LOL another guest vs character misconduct

thelookingglass

thelookingglass

Well-Known Member
I'm willing to bet what most likely happened, is "Donald" (most likely a female CM), with limited visibility, accidentally bumped the woman's chest, and then, not knowing what else to do, made an "embarrassed" expression.

Its such a joke. There is no way something so mundane like that would actually cause people stress and trauma.
 
flavious27

flavious27

Well-Known Member
This woman's trial is going to go through? I hate PA judges.

The judge should have tossed the lawsuit with the mention of complaints issued after the tigger incident, which resulted in a not guilty verdict anyway. Those incidents were only issued because others thought they could try and sue the mouse house also.

Also how credible is her fiance going to be? He is going to benefit from any money she gets. She said this happened at a character meet and greet in may, if this really happened there would have been a couple of youtube videos surface from one of the thousands of families at the park that day.
 
scoobygirl39541

scoobygirl39541

Well-Known Member
wow people are so touchy. A few years ago my dad slipped on street paint on a rainy day at Hollywood Studios and hurt/scrapped his knee. The skin was all messed up and bleeding. He even had to go to first aid. He never sued.
 
flavious27

flavious27

Well-Known Member
scoobygirl39541 said:
wow people are so touchy. A few years ago my dad slipped on street paint on a rainy day at Hollywood Studios and hurt/scrapped his knee. The skin was all messed up and bleeding. He even had to go to first aid. He never sued.
Click to expand...

they is a set of americans that are lazy and the only way that they feel they can get ahead is to cheat by suing someone that has gotten ahead in life.
 
Kobe!!

Kobe!!

Well-Known Member
Sooner or later the character meet and greats will be like they are over seas where you are not able to touch them at all. :eek:
 
WDWmazprty

WDWmazprty

Well-Known Member
Here's one:

picture.php


:slurp::sohappy:
 
A

ajurich

New Member
we were at food and wine last year.we were walking thru england when i was pushed around by a group of drunk english soccer players .jokingly of course. so i jokingly shoved back we hit it off they bought me a pint we laughed and drank together most of the night best food and wine ever my wife almost divorced though .should i sue the queen for that.
 
F

fosse76

Well-Known Member
flavious27 said:
This woman's trial is going to go through? I hate PA judges.
Click to expand...

So you know the facts of the case? Care to share your information with the rest of us?

flavious27 said:
The judge should have tossed the lawsuit with the mention of complaints issued after the tigger incident, which resulted in a not guilty verdict anyway. Those incidents were only issued because others thought they could try and sue the mouse house also.
Click to expand...
Where did you get your law degree? How do you know what the judge should have done? A judge does not try facts. It is not his decision to dismiss the case because he might not nelieve it is true. Judges are there to interpret the law. The judge clearly sees that the lawsuit itself can go forward based on the law. It's factual merits must now be decided by a jury.

flavious27 said:
Also how credible is her fiance going to be? He is going to benefit from any money she gets. She said this happened at a character meet and greet in may, if this really happened there would have been a couple of youtube videos surface from one of the thousands of families at the park that day.
Click to expand...
Not everybody posts videos on youtube.

While I also believe this case is most likely bogus, that doesn't mean I am am right. And unfortunately, we need to allow frivolous claims to go through, otherwise more legitimate claims may never see the light of day. That is what the Court system is for.
 
GrumpyFan

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it would be fun to sit on the jury panel for one of these trials? Of course, I probably wouldn't last very long as a juror. They would probably dismiss me for my uncontrollable outbursts of laughter when they plaintiffs' attorney started describing all the issues their client was having due to this "horrible incident". :ROFLOL:
 
F

fosse76

Well-Known Member
GrumpyFan said:
Is it just me, or does anyone else think it would be fun to sit on the jury panel for one of these trials? Of course, I probably wouldn't last very long as a juror. They would probably dismiss me for my uncontrollable outbursts of laughter when they plaintiffs' attorney started describing all the issues their client was having due to this "horrible incident". :ROFLOL:
Click to expand...
Way to keep an open mind.
 
GrumpyFan

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
fosse76 said:
While I also believe this case is most likely bogus, that doesn't mean I am am right. And unfortunately, we need to allow frivolous claims to go through, otherwise more legitimate claims may never see the light of day. That is what the Court system is for.
Click to expand...

On the surface, I would agree that this case sounds bogus. But, I'm not sure I totally agree with allowing frivolous claims to go through. There are thousands of frivolous court cases tried every day, where the plaintiff is just out to get money from the defendant. I know this isn't the right forum for such a discussion, but I think it's high time we looked at a "loser pays" legal system, where if a trial is declared frivolous, and without any merit or substantial backing evidence, the loser and their lawyer would have to pay the costs to the court, and perhaps even fees to the defendants lawyers. Further, I think if a lawyer or firm were found guilty of filing multiple frivolous lawsuits, they should lose their license at least temporarily.
 
GrumpyFan

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
fosse76 said:
Way to keep an open mind.
Click to expand...

It was a joke... I've sat on jury panels before, and was very intent and focused on the role I was given. If the opportunity arose, I would be the same for such a case. While far from perfect, I still think we have the best legal system in the world, and proudly do my part to serve when called to do so.
 
GrumpyFan

GrumpyFan

Well-Known Member
Some information from the article:
Magolon, 27, of Upper Darby, claims the May 2008 encounter left her with post-traumatic stress in the form of nightmares, digestive problems and other permanent injuries.

Her lawsuit also charges that Disney parks have a history of fondling complaints involving workers, and that Disney has "condoned" their actions, putting profits over public safety.
Click to expand...

I would be real curious how her lawyer plans to tie these "post traumatic" symptoms to the supposed incident with Donald Duck. I would guess the best way to do this would be to show specific dates of examination after the incident where these symptoms were noted on her medical records. But, then could it not be argued or contested that there was no way of proving whether she had these issues prior to the date of the incident?

Further, I would think that her lawyer's argument of previous complaints being "condoned" would be pretty shaky, considering none of the incidents have ever been successfully tried to conviction. Also, the fact that this woman did not file a complaint at the time of the incident, will probably come into play.

I know there's probably more evidence than this, but based on what's been presented thus far, it just doesn't sound like a very solid case, especially when they go up against Disney's lawyers who I'm sure by now have a play book for these kinds of things.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom