LOL another guest vs character misconduct

[Chevross]

Yeah right it's PTSD. Sure, you got groped and it was so traumatic that now you are mentally and physically screwed up and depressed. I mean getting groped is a stressful situation, and then Donald Duck laughing about it is certainly one of the most traumatic things a person can experience. This poor soul, I just can't imagine all the cruel flashbacks, mental breakdowns, and moods swings this woman is now forced to live with all do to Donald Duck. She served this country well, better than police officers or firefighters because we all know fighting criminals and saving lives is not as traumatic and stressful as getting groped by Donald Duck. I just feel sorry she has to suffer on this Earth.

I hate it when people suddenly claim they have PTSD over a little incident.

 

[Tom]

Yeah right it's PTSD. Sure, you got groped and it was so traumatic that now you are mentally and physically screwed up and depressed. I mean getting groped is a stressful situation, and then Donald Duck laughing about it is certainly one of the most traumatic things a person can experience. This poor soul, I just can't imagine all the cruel flashbacks, mental breakdowns, and moods swings this woman is now forced to live with all do to Donald Duck. She served this country well, better than police officers or firefighters because we all know fighting criminals and saving lives is not as traumatic and stressful as getting groped by Donald Duck. I just feel sorry she has to suffer on this Earth.

I hate it when people suddenly claim they have PTSD over a little incident.

Apparently her attorney is also an M.D. and has been able to diagnose her with PTSD. That's a very handy license to hold as an attorney.

Disney has oodles of lawyers on retainer. Since they're paying for them no matter what, I wish they would just unleash the full force of their resources on these people. Maybe, if people start to see that Disney doesn't just "settle" in all of these cases, and actually files counter suits for court costs, they'd stop getting these idiotic and selfish ideas in their heads.

PTSD...unable to perform duties...digestive problems...sounds like this woman just needs to be "put out to pasture", as she's obviously a danger and health hazard to society.

 

[fosse76]

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.

Again, we have "equal access to justice." So because someone is trying to scam the court, my legitimate case shouldn't be tried? That's ridiculous. And, that's what the court system is for. Frivolous cases are dismissed. A judge will determine if there is any merit to a case before it ever sees the inside of a courtroom. Some slip through, but people are really overestimating the number of frivolous court cases.

 

[fosse76]

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.

I hate comments like these. You don't know if it's a solid case. And that's why we have a court system. It is up to a jury to decide the facts of the case.

 

[Tom]

I hate comments like these. You don't know if it's a solid case. And that's why we have a court system. It is up to a jury to decide the facts of the case.

You have FAR too much faith in the American judicial system. FAR too much faith.

 

[GrumpyFan]

I hate comments like these. You don't know if it's a solid case. And that's why we have a court system. It is up to a jury to decide the facts of the case.

You're right I don't know. Which is why I said: "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". They would have a really crappy lawyer if he exposed all of his case and arguments to the media. But, again, based on the information provided, they have a weak case, and probably easily trumped by Disney's cadre' of lawyers who have dealt with many of these cases quite successfully.

Most judges won't allow prior court cases or complaints to be argued upon if they were found to be insufficient or a verdict of not guilty was rendered. At best, even if they are admissible, a jury will favor them due to the findings, unless a conspiracy by the defendant can be given enough credibility, which they might allege. Even so, conspiracy of this nature is hard to prove. Sure, Disney is a big, evil monopoly who is only interested in making more money, but how do you prove that when everything in their business model is about providing a clean, safe, family environment for fun and entertainment. Also, medical/mental anguish can be hard to prove, and the defendants (Disney) will have their own professional expert to counter whatever the lady's doctors testify to.

Something else from the article:

According to Magolon's suit, authorities in Florida received 24 related complaints in the week after a Walt Disney World employee dressed as " Tigger" was charged with molesting a 13-year-old girl and her mother in 2004. At least some were deemed credible and investigated by police, the suit said.

While this might indicate something is amiss, the fact that none of these 24 complaints resulted in any kind of charges being filed, might be argued by Disney's attorney that they were frivolous. If any of them were factual or had any legitimacy, wouldn't there have been charges filed by the police? The fact that they were investigated, means nothing. What was the finding of these investigations?

I'm just curious what you have seen that makes you think they have a solid case?

 

[GrumpyFan]

One other thing. Intent. It will be hard for them to prove that Donald intentionally groped her. Sure, they can probably show that he did in fact touch her, and by the supposed hand to mouth gesture he made prove that it was at least accidental. But, couldn't the attorneys for Disney argue that just by coming into a Disney park, the lady was probably accidentally "groped" or touched by other guests at least half a dozen times walking thru the park? Or, intentionally groped by airport security? Regardless, Disney will probably use the same or similar example of the costume bulkiness as shown in the Tigger trial years ago, and how it's difficult at best for the CM inside to direct the motions with 100% accuracy.

I should add that I'm not a lawyer and that most everything I have learned about these kinds of things came from watching TV or movies.

 

[Tom]

One other thing. Intent. It will be hard for them to prove that Donald intentionally groped her. Sure, they can probably show that he did in fact touch her, and by the supposed hand to mouth gesture he made prove that it was at least accidental. But, couldn't the attorneys for Disney argue that just by coming into a Disney park, the lady was probably accidentally "groped" or touched by other guests at least half a dozen times walking thru the park? Or, intentionally groped by airport security? Regardless, Disney will probably use the same or similar example of the costume bulkiness as shown in the Tigger trial years ago, and how it's difficult at best for the CM inside to direct the motions with 100% accuracy.

I should add that I'm not a lawyer and that most everything I have learned about these kinds of things came from watching TV or movies.

Donald is innocent until PROVEN guilty...at least that's how the system used to work. :hammer:

There needs to be irrefutable evidence AGAINST Donald for this to hold any water. It's hard to produce evidence when you're bringing it up 2 years later, and likely didn't videotape it.

 

[fosse76]

Most judges won't allow prior court cases or complaints to be argued upon if they were found to be insufficient or a verdict of not guilty was rendered.

They can be admitted if relevant. This is a civil trial, rules of evidence are different.

At best, even if they are admissible, a jury will favor them due to the findings, unless a conspiracy by the defendant can be given enough credibility, which they might allege. Even so, conspiracy of this nature is hard to prove.

The suit is about one particular incident. The attempted introduction of prior incidents would have the effect to point to Disney as being negligent in hiring.

Sure, Disney is a big, evil monopoly who is only interested in making more money, but how do you prove that when everything in their business model is about providing a clean, safe, family environment for fun and entertainment.

The only thing, in this case, she has to prove is that Donald Duck purposefully groped her and that her medical conditions resulted from it.

Also, medical/mental anguish can be hard to prove, and the defendants (Disney) will have their own professional expert to counter whatever the lady's doctors testify to.

Exactly. As they should.

Something else from the article:

While this might indicate something is amiss, the fact that none of these 24 complaints resulted in any kind of charges being filed, might be argued by Disney's attorney that they were frivolous. If any of them were factual or had any legitimacy, wouldn't there have been charges filed by the police? The fact that they were investigated, means nothing. What was the finding of these investigations?

It's not relevant that nothing happened, criminally. The standards of proof for a civil matter and a criminal matter are very different. Criminal is by a reasonable doubt (about 95% sure that the accused is guilty). Civil is by preponderance of the evidence (51% sure).

I'm just curious what you have seen that makes you think they have a solid case?

I don't. But I'm not going to paint the plaintiff as a money-grubbing scam artist without knowing the facts. The frivolity is up to the jury to decide, not me.

 

[fosse76]

Donald is innocent until PROVEN guilty...at least that's how the system used to work. :hammer:

There needs to be irrefutable evidence AGAINST Donald for this to hold any water. It's hard to produce evidence when you're bringing it up 2 years later, and likely didn't videotape it.

Wrong. This is a civil trial, she only has to prove that Donald LIKELY groped her and that it is more likely than NOT that her medical condition is a direct result of that. The differing standards are to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. Civil penalties are financial and are considered tangible interests. Criminal penalities include loss of liberty, therefore there should be no doubt that the acvcused is guilty (it is better to let 10 killers go free than to jail one innocent man).

 

[Tom]

Wrong. This is a civil trial, she only has to prove that Donald LIKELY groped her and that it is more likely than NOT that her medical condition is a direct result of that. The differing standards are to prevent a gross miscarriage of justice. Civil penalties are financial and are considered tangible interests. Criminal penalities include loss of liberty, therefore there should be no doubt that the acvcused is guilty (it is better to let 10 killers go free than to jail one innocent man).

If what you're saying is true, this is seriously disappointing. Stealing someone's money (i.e. wrongfully granting award to the plaintiff, resulting in checks being written by the defendant) can be just as damaging as stealing their liberty (i.e. jail).

Guilty should mean guilty. 100% guilty. Just because someone has to write a check instead of going to jail doesn't mean they should be less justifiably guilty.

Just one of the 10,000 flaws of our system, in my opinion, of course.

 

[fosse76]

One other thing. Intent. It will be hard for them to prove that Donald intentionally groped her.

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure there has to be intent. I think it depends on the allegations in the complaint. Let's say this really happened. But it was an accident. But let's say the medical conditions are still a result of the grope. She can still win. All she has to do is prove the grope resulted in her medical problems.

Sure, they can probably show that he did in fact touch her, and by the supposed hand to mouth gesture he made prove that it was at least accidental. But, couldn't the attorneys for Disney argue that just by coming into a Disney park, the lady was probably accidentally "groped" or touched by other guests at least half a dozen times walking thru the park?

No. For Disney to make that claim, they would have to have evidence that she was touched by other guests. And in the 12 visits I've made to the resort (about 60 days), I have not once been groped by a CM, purposefully or accidentally. Being touched is not the same as being groped.

Or, intentionally groped by airport security?

Not relevant. And Disney would have no way of ascertaining that kind of information (TSA isn't supposed to keep records like that, so there is no way Disney can prove she has ever been patted down by airport security).

Regardless, Disney will probably use the same or similar example of the costume bulkiness as shown in the Tigger trial years ago, and how it's difficult at best for the CM inside to direct the motions with 100% accuracy.

