Who suffers "severe brain injuries" and sues for only $15k?
So, when someone yells "DUCK!", you need to DUCK instead of just looking around asking "Where?"A duck tried to take my head off near Peter Pan at DLR. Evidently there is an obvious pattern there of malicious flying ducks.
How funny! There were tons of posts along the same lines, but this one is just so darned original. A chipmunk gave you a dirty look
Smart. I was actually somewhat sane at the beginning of this thread.Well that’s what happens when you get to the party late and don’t have time to read all 8 pages of comments.
This place is going to the birdsThis whole thread is beyond me, people in the US are becoming vegetables. In my neck of the woods it's not uncommon for a feathered creature to launch an attack on you. Domestic most likely but the wild ones will have a go at you. That's why you tell your children, ya go play with the goose or rooster. They learn valuable skills and it's entertaining to watch.
I believe there was one. Feed the Birds if I remember correctly.All I want now is a Disney remake of The Birds. That or a Mickey short.
Also, she could have gotten a bag of something to feed the bird. I think it's only tuppence a bag!I believe there was one. Feed the Birds if I remember correctly.
They have beautiful plumage!What if it was a Norwegian Blue falling from above ...
So, when someone yells "DUCK!", you need to DUCK instead of just looking around asking "Where?"
Isn't this the same as assumed risk when you enter a ballpark and get hit by a ball? Don't you assume a risk of being attacked by a bird, bug, etc. when you go outside?
But I bet he wasn’t wearing pants. What’s THAT about?I yelled "DUCK" at Disney World once and got a hug from a five foot duck, in a hat and jacket.
I know it sounds silly, but might she have a case? If Disney knew these territorial birds where a problem but didn't properly notify people.
It seems like they're taking it serious now, considering they have roped off sections of Adventureland to keep people away.
When in Disney ....But I bet he wasn’t wearing pants. What’s THAT about?
Yes but a sign prevents nothing, you honestly think that putting a sign up would have prevented this from happening?She might, for the reasons I gave back in post #60. Her complaint has few details in it, which is not unusual at this stage, but it makes it difficult to determine whether there is any merit to the claim. Being hit by a bird sounds funny, kind of like slipping on a banana peel in a grocery store, but those funny scenarios can cause serious injury. Sure, if a random bird came out of nowhere and attacked the woman, it would just be bad luck and there would be no basis for holding Disney responsible. But if Disney knew there were aggressive birds nesting nearby who had been attacking or harassing people, it could at least be argued that they should have done something to prevent it or warn guests to look out when they are in the area. The lawsuit doesn't give any details yet, but what if Disney knew that aggressive birds (and some of the birds I've seen at Disney are large enough to do damage) had been attacking people who got to close to the nests, did nothing, and then someone was seriously injured as a result? People find it funny when it's an adult (as long as it's not them), but would probably be more sympathetic if it was a young child.
In any event, people see the words "Disney" and "lawsuit" and assume the worst. I'm not saying I believe the suit is valid - there aren't enough reported facts to know that - but equating this scenario to someone taking a toaster into a bathtub or suing for sunburn doesn't seem warranted.
So what is Disney supposed to do? Many birds are protected.
"Basic protection. All birds, their nests and eggs are protected by law and it is thus an offence, with certain exceptions (see Exceptions), to: Intentionally kill, injure or take any wild bird."
Of course not. A sign warns people that there is a problem and then allows them to make the decision of whether or not to take the risk of entering that area or at least to be aware of aggressive birds. Part of what this woman will have to prove is that there were effective steps that Disney could have taken that would have prevented the injury and that they unreasonably neglected to take those steps. I don't think there are sufficient facts at this point to say this is a frivolous suit (or to justify vilifying or ridiculing the woman), but the likelihood of this lawsuit going very far is minimal. Among other things, she would have to prove that the aggressive nesting birds were a dangerous condition, that Disney knew there was a problem, and that they acted unreasonably in failing to act in some way to prevent the injury (either by fixing the problem or effectively warning the woman of it). After that, other limitations come into play. The vast majority of negligence cases are dismissed based on the law - they don't get to the stage where people are testifying in court.Yes but a sign prevents nothing, you honestly think that putting a sign up would have prevented this from happening?
Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.