News Bird attack at Disney World leaves woman with traumatic brain injury

mf1972

Well-Known Member
C7C2E1A0-6039-4159-981A-D2421B84A57B.gif

i called in the expert
 

SMS55

Well-Known Member
Who suffers "severe brain injuries" and sues for only $15k?

Lawsuits in excess of 15k have to be filed in circuit court, while below 15k are filed in county court. The threshold for small claims escapes me right now. That statement is made solely for purposes of establishing which court has proper jurisdiction. Whether $15,001 or $50,000,000, the case is heard in the same court. Without seeing the complaint we don't know exactly what the amount is.
 

GoofGoof

Premium Member
This 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.
This place is going to the birds;)

If a bird in hand is worth two in the bush, what’s a bird to the head worth?...apparently at least $15K
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
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?

Yes, it is. There are also waivers attached with the tickets purchased for both the ballpark and the amusement park. They are considered a first line of defense. However, insurance companies are bound, by contract to defend against law suits, no matter how stupid they are. Given those costs, insurance companies will make offers to close the claim. That is why lawyers bring these cases to court and why a person, hit by a bird, with probably walk away with a settlement award.
 

yaksplat

Well-Known Member
I was hit by a bird once while driving. A small chickadee flew into my window and hit me in the neck. His neck snapped and mine was fine. I felt bad.
 

KINGLOUIS1993

Well-Known Member
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.

No, because they cannot be held responsible for a bird hitting someone in the head. What is to say that that particular bird is one of the birds nesting in Adventureland?

This blame culture is ruining everything, absolute none-sense.
 

KINGLOUIS1993

Well-Known Member
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.
Yes but a sign prevents nothing, you honestly think that putting a sign up would have prevented this from happening?
 

KINGLOUIS1993

Well-Known Member
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."

Exactly, imagine the uproar if they turfed out the birds. The fun things about (most) birds is that they can fly which helps them to easily transit. So that bird could have come from anywhere.
 

Chi84

Premium Member
Yes but a sign prevents nothing, you honestly think that putting a sign up would have prevented this from happening?
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.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom