Hikergirl
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2016
Video of the incident?
Save the Margaritas!!!
Video of the incident?
I agree that if the only "negligence" claimed is lack of signage, then the suit is frivolous.You are free to do you. There are no facts that are going to change my opinion about what kind of person would sue Disney over this incident.
I don't believe that any company has to post a never ending list of potential incidents in order to avoid being sued. This woman is a local, she went outdoors where birds live. She wants to sue Disney because she wasn't smart enough to know that sometimes wildlife can be wild.
Now, if the kind of bird that "attacked" her is some man eating dangerous bird I might see it differently, but last I knew there aren't any of those in existence.
Why are you providing facts to someone who clearly stated that facts have no bearing on her opinion? I mean "you do you" but it seems like a waste of time.I agree that if the only "negligence" claimed is lack of signage, then the suit is frivolous.
However, if Disney knew that bird attacks were a problem specifically in that area because the landscaping particularly attracted them to that guest area, and they knew that something like scare crows around the area would solve it, but deliberately chose not to because they didn't want to pay for new straw every month... you wouldn't feel differently?
I agree that if the only "negligence" claimed is lack of signage, then the suit is frivolous.
However, if Disney knew that bird attacks were a problem specifically in that area because the landscaping particularly attracted them to that guest area, and they knew that something like scare crows around the area would solve it, but deliberately chose not to because they didn't want to pay for new straw every month... you wouldn't feel differently?
Why are you providing facts to someone who clearly stated that facts have no bearing on her opinion? I mean "you do you" but it seems like a waste of time.
Yes, but in my example, Disney did something (the landscaping) that actually increased the risk of the birds attacking guests.No I wouldn't,
I think there is a reasonable expectation that wildlife is outdoors and their behavior can be unpredictable.
Birds nest in trees, animals protect their young. That kind of stuff doesn't stop because they live in the borders of private property. If you are outside and see/know birds live in trees then I don't see anyone liable for your ignorance on their behavior. This was a local woman, it wasn't like she is totally unaware that birds exist in trees.
Yes, but in my example, Disney did something (the landscaping) that actually increased the risk of the birds attacking guests.
Therefore, the behavior of the birds would not be "unpredictable." It was predictable, and caused by the actions of Disney, and Disney refused to take steps to mitigate the danger (in my hypothetical).
I will say, that if I had to bet on the outcome, that this will be thrown out as frivolous (unless Disney decides that a quick settlement was cheaper than the court costs/attorney's fees required to get it tossed - and they assume they wouldn't be able to recover attorney's fees). But, I would not say it with certainty without at least reading the complaint.
Found the ambulance chaser. How can WDW possibly have liability to control flying animals and the injured party have no responsibility to look at her surroundings, let alone someone that lives a few miles away. It is one thing for a family from the midwest to visit and not consider the danger of gaters in a lake, another for a local to not understand the threat from nesting birds...There's a huge difference between a business invitee and a trespasser when it comes to legal liability. But don't let me dissuade you.
Well, I'm not an ambulance chaser. But even if I were, name-calling and personal attacks are the weakest forms of argument. My point is that the complaint states very few facts to support a valid opinion on liability. Some people think facts don't matter - but that's not how our legal system works, and this thread is about a lawsuit. But if name-calling is all you've got in your arsenal, go right ahead.Found the ambulance chaser. How can WDW possibly have liability to control flying animals and the injured party have no responsibility to look at her surroundings, let alone someone that lives a few miles away. It is one thing for a family from the midwest to visit and not consider the danger of gaters in a lake, another for a local to not understand the threat from nesting birds...
By definition, if she legally has a case, then it is not frivolous.Legally maybe this woman has a case, but that does not mean I don't think its frivolous. I think it takes a certain kind of person to sue over an incident like this.
Each party gives its version of what happened. If the lawsuit survives long enough, eventually a judge or jury will determine the facts.Speaking of facts, how do we know that a bird even attacked her and that it happened where she said? Her attorney said it hit her with the force of a baseball. I guess that it killed the bird? I'd love to know what kind of bird it was.
By definition, if she legally has a case, then it is not frivolous.
I'll take you admitting a possible fact pattern that would result in Disney being liable as a win
The problem with cases like this is because if they go before a jury many times the decision is made on facts such as it is that she is poor, Disney is rich, let's help her out. If it goes before Judge the facts will make a much bigger difference.Each party gives its version of what happened. If the lawsuit survives long enough, eventually a judge or jury will determine the facts.
Just as often the decision is made on thoughts like Disney has deep pockets, the plaintiff is looking for a windfall, there’s no merit to the claim. Fortunately, many, many persons who serve on juries take their duties seriously and decide based on the facts and law before them.The problem with cases like this is because if they go before a jury many times the decision is made on facts such as it is that she is poor, Disney is rich, let's help her out. If it goes before Judge the facts will make a much bigger difference.
Omg that’s so incredibly original and downright hilarious!A few years ago I suffered a nasty case of brain freeze after eating a Dole Whip. What was I thinking? I had myself a lawsuit against WDW for not warning me that consuming a cold food item like this.