional misconduct of another person.
The victim’s family may
also want to explore a cause of action against the online dating site itself,
given the alleged perpetrator’s public history of restraining orders, civil
abuse, robbery, and DUI. In a growing number of sexual assault and battery
cases, victims are pointing to the so-called matchmaking service responsible
for placing the parties together in the first place—and decrying the
unregulated, hands-off approach many sites rely upon when vetting members.
This area of the law is,
as you might suspect, just starting to develop. However, civil settlements are
popping up across the nation where partner violence and assaultive conduct take
place. For instance, a Chicago-area woman recently procured a confidential settlement after suing
Match.com, alleging that the company knowingly allowed a known perpetrator of
intimate partner violence to maintain a profile and solicit other users for
dates.
More specifically, the
victim asserted that the website knew about a prior rape incident between the
perpetrator and another Match.com user that occurred two years earlier, yet
allowed the perpetrator to continue preying on victims behind the veil of
online anonymity. Unnervingly, the litigation resulted in Match.com’s
disclosure of 1,200 assault complaints from 2007 through 2009, including 48
reports of “serious rape attempts” and 600 reports of “straight violence.”
Meanwhile, a
Georgia-area woman is suing the dating site OKCupid.com, alleging that it set her up with a rapist. The
perpetrator met the victim for a first date through the site, and drugged her
during dinner. It wasn’t until she awoke disoriented on her own doorstep that
she summoned police and submitted to a forensic examination, which revealed
severe sexual trauma. The man was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences
as a result of the incident, while the victim continues to pursue her claim
against the website for knowingly allowing the man to maintain a profile
despite high-risk background factors.
Tying it
together
Matchmaking is hardly a
new concept and, as Avvo’s annual relationship survey shows, about one in
four Americans are open to the idea. However, the advent of the Internet
has removed—or at least altered—the actual matchmaker, instead relying on
algorithms and formulas to match potential mates. While studies reveal that as many as 15
percent of US adults have used dating apps in the past, as many as one-third of
users have never actually ventured out on a blind date with the man or woman
behind the profile—and perhaps for good reason.
Dating apps are widely
unregulated when it comes to cross-checking potential members, and it is not
uncommon for users to exaggerate things like education,
salary, and physical characteristics. However, the lackadaisical approach to
investigating users’ backgrounds could quickly expose these dating sites to
significant liability, particularly if (1) the site promises to be safe, and;
(2) the site allows convicted criminals (particularly sex offenders) to solicit
unsuspecting users for dates.
As the law emerges, and
more settlements and lawsuits are made public, greater regulation over the
dating game may take shape. For now, however, online daters are encouraged to
always meet in a public place, ensure that someone knows where they are at all
times, and never leave with an unknown person alone. The old adage still rings
true: better safe than sorry.
No comments:
Post a Comment