Article on TMZ-Pregnant Woman Sues BGW over HoS
- Thread starter RocketChk
- Start date
Oh my gosh. It's like if I got something I was allergic to in a meal at a restaurant, I would sue the company who made the pasta and not the restaurant. How does that make since? Complete stupidity. But it's not our first time to this rodeo.
Mazakman said:
Considering the person is claiming this happened 2 years ago.... I'd say they probably don't make that much in a few months. Sounds like they think they can make some quick money off this. Which also clearly points to their lack of understanding into how our judicial system works.
I really hope that the Park/Company fights this and just doesn't give in to her and her greedy lawyer and give them an out of court settlement just to make it go away. They don't deserve to get any free money due to her stupidity.
I assume that she would have to be able to prove that it actually happened too. If she didn't file a report with the park at the time she may not even have a case. Also, I have a hard time believing that the scare actors chased them for more than a short distance and were able to create a "stampede". Sometimes people become reckless at the park and are not entirely aware of other people.
Keep in mind this supposed incident happened during the year of the roaming hordes. I'm fairly certain that the actors by themselves could have been a stampede especially in tight spaces like Aquitaine.
I don't doubt that it happened, but the real concern is if she made a proper decision going to Howl-o-Scream. There are probably warnings at the entrance of each house warning those who are pregnant they should not enter, but I don't recall a warning posted in front of the event.
I can definitely see this ending up like the 'Warning: Hot Beverage' lawsuit. Yes she should have known not to go, but there was nothing in writing specifically giving her that warning to ensure she knew.
I don't doubt that it happened, but the real concern is if she made a proper decision going to Howl-o-Scream. There are probably warnings at the entrance of each house warning those who are pregnant they should not enter, but I don't recall a warning posted in front of the event.
I can definitely see this ending up like the 'Warning: Hot Beverage' lawsuit. Yes she should have known not to go, but there was nothing in writing specifically giving her that warning to ensure she knew.
There's always a warning at the front of the event, letting you know what type of event it is. It gives you a basic jist of what you may experience during the night. Honestly she has no way to win. If there's no record of a report form the night it happened and her baby had no injuries, there's no basis for the case to go through. It's a waste of her own money.
The 5pm newscast on WTKR Ch3, Norfolk just had this story. No website link to it that I could find. On their graphic that they had up they showed an amount of $100,000 that she is suing for. She wants them to pay for undue emotional distress about her worrying for her unborn child (which I can understand, but it wasn't mentioned if the baby was fine, which it probably was) but they stated she also wants the money to pay for serious medical injuries and future medical care to help her get rid of the trauma of the incident. Now wouldn't you think that after two years she'd be over it?!
While I feel that she is being completely absurd about this. However, the same thing goes for hot coffee. When you buy coffee you should understand that most of the time it comes extremely hot. In fact most people selling coffee tend to give you a vocal warning, but people want things written in full clarity. The sign at the front of the park does not say anything specific towards people who may be pregnant. I bet next year, they may add something more specific towards pregnant individuals.
I think the major issue she will have to overcome besides understanding the event, is the time frame it took her before she decided to form a lawsuit. Two years is a very large gap. What exactly happened to her medically and mentally during that time? Also what is here current lifestyle like? Is there any major event in recent times that she needs money?
I think the major issue she will have to overcome besides understanding the event, is the time frame it took her before she decided to form a lawsuit. Two years is a very large gap. What exactly happened to her medically and mentally during that time? Also what is here current lifestyle like? Is there any major event in recent times that she needs money?
- Feb 17, 2014
- 619
- 448
- 160
*Dear Virginia Gazzete, I was scared by Howl O Scream so SUE AND SHUT DOWN THE EVENT FOR DOING WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO.
Well the park should easily win this. Any case that happens at a year before they report is usually because there looking for some quick cash. Also since she was pregnant why'd she even go to a horror event in the first place! Did she think it would be rainbows and friendship around every corner? Really dumb decision making... I imagine since this happened two years ago she'll jazz up some of the facts.
There is no way the baby was seriously injured. She was probably regularly seeing a doctor. The Doctor would have noticed something wrong, especially since if she was smart she would have told her doctor about what happened that night. Which means they would have done tests. Since it's not mentioned that the then unborn baby was injured. Then it's most likely perfectly fine.Alf33 said:
She's just hoping for quick cash. That's all there is to this at this point. :/
^ Don't forget the added attractions of attention and notoriety.
This is so ridiculous that it's actually kind of funny. I can't think of any reasonable way for this batty woman to win. Why was she or the crowd that trampled her running in the first place? Isn't it against park rules to run? If she or the crowd that trampled her had been following park rules, she wouldn't have fallen to begin with, right? Why should the park be responsible for people who don't follow park rules? I know it's not that simple. It's fair to say that the scare actor could have prompted people to run, but unless he specifically told them to run, it's still their own fault. Perhaps she should sue the people who trampled her, instead of the place where it took place?
Come to think of it, I got pushed over by some other students in gym class the other day, and it wouldn't have happened if the gym teachers didn't tell us to run. Maybe I should follow this lady's lead sue the school system?
This lady f*cking tripped for crying out loud. (The article says "trampled," but that is clear hyperbole for "tripped.) If she had fallen over at Walmart, would she be suing Walmart right now? Maybe she should sue God too, since he made gravity which caused her to fall!
I swear, it's one crazy society we live in. [/endrant]
Come to think of it, I got pushed over by some other students in gym class the other day, and it wouldn't have happened if the gym teachers didn't tell us to run. Maybe I should follow this lady's lead sue the school system?
This lady f*cking tripped for crying out loud. (The article says "trampled," but that is clear hyperbole for "tripped.) If she had fallen over at Walmart, would she be suing Walmart right now? Maybe she should sue God too, since he made gravity which caused her to fall!
I swear, it's one crazy society we live in. [/endrant]
I wasn't necessarily trying to blame the victim.
In the McDonald's case I was pointing out that she was aware it was extremely hot which was true. She may not have known the exact damage that could have been caused, but still you shouldn't try to juggle very hot drinks. I'd vote along with the Jury that it was both of their faults regardless. They both had knowledge that could have prevented the incident.
In this case, there was some obvious risk to be taken. She decided to take a risk that she did not fully realize apparently she could suffer damages to her extent, whatever they may be exactly. I'd say this is once again the fault of both sides. She shouldn't have gone to Howl-o-Scream knowing that there were literally 'hordes' of scare actors running around the park. The park should have a specific phrase stating that the event is/may not be for pregnant people or that there is a risk of tripping due to running by being scared.
In the McDonald's case I was pointing out that she was aware it was extremely hot which was true. She may not have known the exact damage that could have been caused, but still you shouldn't try to juggle very hot drinks. I'd vote along with the Jury that it was both of their faults regardless. They both had knowledge that could have prevented the incident.
In this case, there was some obvious risk to be taken. She decided to take a risk that she did not fully realize apparently she could suffer damages to her extent, whatever they may be exactly. I'd say this is once again the fault of both sides. She shouldn't have gone to Howl-o-Scream knowing that there were literally 'hordes' of scare actors running around the park. The park should have a specific phrase stating that the event is/may not be for pregnant people or that there is a risk of tripping due to running by being scared.