LOL another guest vs character misconduct

[GrumpyFan]

THIS....I agree with

My tax dollars need to be offset, and if the defendant is found to be innocent, they need to be compensated for their court/attorney costs by someone.

Nobody should ever have to pay to defend themselves when they were innocent.

Perhaps a solution would be that if the defendant is found innocent, they could counter-sue to re-collect their fees. However, put the burden to re-pay, not on the plaintiff, but their lawyer. This would discourage the lawyer(s) from taking a case that they know might cost them even more money if they lose. I agree though, that at the very least court costs should be paid by the loser.

 

[jakeman]

I agree that it is most likely a bogus claim.

But most posters in this thread automatically assumed she was lying, and that her claims are bogus.

So you are arguing just to argue?

I must say Aerials clams are a distraction. maybe I should sue?

They should be removed...

 

[WildcatDen]

This will cost the (taxpayers of the) state of Philadelphia,

When did Philadelphia become a state???

I know I am in the minority here, after all, I am a white male, but I truly believe that ducks, by their very nature, are filthy creatures. Have you ever tried to walk the trail around the lake at your local park. Duck's crap whenever and where ever they want as do their cousins, the goose. It is my guess that this poor woman once had a pet duck that her older brother 'experimented' with during those 'developmental' years and she is having some kind of traumatic sympathies. . .

Or maybe not. . .

 

[Tom]

They should be removed...

:sohappy:

 

[fosse76]

Perhaps a solution would be that if the defendant is found innocent, they could counter-sue to re-collect their fees. However, put the burden to re-pay, not on the plaintiff, but their lawyer. This would discourage the lawyer(s) from taking a case that they know might cost them even more money if they lose. I agree though, that at the very least court costs should be paid by the loser.

Defendants CAN sue for fees, and often do. They just don't always collect. And most people could never afford the corporate attorneys fees anyway, so it's not as if the Company will ever really collect the money (and they, and judges, know this). Simply because the plaintiff loses does not mean they didn't have a legitimate claim. The law has so many technicalites, and different judges interpret things so differently, even what looks like the simplest of cases can become complicated.

 

[flavious27]

That doesn't work, simply because it discourages those with a legitimate complaint from filing. You can lose a case for almost any reason that has nothing to do with the facts. That's one of the problems with having a jury (how many black men and women have been convicted in our country based on false allegations). Even judges can be biased. I think the fairest way is that AFTER the jury awards the plaintiff actual and punitive damages, there should be another phase of the trial to determine how much of the punitive damages the plaintiff can receive (since actual damages cannot always be completely measured)...with the rest going to the state. There would still be the human bias, but it discourage less scrupulous lawyers from filing claims they know are not legitimate (since their "fee" would be based on that waraded to the plaintiff after that phase).

So the trial would be tried twice then?

The point of a loser pays is to discourage those that continuously abuse the court system and the lawyers that go along with it. The courts shouldn't be setup to protect defendants that are guilty but they shouldn't enable plaintiffs that bring false charges to be awarded for fraud at the same time. For a case like this, the judge should see all of the evidence and determine if it is sufficient for trial. If there is no evidence, there is no trial.

 

[flavious27]

When did Philadelphia become a state???

I know I am in the minority here, after all, I am a white male, but I truly believe that ducks, by their very nature, are filthy creatures. Have you ever tried to walk the trail around the lake at your local park. Duck's crap whenever and where ever they want as do their cousins, the goose. It is my guess that this poor woman once had a pet duck that her older brother 'experimented' with during those 'developmental' years and she is having some kind of traumatic sympathies. . .

Or maybe not. . .

God that one would be one bankrupt and corrupt state.

 

[Scar Junior]

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.

This coming from the guy who said that a CM passing along a false rumor should be fired and investigated for fraud...

 

[fosse76]

So the trial would be tried twice then?

No. It would be a phase of the trial. Many trials occur in phases, where a jury (after its initial deliberations to decide guilt) will again deliberate for the punishment (for a criminal trial). Some civil cases have a punitive awards phase after the intial verdict to determine damages. My idea would simply involve a jury determining punitive damages (which are meant to punish the company for its wrongdoing) and deciding if the plaintiff deserves more than just actual damages.

The point of a loser pays is to discourage those that continuously abuse the court system and the lawyers that go along with it. The courts shouldn't be setup to protect defendants that are guilty but they shouldn't enable plaintiffs that bring false charges to be awarded for fraud at the same time.

What is it that I am saying don't you understand? The courts ARE set up that way. Trials go forward when a judge determines there is a question of fact to be determined, and that there is enough evidence to go to trial. You've been watching too much Law & Order (or Fox News). While people can and do manipulate the system, the success rate isn't anywhere near as high as you think it is. The fact that 95% of all cases filed never see the inside of a courtroom should be enough to prove that.

For a case like this, the judge should see all of the evidence and determine if it is sufficient for trial. If there is no evidence, there is no trial.

They do. You are making an assumption, because of your belief that this woman is essentially lying about everything, that no evidence of wrngdoing exists. The judge, the one who went to law school, practiced law, and has been a judge making these decision for years, has detrmined otherwise (well, possibly: the article wasn't too entirely clear, he may have simply been deciding the jurisdictional issue, which has nothing to do with the facts of the case...another judge may make that decision).

