LOL another guest vs character misconduct

[Phonedave]

If disney really wanted to stop this nonsense from happening they should just throw every resource they have into these things rather than just settle.
If they begin taking these things all the way the more people might or willl hesitate to hire a lawyer and file that lawsuit because it will cost themselves mucho money.

That is the problem, it does not end up costing them more money.

There are plenty of lawyers out there that will take cases based on "we get no money unless you win". Many of whom get their clients based on an initial promise of a possible big payout.

They company they want to sue has deep pockets and a public image to consider, so they are more apt to settle.

An example (that was very close to home). An intial case was brought in the amount of $1,000,000 in damages (trauma, loss of function, mental anguish, loss of earning potential). Thier lawyers spent maybe 15 hours of their time on the case. The insurance company was sued, pushed back, and involved their lawyers. The person filing suit then settled, most likey on the advice of their lawyers, for $25,000. Thats right 2.5% of the original amount that was supposed to represent actual damages.

My guess is the law firm walked away with $5,000 to $10,000 of that money. Thats $300 to $600 an hour - not to shabby. Their client goes home with an extra $15,000 or so in their pocket. The insurance company looks at it as they could have spend $10,000 in legal fees to 'save' another $5,000 off that settlement (maybe more, maybe less)

There are cases where lawsuits are legitimate, but very often the initial amounts are inflated and the person brining the suit is doing so only because they have nothing to loose.

I have been in car accidents when not more than a day after the accident I has lawyers calling me out of the blue, asking was I hurt, and if I was, they might be able to get me "the compensation I was due". Nothing about if it was my fault, just the fact I was hurt was supposed to entitle me to compensation.

-dave

 

[trr1]

That is the problem, it does not end up costing them more money.

There are plenty of lawyers out there that will take cases based on "we get no money unless you win". Many of whom get their clients based on an initial promise of a possible big payout.

They company they want to sue has deep pockets and a public image to consider, so they are more apt to settle.

An example (that was very close to home). An intial case was brought in the amount of $1,000,000 in damages (trauma, loss of function, mental anguish, loss of earning potential). Thier lawyers spent maybe 15 hours of their time on the case. The insurance company was sued, pushed back, and involved their lawyers. The person filing suit then settled, most likey on the advice of their lawyers, for $25,000. Thats right 2.5% of the original amount that was supposed to represent actual damages.

My guess is the law firm walked away with $5,000 to $10,000 of that money. Thats $300 to $600 an hour - not to shabby. Their client goes home with an extra $15,000 or so in their pocket. The insurance company looks at it as they could have spend $10,000 in legal fees to 'save' another $5,000 off that settlement (maybe more, maybe less)

There are cases where lawsuits are legitimate, but very often the initial amounts are inflated and the person brining the suit is doing so only because they have nothing to loose.

I have been in car accidents when not more than a day after the accident I has lawyers calling me out of the blue, asking was I hurt, and if I was, they might be able to get me "the compensation I was due". Nothing about if it was my fault, just the fact I was hurt was supposed to entitle me to compensation.

-dave

back when I sued my old Employer the lawer worked for a percentage of 33 1/3 this was back in 1988-1990 era

 

[wedway71]

I've been really heavy into Zantac ever since Minnie groped my man back in '03....

Now where's my lawyer's phone number?

Wish someone would touch my "moobies"

 

[44443fan]

it is a shame a nut job and an out of control judge can raise prices for everyone else. There should be a way to hold the PA judge and the women involved financially responsible for this get rich quick scheme

 

[Eldon_Brasche]

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.

Do you even see how ridiculous this sounds? :brick: How about we stop tying up the courts with this type of crap so there is time for the legitimate claims?

 

[Tom]

Do you even see how ridiculous this sounds? :brick: How about we stop tying up the courts with this type of crap so there is time for the legitimate claims?

Yes.

 

[fosse76]

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.

So you know, with 100% certainty, that the claims in this case are bogus? I assume you are prepared to testify.

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.

Disclaimers do not hold the force of law, as this case just demonstrated (the purchase of ticket media mandates any civil actions take place in Florida). I think the best thing is to limit the actions of the characters, since the restricted mobility and lack of sightlines is problematic.

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

That's true of all companies.

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

Only within the confines of the law.

 

[Eldon_Brasche]

Hey fosse76- If you are going to try this case, you should do it in a court room, not a disney forum. I think your client needs you more than this site does.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Only within the confines of the law.

Are you sure about this? I thought that since it is private property they can refuse entry to anybody at any time, regardless of whether you have valid admission. Also, I'm pretty sure they can remove you at any time and are not required to reimburse you.

 

[GrumpyFan]

Hey fosse76- If you are going to try this case, you should do it in a court room, not a disney forum. I think your client needs you more than this site does.

Lighten up! This is a discussion forum. Fosse76 is merely discussing the matter as are the rest of us.

 

[WDWmazprty]

This thread is getting funny.:lol::brick::lol::lookaroun

 

[totodog]

Oh cmon...Donald is obviously guilty!....the duck wasn't even wearing any pants when they found him!

 

[WDWmazprty]

All ways are my ways!!!!!! Order in the court!

