Tigger "hits" kid at Disney World

[dsigma6]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16506982/

There is an interview with the dad and son out there, but it was on comcast.net...most of you probably can't access it.

The poor kid said he woke up with back pain from this little tap on the head...so the father took him to the hospital. Going to sue Disney for $30 million now? This makes me sick. I want to hit both of them extra hard.

[GomJabbar]

Tigger always was a hit.

[dorin]

ok, first of all i hope my reply won't piss anyone off, but can somebody tell me why is this crazy lawsystem in states?!

i mean, are there soo many lawyers without cases that they need to find the tiniest opportunity to grab some money?
i mean i always hear of funny cases (trying to be "polite") here ....like the thief which got injured cause the owner just waxed the floor....he sued....and won!!!!

trying to understand a culture from far away,

thanks,
dorin

[rkawakami]

Good question, but I don't have any solid answers. I do know a good (and old) lawyer joke...

What do you call 50,000 lawyers at the bottom of the ocean?

We (the US) are a litigious society simply because that is one way to make easy money. It's a way of finding someone to blame for a personal choice that was made. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's there for the taking. People know to go after the "deep pockets" simply because it makes no sense to sue somebody who's poor. I'm sure you have heard about the woman several years ago who sucessfully sued McDonald's for serving her coffee that was too hot and burned her. That she was holding it between her legs while the car was in motion didn't seem to make any difference. There was enough evidence shown during the trial that McDonald's knew about the way they prepared the coffee was hotter than other restaurants and that there were several hundred incidents before where they paid damages. This particular lady wanted to settle for $20,000 but McDonald's declined.

One could say that common sense should have told the lady not to put the hot coffee where she did. Common sense also would say that McDonald's should have reduced the temperature of the coffee after the 700 or so cases that they previously settled. Both sides were in the wrong (mostly McDonald's according to the jury; 80% to 20%).

Now, I don't know if the lady initially had the idea to persue a jury trial. I don't know if she had any lawyer relatives or friends. I do suspect that there were plenty of personal injury lawyers trying to convince her that she had a valid case. The reason? Money and fame.

references:
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/civjus/ ... cfm?ID=785

Oh yeah... the answer to the joke/riddle...

"A good start".

[Purcy]

Very well put Ray, puts a new slant on our great theme "America - Land of Opportunity"

[tfflivemb2]

Ok, I have a slightly different side of this debate...after working as a Paralegal for many years...

If it weren't for some of these outlandish cases, we wouldn't have certain regulations set as high as we do. For example, a large period of my work was in Medical Malpractice. The firm that I worked for was very select in the cases that we accepted, but I still saw some cases where one would normally think it was a stupid case. Without us pursuing some of these cases, the laws would be more in the Physician's favor, and could have possibly lead to more people suffering from permanent damage, or worse, loss of life.

Here is a better example, relating to the food/McDonald's issue. Imagine if there weren't cases of people getting sick from eating at certain places, because of how poorly they handled food. The regulations would be minimal, thus allowing more people to get sick. One person stands up, because they have had enough of it.....they take it to court, and win....new laws and regulations end up being passed to protect others from getting sick from the same thing.

Now, I will agree that cases of people getting injured while performing illegal activities should be barred from seeking recovery....and in some cases there are certains states that have contributory negligence laws that prevent you from collecting damages when you are more than 1% at fault for the incident. However, this can be a bad thing, too.

I used to give an example to clients while signing them up for automobile accident cases, to explain the 1% contributory negligence factor: Imagine that it was 2am and you are sitting at a stoplight waiting for the light to change...instead of having your headlights on, you only had your parking lights on....a drunk driver coming in the opposite direction, on a road with a grass median, runs the red light and crosses the median and hits you head on....you could be found partially at fault, because there was that 1% chance that had you had your headlights on, the other driver, despite being drunk, might have seen your headlights and swerved to missing your vehicle.

Ok, enough of my rambling....

[NS]

Singapore is worst.

1: dog bite someone = sue the owner
2: teacher scold kids who behaved like hooligans in class disrupting lessons = mother & father sue teacher and claimed that their child is correct
3: 1 animal show in singapore about a sealion splashing water on a visitor = visitor (singaporean) sue singapore zoo for dirtying his shirt.

Should tigger tapped on a female kid's head in singapore, i think most probably the parents are going to sue the company for tigger molesting their kids.

