Donald Donald Donald.. Another Disney Law Suit

[ptaylor]

It's pathetic, makes a mockery of people who have genuine post-traumatic disorders.

 

[mp2bill]

It's pathetic, makes a mockery of people who have genuine post-traumatic disorders.

Seriously

 

[mp2bill]

One thing I don't understand...how is the suit being brought up in PA? Since the "crime" happened in FL, isn't that where the case would take place?

Also, this lady must not like WDW that much. She and her family will never be able to go back to a Disney property. I would never try for a short term gain such as this with such a frivolous lawsuit.

 

[miles1]

This reminds me that being in-costume is too often an excuse to commit acts that would otherwise qualify as a battery (offensive touching). There's something about wearing a costume that psychologically affects a person's behavior. Ask any person who has worked in costume, OR, remember the last time that you [anyone] wore a Halloween costume. We all behave differently, whether we are trying to get "in character," or are merely acting in a different manner because no one knows our true identity.

Although characters are usually well behaved, we must all admit that many of them (furry more than face) touch guests in a way that, although not inappropriate, would not be acceptable if coming from a complete stranger on a bus, subway, sidewalk, or anywhere else. Characters are, in actuality, complete strangers, but we let down our guard because the character being portrayed is familiar, or at least not threatening. In a similar vein, the news media likes to point out that a [character name] committed the crime, with less emphasis on the identity of the actor. It makes for better [more dramatic] news to point the finger at a familiar face, even if that face is animated.

Lastly, I hesitate to accept the "it happens, it's life" justification for offensive (immoral or illegal) behavior.

While I can agree somewhat with the first part of your statement, I'm sure the character CM's are well instructed on how not to touch someone in a way that can be offensive. Let's not forget that guests approach the characters to solicit physical contact; the characters don't randomly approach guests for a hug. Finally, when they do inadvertently touch someone in an inappropriate manner, it certainly isn't intentional. When wearing one of those costumes, its literally impossible to tell an a$$ from an elbow, as the Tigger case showed us.

I don't think the thread is about accepting offensive behavior from strangers (I wouldn't either), but about the absurdity of claiming that one's life was ruined by a 4 foot tall girl in a duck costume, purely for financial gain.

 

[dreambeliever]

Well at least tiggers out of trouble:ROFLOL::lookaroun



But seriously should I sue Mickey Mouse For giving my mom a kiss on the cheak?!?!


I mean come on pepole!!!! Stop sueing cute Disney Characters!!!!!! :brick: :veryconfu:veryconfu :veryconfu:veryconfu :veryconfu:veryconfu :brick:

 

[stuart]

In fact...maybe I should sue as in one of my pictures with Donald from July he makes a '1 - 1' gesture relating to the draw between the US and England at the World Cup. Donald was quite clearly making the assumption that I'm English and I could quite construe that as being racist, and as such, emotionally scarred for life, unable to sleep, nor am i able to perform my daily duties etc etc. I would also assume his Uncle would not be happy Donald's actions.

 

[Tom]

In fact...maybe I should sue as in one of my pictures with Donald from July he makes a '1 - 1' gesture relating to the draw between the US and England at the World Cup. Donald was quite clearly making the assumption that I'm English and I could quite construe that as being racist, and as such, emotionally scarred for life, unable to sleep, nor am i able to perform my daily duties etc etc. I would also assume his Uncle would not be happy Donald's actions.

Wait. England and Scotland aren't the same place? :lookaroun

 

[Mouse Detective]

The Philly.com article indicates that the suit was filed in Pennsylvania whereas the WESH-TV article doesn't indicate where. It would seem that the proper venue for this is Orange County Circuit Court, not a Pennsylvania court. Perhaps Disney can get this dismissed right away for lack of jurisdiction.

A nice thing about Disney's legal department. They don't settle these things if the allegations are without merit. They fight down to the wire. I admire that!

 

[unkadug]

The Philly.com article indicates that the suit was filed in Pennsylvania whereas the WESH-TV article doesn't indicate where. It would seem that the proper venue for this is Orange County Circuit Court, not a Pennsylvania court. Perhaps Disney can get this dismissed right away for lack of jurisdiction.

A nice thing about Disney's legal department. They don't settle these things if the allegations are without merit. They fight down to the wire. I admire that!