Of course the system isn't perfect. But you can't have a trial before the trial, which is essentially what you want to happen. Many of the fixes you want are already in place. The system can't catch everything. People are always going to find loopholes (and trust me, Disney exploits the law for their own advantage as well, so let's not pretend they are above it).

 

[disneyeater]

No. It would be a phase of the trial. Many trials occur in phases, where a jury (after its initial deliberations to decide guilt) will again deliberate for the punishment (for a criminal trial). Some civil cases have a punitive awards phase after the intial verdict to determine damages. My idea would simply involve a jury determining punitive damages (which are meant to punish the company for its wrongdoing) and deciding if the plaintiff deserves more than just actual damages.

I think in a Pennsylvania criminal trial, the judge decides the punishment after the jury determines innocence or guilt.

I am not a lawyer, law student, judge, nor did I stay at a holiday inn, but I did serve on a criminal jury in PA once.

 

[njDizFan]

Judging simply on the accusations and ramifications of the alleged misconduct, this seems rather bogus. But if there are any truths to the matter, we sure will have a lot of posters with egg on their face.

 

[fosse76]

I think in a Pennsylvania criminal trial, the judge decides the punishment after the jury determines innocence or guilt.

I am not a lawyer, law student, judge, nor did I stay at a holiday inn, but I did serve on a criminal jury in PA once.

Mostly a judge will determine punishment...which is a separate phase of the trial. However, I believe in death penalty cases, a jury has to unanimously agree.

Judging simply on the accusations and ramifications of the alleged misconduct, this seems rather bogus. But if there are any truths to the matter, we sure will have a lot of posters with egg on their face.

This is why I am slightly irritated by the responses in this thread. Personally, I believe this case to be frivolous. Or at the very least exxagerted by the plaintiff. But to act like it's the system's fault for being abused (which is almost, but not quite, akin to blaming the victim) is unproductive. Maybe her medical conditions were extremely exxagerated or fictitious...but that doesn't mean she wasn't groped by the CM. We don't know, and many of the posters here state with certaintly that the claim is frivolous and that she and her attorney are liars.

 

[OliveMcFly]

It's very easy to make mistakes that can be viewed as touching. Once a performer went to put their arm around a woman but she had backed up out of their view and when they brought their hand down it accidentally brushed up against her chest. Most guests will realize what is an accident.

 

[1disneydood]

I dress as Jack Sparrow for charity, ren fair, Mardi Gras Parades, etc. If I had a dollar for every woman who groped me I'd go buy a Escalade. :shrug: On another point, I try to not even touch people to pose.hold my arms out but try not to hold them on shoulder, waist, or anything. You can see my hands open in pics and if I do grab, it's usually just putting my hand on top of a childs head. I wonder how many times donald has been grazed in the wrong area and NOT made a big deal of it.

 

[trr1]

I dress as Jack Sparrow for charity, ren fair, Mardi Gras Parades, etc. If I had a dollar for every woman who groped me I'd go buy a Escalade. :shrug: On another point, I try to not even touch people to pose.hold my arms out but try not to hold them on shoulder, waist, or anything. You can see my hands open in pics and if I do grab, it's usually just putting my hand on top of a childs head. I wonder how many times donald has been grazed in the wrong area and NOT made a big deal of it.

isn't that ? getting a ducks down up?

 

[flavious27]

It's very easy to make mistakes that can be viewed as touching. Once a performer went to put their arm around a woman but she had backed up out of their view and when they brought their hand down it accidentally brushed up against her chest. Most guests will realize what is an accident.

Not the ones looking to sue people, though she said she tried to push the CM off of her and hasn't letting her. A character holding onto a guest is going to attract alot of attention along with the handlers calling management for a guest that is now upset.

 

[flavious27]

I dress as Jack Sparrow for charity, ren fair, Mardi Gras Parades, etc. If I had a dollar for every woman who groped me I'd go buy a Escalade. :shrug: On another point, I try to not even touch people to pose.hold my arms out but try not to hold them on shoulder, waist, or anything. You can see my hands open in pics and if I do grab, it's usually just putting my hand on top of a childs head. I wonder how many times donald has been grazed in the wrong area and NOT made a big deal of it.

I wore many version of the Mr.C costume, and the last one I found out was designed for a 5' female. The groin area did not have much room for a guy and the bottom of the costume landed just below that area on me (5' 9"); if I tried to push it down, the top of my head created a bump at the top of the costume. I don't know how legal didn't find out that mr.c was going to look like a mister if a guy over the height of 5' 5" was in the costume.

 

[mp2bill]

Sometimes, I hate this country SO much. I wish there were more repercussions for wasting the court/everyone's time with a ridiculous lawsuit other than losing and not getting the money they were seeking.

That's what I always say! I know that we should protect victims of a crime, but I think that there should be a "BS law" stating that if somebody brings about a BS lawsuit, they should have to pay all the court fees plus a fine. That way there would (hopefully) be a deterrent(sp?) to people bringing about frivolous lawsuits.

P.S. - Is there any word on the gender of the person inside the Donald Duck suit? I would think, with Donald being so short, that it would be a woman...so why would she be groping another woman?

 

[Goofygirl07]

I don't understand why people post things just to argue...:shrug:

 

[flavious27]

I don't understand why people post things just to argue...:shrug:

In all seriousness, lawsuits like this will hurt your next time at disney because they don't want to get sued.