So don't complain about your area. My area is worst. Fines fines everywhere...

[christopher_wolf]

Singapore is worst.

1: dog bite someone = sue the owner
2: teacher scold kids who behaved like hooligans in class disrupting lessons = mother & father sue teacher and claimed that their child is correct
3: 1 animal show in singapore about a sealion splashing water on a visitor = visitor (singaporean) sue singapore zoo for dirtying his shirt.

Well, now how can that be worse? Pretty much the same stuff happens over here...

Not that it means it is good, mind you.

[rkawakami]

Here's the best coverage on the story I've found so far:

http://www.wftv.com/news/10686229/detail.html

There's a poll asking if assault charges are justified. Currently running 94% (3471 votes) NO and 4% (150) YES. After viewing the portion of the videotape that was released and is being used by the media, I am slightly leaning toward the YES side. But as I'm not on any jury and until more facts are presented, our legal system is based upon "innocent until proven guilty". What I see on the tape is a conscious effort by Tigger to lock the arm of the kid (hereinafter referenced as the "guest"), pull the guest closer and swing his free arm around to hit/slap/punch the guest. Based on that little bit of video, Tigger is in the wrong, yet we don't know (yet) what led up to that act. There may be an explanation why Tigger chose to do that, but in my opinion, nothing short of a counter-claim and proof of an assault upon Tigger by the guest justifies the action that Tigger took. And even then, Tigger is bound by the rules of his employer (Disney) on his conduct in public. It's taught by the Disney School on what to expect from the guests to the Magic Kingdom. Each "cast member" of Disney's is put through training on this.

I doubt that any real physical damage was done to the guest by Tigger's glancing blow unless the guest has some pre-existing medical condition of a weak neck or back. Having been in several auto accidents during my lifetime (rear-ended by a high school friend, T-boned a Pinto driven by a drunk who turned right in front of me, hitting a patch of black ice and then running into both a car and tow truck already in the ditch) and currently going to a chiropractor and getting "adjusted" (read: neck twisted and snapped) three times a week, says that the normal human skeletal system is pretty robust.

Knowing how Disney has tight rules about the conduct of their cast members, if there's any doubt that Tigger was in the wrong, that person is history.

@tfflivemb2:
Please don't take my comments personally. I know that there's both good and bad examples in any professional field. Lawyers who fight for the public good on a pro bono basis and others who make a living chasing ambulances. Who knows, maybe some day I'll need a good shark to protect or fight for me . All I am trying to say is that there needs to be more common sense used by everyone.

[tfflivemb2]

@tfflivemb2:
Please don't take my comments personally. I know that there's both good and bad examples in any professional field. Lawyers who fight for the public good on a pro bono basis and others who make a living chasing ambulances. Who knows, maybe some day I'll need a good shark to protect or fight for me . All I am trying to say is that there needs to be more common sense used by everyone.

Oh, I didn't take it personally, I was just sharing the otherside of the argument...because it was one that I heard often.

[NS]

Singapore is worst.

1: dog bite someone = sue the owner
2: teacher scold kids who behaved like hooligans in class disrupting lessons = mother & father sue teacher and claimed that their child is correct
3: 1 animal show in singapore about a sealion splashing water on a visitor = visitor (singaporean) sue singapore zoo for dirtying his shirt.

Well, now how can that be worse? Pretty much the same stuff happens over here...

Not that it means it is good, mind you.

*I cannot trim the quotes because they are connected*

At least you guys have your own freedom of speech and can jeer at those people whom you do not like to be governing the country. We, on the other hand cannot do this and if we want to do this, we must to do this privately, if not be prepared to be thrown behind bars.

[dsigma6]

What I find amazing is that it looks like Tigger was yanked from behind by the boy, and in an attempt to keep from falling back into the fence, swung his arm to retain his balance.

[Kyocera]

well, you know tigger is in essence a "Wild Animal" and their instincts just can't be supressed, even when they are raised out in captivity

[dsigma6]

Haha...and they even said this didn't happen until Tigger's handler walked away!

On an unrelated note, Firefox auto-correct spelling produces quite a surprise for "Tigger's."

[skitty4gzus]

that has got to be one of the worst things i have ever seen. whats more pathetic is we choose to go back and forth deciding if it was malicious. give me a break, if tigger was gonna just snap don't you think he would go out with a bang?