Article on TMZ-Pregnant Woman Sues BGW over HoS

[David]

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.

I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night, does that make me a lawyer as well?

 

[jonfin826]

Doesn't she know that the park has no money? I can see it now: "Local woman sues park for $25k, bankrupts park"

 

[Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser]

Oh no, Tempesto might be delayed...

 

[Jrbgwfan06]

BUT I WANT MY PASTA NOW.

 

[Thomas]

It's my pasta, and I need it NOW.

 

[Ghost of Pretzel Kaiser]

I think she needs to call Lowell "The Spaghetti" Freddy.

 

[Zimmy]

the same thing goes for hot coffee. When you buy coffee you should understand that most of the time it comes extremely hot.

For the record what was reported about the McD Hot coffee issue and what happend are two very different things.

 

[UncleDuncan]

^ This.

No one knows what happened if/when she was trampled; how it happened; if injuries were sustained; if she tried to contact the park and what the park's response was; if/when this type of thing has happened in the past and has gone unreported.

Basically, don't blame the victim; she might have a case.

 

[Zimmy]

This case comes down to two questions, "did the park behave in a way that put the public at risk?"  Second, "Could a reasonable person expect to be knocked over and injured based upon the warnings put out by the park?"

That is how tort works.  

The park will be aided by Palsgraf v. Long Island Railroad Co.Wiki link:  Really fun read!

In this case a almost comical series of events caused a scale to fall on a woman and injure her.  Unltimately the SC decided that it was far to much for the Rairroad to predict and found in favor of the defendent.

Now before we all go down the road of "Tort law is evil and it is all money grab and is the root of all evil and kill the lawyers"  I will remind you that Tort is what stands between you and uncaring corperations from putting deadly crap in your food and from Exxon from dumping mercury in your drinking water.

 

[Jonquil]

But what stands between us and the government? Far more of us have been killed by the State than by "evil corporations".

 

[Zimmy]

Perhaps, but that does not negate the need for Torts.

 

[Jonquil]

I prefer Linzertorte myself.

 

[Zimmy]

I do like Lemon Torte!!

 

[b.mac]

This is how BGW should be reacting towards this lawsuit.

 

[Nicole]

torts keep me safe on roller coasters

 

[Jonquil]

No, it's engineers who do that.

 

[Nicole]

nope. lawyers.

 

[Jonquil]

This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
This is the way the world ends
Not with a bang but a subpœna.

 

[Zimmy]

Thank the gods for subpoena