Another day....another lawsuit. This time about a bird.

PrincessArlena'sDad

DIS Veteran
Joined
Aug 5, 2009
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.
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?
 
  • marikujawa

    Arblover
    Joined
    Jul 2, 2010
    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.
     

    Hikergirl

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Feb 28, 2016
    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?
    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.
     

    Hikergirl

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Feb 28, 2016
    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.
    It's called a discussion. People with opposite views are capable of having them.

    And FTR, legal facts don't always equate to what one might consider right.
     

    PrincessArlena'sDad

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Aug 5, 2009
    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.
     
  • Hikergirl

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Feb 28, 2016
    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.
    If your example was that Disney physically brought in the birds and built them specific homes so Disney could breed them, I might see it that way.
    However, landscaping the outdoors with things (in this case trees) that naturally occur outdoors?
    Again IMO it is reasonable to expect birds to nest in trees, because that is typical behavior of them. It doesn't matter if those trees were planted or grew on their own for me.
    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.
     

    Doug M

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Mar 1, 2015
    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.
    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...
     

    marikujawa

    Arblover
    Joined
    Jul 2, 2010
    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...
    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.
     

    PrincessArlena'sDad

    DIS Veteran
    Joined
    Aug 5, 2009
    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.
    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 ;)
     
  • marikujawa

    Arblover
    Joined
    Jul 2, 2010
    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.
    Each party gives its version of what happened. If the lawsuit survives long enough, eventually a judge or jury will determine the facts.
     

    KYMickey

    Adding EARS to Kentucky!
    Joined
    Sep 14, 1999
    Each party gives its version of what happened. If the lawsuit survives long enough, eventually a judge or jury will determine the facts.
    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.
     

    marikujawa

    Arblover
    Joined
    Jul 2, 2010
    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.
    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.
     

    bobbymcco

    Earning My Ears
    Joined
    Sep 10, 2017
    This is BS, last summer while walking into Harry Potter and the Escape from Gringotts the floor was wet from rain. (I'm from Colorado, and and did not know it rains in Florida
    🙄) I fell and came close to breaking my hip, got my arm banged up. I guess I could have sued, but I did something so crazy. You know what I did? I got up and went on the ride and enjoyed my day. Things happen people need to stop trying to make coin off of it.
     

    goofy4prez

    A guy can love Disney and still keep his man card!
    Joined
    Jul 24, 2008
    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. :rotfl2::rotfl2:
     

    marikujawa

    Arblover
    Joined
    Jul 2, 2010
    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. :rotfl2::rotfl2:
    Omg that’s so incredibly original and downright hilarious!
     



    Connect

    Disney News and Updates

    Get Daily Email Updates


    Top