 

[Eldon_Brasche]

Lighten up! This is a discussion forum. Fosse76 is merely discussing the matter as are the rest of us.

Says the one asking for legal advice from discussion board attorney. :ROFLOL:

 

[WDWmazprty]

 

[GrumpyFan]

Oh cmon...Donald is obviously guilty!....the duck wasn't even wearing any pants when they found him!

FTW! :ROFLOL:

Says the one asking for legal advice from discussion board attorney. :ROFLOL:

Asking for legal advice? On a Disney Discussion board? Hardly. Asking a question about the legality of the original statement doesn't constitute asking for legal advice, it's called a "discussion".

 

[Tom]

So you know, with 100% certainty, that the claims in this case are bogus? I assume you are prepared to testify.

It doesn't matter whether this one is bogus or not....Disney still needs to step up its game and defend these types of accusations with their full arsenal. It will help deter ones that are indeed bogus from going anywhere.

I'm still placing my bets on "bogus" for this one, regardless. Just my opinion...and I don't think they accept "opinions" on the stand except in the case of "expert witnesses".

Disclaimers do not hold the force of law, as this case just demonstrated (the purchase of ticket media mandates any civil actions take place in Florida). I think the best thing is to limit the actions of the characters, since the restricted mobility and lack of sightlines is problematic.

That's right. Make a knee jerk reaction and punish everyone because of the actions of a few bad apples. *sigh*

Even if this case IS legit, one instance doesn't warrant taking away the "liberty" of everyone who still wants to visit with characters, and understands that they aren't groping you when they bump into your naughty bits.

You fix this by fixing the legal system...by discouraging people from bringing cases like this to court in the first place.

 

[GrumpyFan]

It doesn't matter whether this one is bogus or not....Disney still needs to step up its game and defend these types of accusations with their full arsenal. It will help deter ones that are indeed bogus from going anywhere.

Agreed, they do need to aggressively defend this, and I have no doubt they will.

I'm still placing my bets on "bogus" for this one, regardless. Just my opinion...and I don't think they accept "opinions" on the stand except in the case of "expert witnesses".

I get what you're saying here, her claims of mental and physical anguish sound very hokey, but if the judge is allowing it to go to trial, then they will have to prove the claims they have made. Part of which, are allegations that Disney has "a history of fondling complaints involving workers, and that that Disney has "condoned" their actions, putting profits over public safety". In truth, part of these allegations are legitimate, there is in fact a history of "complaints", and that alone is potentially damaging if her lawyer can convince a jury that there is a pattern here. Mind you, they have to come up with some kind proof that Disney has "condoned" it and let it go or swept it aside, which I don't believe there is. But by putting it out there and showing that there have been several such incidents, it does cast a bit of a negative image. Personally, I think the number of incidents per visitors over the past 10 years (minuscule in comparison to the millions who have been thru the parks), and the not guilty outcome of each incident speak for themselves. However, it doesn't really matter what I think, it's what a jury can be convinced of.

I will be interested to watch this. It sounds like they are painting a pretty broad stroke with their charges and I wouldn't be surprised if they play on the "putting profits before public safety" part as well by bringing into evidence the bus and monorail incidents over the past few years as an example.

You fix this by fixing the legal system...by discouraging people from bringing cases like this to court in the first place.

One thing that's been proposed by many is a "loser pays" system where the plaintiff would have to pay the court costs and legal fees of the defendant if they lost. I think a variation of this might work in our system, but there doesn't seem to be much traction for it.

 

[flavious27]

That is the problem, it does not end up costing them more money.

There are plenty of lawyers out there that will take cases based on "we get no money unless you win". Many of whom get their clients based on an initial promise of a possible big payout.

They company they want to sue has deep pockets and a public image to consider, so they are more apt to settle.

An example (that was very close to home). An intial case was brought in the amount of $1,000,000 in damages (trauma, loss of function, mental anguish, loss of earning potential). Thier lawyers spent maybe 15 hours of their time on the case. The insurance company was sued, pushed back, and involved their lawyers. The person filing suit then settled, most likey on the advice of their lawyers, for $25,000. Thats right 2.5% of the original amount that was supposed to represent actual damages.

My guess is the law firm walked away with $5,000 to $10,000 of that money. Thats $300 to $600 an hour - not to shabby. Their client goes home with an extra $15,000 or so in their pocket. The insurance company looks at it as they could have spend $10,000 in legal fees to 'save' another $5,000 off that settlement (maybe more, maybe less)

There are cases where lawsuits are legitimate, but very often the initial amounts are inflated and the person brining the suit is doing so only because they have nothing to loose.

I have been in car accidents when not more than a day after the accident I has lawyers calling me out of the blue, asking was I hurt, and if I was, they might be able to get me "the compensation I was due". Nothing about if it was my fault, just the fact I was hurt was supposed to entitle me to compensation.

-dave

The problem is that our courts have no way to stop these suits without defendants and the courts wasting their time. it is the same way with the ada suits where the plaintiffs are paid, they will flood businesses with suits for a paid day they don't deserve.

 

[flavious27]

Found this on another site talking about the case:

​

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.

It sounds more like the lawyers are trying to portray a single person is a character for decades on end, like a single santa works for all of the malls in NJ.