I have no doubt that this is what will happen. Do we know if they identified the CM in the costume? If I remember, they actually fired or suspended Tigger until the end of the criminal trial.

 

[fosse76]

If what you're saying is true, this is seriously disappointing. Stealing someone's money (i.e. wrongfully granting award to the plaintiff, resulting in checks being written by the defendant) can be just as damaging as stealing their liberty (i.e. jail).

Losing money and property is nowhere near as damaging as losing one's freedom (or, in some states, one's life). Once you are in jail you can't get back that lost time. It is much better to lose money than to lose freedom. Civil suits are a question of liability. I can always turn around and sue the party who was actually liable if I am personally found liable for something(and it happens OFTEN...Disney does it too).

Guilty should mean guilty. 100% guilty. Just because someone has to write a check instead of going to jail doesn't mean they should be less justifiably guilty.

There's no such thing as "guilty" in a civil matter.

Just one of the 10,000 flaws of our system, in my opinion, of course.

It's not a flaw. It's how jurors are to examine the evidence. The civil court system is designed for settlement, not trial. 95% of all civil cases settle, so the system, more or less, works as it was designed to (i.e., if you are responsible and know all it takes is 51% of the evidence to prove it, you will settle out of court). Yes, the system is flawed, but nothing is perfect.

 

[GrumpyFan]

That's an interesting point. I'm not sure there has to be intent. I think it depends on the allegations in the complaint. Let's say this really happened. But it was an accident. But let's say the medical conditions are still a result of the grope. She can still win. All she has to do is prove the grope resulted in her medical problems.

I hope you're wrong on that, and that she doesn't win. If she does, then say goodbye to all costumed characters. Because if it's that easy to win a suit against Disney or any other company who puts people in a costume, then the next logical step to protect themselves against such law suits will be card board cutouts of all our favorite characters, as well as Santa and the Easter Bunny too.

No. For Disney to make that claim, they would have to have evidence that she was touched by other guests. And in the 12 visits I've made to the resort (about 60 days), I have not once been groped by a CM, purposefully or accidentally. Being touched is not the same as being groped.

Exactly. I would imagine that one of the first things established is what is considered "groping" vs. say an accidental brush. The definition will lay the ground work for what really happened and what punishment (if any) should be levied.

I have no doubt that this is what will happen. Do we know if they identified the CM in the costume? If I remember, they actually fired or suspended Tigger until the end of the criminal trial.

I don't believe the CM has been publicly identified, but I'm sure their name is known.

 

[captainkidd]

I've tried stronger cologne, new hair styles, expensive clothing - Nothing I do ever gets me groped by any of the Disney Princesses. What am I doing wrong?

 

[WDWmazprty]

I've tried stronger cologne, new hair styles, expensive clothing - Nothing I do ever gets me groped by any of the Disney Princesses. What am I doing wrong?

This. :lol:

 

[Tom]

I hope you're wrong on that, and that she doesn't win. If she does, then say goodbye to all costumed characters. Because if it's that easy to win a suit against Disney or any other company who puts people in a costume, then the next logical step to protect themselves against such law suits will be card board cutouts of all our favorite characters, as well as Santa and the Easter Bunny too.

Pretty much...yes.

This is why Disney needs to bring out the big guns at these "civil cases" and just mash the plaintiffs. Hell, throw in some counter-suits. Maybe a little slander or libel. I don't know...I'm just throwing out latin, but Disney needs to stop being "soft" in these things and actually take a stance.

And if these suits have revealed a loophole, then Disney needs to fix the system rather than do something knee jerk like get rid of characters. At least 2 attendants with each character, so you have multiple witnesses. HD cameras on all MnG locations. Disclaimer signs. More disclaimers on the tickets.

People will just continue to sue if they know Disney caves and settles.

And yes, Disney can absolutely ban people from the parks, and should.

 

[captainkidd]

This is why Disney needs to bring out the big guns at these "civil cases" and just mash the plaintiffs. Hell, throw in some counter-suits. Maybe a little slander or libel. I don't know...I'm just throwing out latin, but Disney needs to stop being "soft" in these things and actually take a stance.

People will just continue to sue if they know Disney caves and settles.

And yes, Disney can absolutely ban people from the parks, and should.

Agree, Agree and Agree.

 

[stphnbogert]

And yes, Disney can absolutely ban people from the parks, and should.

yeah i've heard the only person they banned was nick cannon. thats why he hosted at disneyland instead of wdw where his wife performed.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Found this on another site talking about the case:

Magolon's complaint alleges that molestation of guests by characters is a chronic situation in the parks and goes on to cite a previous case that went to trial, that of Michael Chartrand, which resulted in a not guilty verdict due to the ability of the defense proving that full awareness of the environment as well as physical movement is constrained by the costume itself.

​

The words "chronic situation" are especially troubling. They're not just going after Donald, they're going after all the characters and alleging that this happens more frequently than is reported. I shudder to think what might happen if they win this. I was being a bit sensational before when I said to look for card board cutouts, but this wording might just lead to that. If nothing else, you might see characters in costume, but there will be no touching allowed by either them or the guests, IF they win this case.