After a little research the case can be tried in any state where Disney has offices. After looking at the court documents it appears that would be the case here.

CIVIL ACTION - COMPLAINT​

1. Plaintiff , APRIL MAGOLON, is an adult individual residing at 28 Ema Court,
Upper Darby, Pa 19082.

2. Defendant, WALT DISNEY PARKS AND RESORTS, LLC, is a Domestic
and/or Foreign Corporation, with offices for the acceptance of process at 2704
Commerce Dr., Harrisburg, PA 17110. At all times relevant hereto, said defendant has
engaged in business with the County of Philadelphia, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
on a systematic, continuous and substantial basis.​

What's really strange is that if you Google that address, it comes up as a doctor's office!

 

[Dznycrzy]

RE-"DUCK"-ULIOUS LAWSUIT!

When we were at Animal Kingdom, Stitch picked his nose and flicked a booger on us. I guess I should sue for that... NOT!!!!

 

[WondersOfLife]

Maybe Donald was asking for a raise and Tigger wants a GF?

 

[Tom]

I should sue Jasmine because she always puts me through mental anguish when trying to decide if I should look her in the eyes or.....remember that I'm at Disney World......a happy and wholesome place.....

 

[Timekeeper]

These are the types of poses that too many characters are comfortable posing for that could end up bringing into question the intent of the character in the shot. :brick:

Or...

Even if there was inappropriate touching during this shot, you'd never even be able to see it because of how "affectionate" Pluto is here.

 

[Tom]

These are the types of poses that too many characters are comfortable posing for that could end up bringing into question the intent of the character in the shot. :brick:

Wow - good example indeed. I think after that, they'd be married in some states :lol:

But seriously, unless SHE designed that pose, many people could definitely construe that situation as being a tad inappropriate for Woody to have come up with himself.

 

[Tigger1988]

Wow - good example indeed. I think after that, they'd be married in some states :lol:

But seriously, unless SHE designed that pose, many people could definitely construe that situation as being a tad inappropriate for Woody to have come up with himself.

Considering the girl is wearing a BACKPACK over her chest Woody wouldn't be able to grab anything if he tried.

 

[sbkline]

this is unbelieveable how can it have "terrorized her to the point that she still can't perform her daily duties" and its pretty hard to assualt in that suit.

That's what I was thinking, and what I always wonder anytime I hear a report about a character groping someone. With those thick gloves on, it would be nigh impossible to cop much of a feel, so why risk your job, and legal action for something you're not gonna get to enjoy anyway? :shrug::lol:

 

[friendofafriend]

Timekeeper-
I can see where you're coming from, the first pose specifically is something characters are told to avoid. They aren't supposed to rest their hands in front of the chest. However, the girl in the photo is a cast member I knew when I worked there. I have no doubt that she is well aquainted with woody and Pluto. These photos were taken under special circumstances and are NOT the norm.

 

[Timekeeper]

Timekeeper-
I can see where you're coming from, the first pose specifically is something characters are told to avoid. They aren't supposed to rest their hands in front of the chest. However, the girl in the photo is a cast member I knew when I worked there. I have no doubt that she is well aquainted with woody and Pluto. These photos were taken under special circumstances and are NOT the norm.

Even so, the photos do appear to have been taken "on set," meaning that numerous other guests were likely in queue and an audience to this occurrence ...and likely not aware of their "special relationship."

Even if not inappropriate per se (personal familiarity), Disney is usually pretty good about avoiding even the appearance of inappropriateness. If characters aren't supposed to do something while on set, then they're not supposed to do something while on set. That's pretty straight forward. A CM's unilateral decision to make a personal exception to a rule is what can sometimes lead to problems.

 

[mp2bill]

The Philly.com article indicates that the suit was filed in Pennsylvania whereas the WESH-TV article doesn't indicate where. It would seem that the proper venue for this is Orange County Circuit Court, not a Pennsylvania court. Perhaps Disney can get this dismissed right away for lack of jurisdiction.

A nice thing about Disney's legal department. They don't settle these things if the allegations are without merit. They fight down to the wire. I admire that!

Same here.

 

[mp2bill]

These are the types of poses that too many characters are comfortable posing for that could end up bringing into question the intent of the character in the shot. :brick:

Disney is in on it! They posed the shot in/on a bed!