'Teacups' beating victim sues Disney

WDW should just tie this thing up in court for several years. Let her lawyer fees accumulate. Even if she wins something, she'll end up more in debt than when she began.

Pigs get fat...hogs get slaughtered

Gomer Pyle wrote:

OMG! What a waste of time this is. I hope disney doesn't settle and she loses. So that she will have to pay her lawyer and all court fees for this collosal waste of the courts time.

The sad thing is that Disney probably will settle to keep their name from being dragged through the mud. Even Stevie Wonder saw this one coming.

She didn't get any money out of the Alabama woman, so she's going after Disney. Just great! As a former cast member who has had to deal with many problem guests, I am appalled at this. Obviously, this was an isolated incident, and there were other people around. It should not be the sole responsibility of the cast member to recognize a problem going on in the queue area and to react immediately. Doing so could put the cast member and other guests experiencing the attraction (i.e., on the ride) at risk. Sometimes other guests need to intervene and notify cast members of the situation. Then the ride could be temporarily shut down to allow attention to be paid in a safe manner, be it contact security, or call a supervisor or other cast members.

Take it to trial, Disney! The jury pool is all on your side! Offer her $1 and file for attorney fees right now!!!

She thought that woman gave her a beat-down ... wait till the MOUSE is done with her!

Cast Member wrote:

This will be an interesting case to watch- hope the sentinel keeps us informed. Cast Members are not allowed to physically take hold of anybody. Furthermore, EVEN security cast members are not allowed to take hold of anybody. The only person allowed to take hold of anybody at the park during an altercation is Orange County Sheriff's department staff.
So given the current rules that are in place there is absolutely no way the fight at the teacups could have been broken up by any member of the Disney Staff. About the most we can do is say in a loud voice, "Please stop.....oh do please stop....you're not being very nice hitting that person....ohhhhhh do stop." If the jury finds in favor of the woman I guess Disney has to unleash us and allow cast members to pound away on people violating the rules.

Is this true? I didn't know these rules, fascinating! What if someones' having a medical emergency, can you touch them then, say to give the Heimlich maneuver?(I'm seriously interested, not trying to be "smart")

Krause will find that Disney's attorneys are tenacious and do not settle.

While she was not at fault, she is many many court appearances and appeals away from capitalizing on the incident by obtaining a windfall profit from Disney.

Myself, I'll put my money on Disney's attorneys.

Angel Face wrote:

<quoted text>
The sad thing is that Disney probably will settle to keep their name from being dragged through the mud. Even Stevie Wonder saw this one coming.

Nope - Disney is famous for keeping a top-notch legal staff that is known for doggedly prolonging litigation and the appeal process to the bitter end. Mickey has a steel claw under that white glove, as those that attempt frivolous lawsuits soon find out.

Disney doesn't settle.

Mo Lubee wrote:

<quoted text>
Nope - Disney is famous for keeping a top-notch legal staff that is known for doggedly prolonging litigation and the appeal process to the bitter end. Mickey has a steel claw under that white glove, as those that attempt frivolous lawsuits soon find out.
Disney doesn't settle.

And they shouldn't!!

All this is mute, why was she not acting as a adult when this all started and let the woman back in line with her friends, who cares????

Pachacutec wrote:

<quoted text> Is this true? I didn't know these rules, fascinating! What if someones' having a medical emergency, can you touch them then, say to give the Heimlich maneuver?(I'm seriously interested, not trying to be "smart")

The difference is that in a medical emergency you are not attempting to control or manipulate someone, you are trying to assist them for their own well being. You are certainly allowed to touch someone in medical crisis so long as it is safe for you to do so (your not putting yourself or someone else in more danger) and you have some knowledge or training in how to assist properly and appropriately. As a former EMT I can actually be prosecuted for not providing assistance up to my ability and I am protected by the good samaritan laws so long as I do not exceed my training. so to answer briefly you should always help someone in a medical emergency so long as you know what your doing and are actually helping.

Spoonces wrote:

<quoted text>
The difference is that in a medical emergency you are not attempting to control or manipulate someone, you are trying to assist them for their own well being. You are certainly allowed to touch someone in medical crisis so long as it is safe for you to do so (your not putting yourself or someone else in more danger) and you have some knowledge or training in how to assist properly and appropriately. As a former EMT I can actually be prosecuted for not providing assistance up to my ability and I am protected by the good samaritan laws so long as I do not exceed my training. so to answer briefly you should always help someone in a medical emergency so long as you know what your doing and are actually helping.

Yeah, I'm a former EMT myself, so I know what you're talking about there. But Disney does have its own set of rules, I had no idea they weren't allowed to touch people even if there was a fight; I was just wondering if it applied to other instances as well.

Whenever you have a witness give testimony at a trial, and it is revealed that a lawsuit depends on the outcome, one should be especially skeptical.

Marcus Antonius wrote:

"Paul Krause also is suing Disney World for the loss of his wife's support and companionship in the aftermath of the attack."
What kinda crap is this??

No kidding. I don't even know what this means. Did he go around the park with just the kids after his wife got curb-stomped? Whatever happened to good old suing because his wife got dusted?

I hope Disney drives her into the ground financially. What an absolute loser.

What a load of crap. Trying to get some money from Mickey now. Hey! Idiot? Sue the crazy lady that whipped your arse. Mr. Krause's lawsuit is even more laughable. I hope you birds don't get a dime. Go back to where ever you came from and quit stinking up they place.

James P wrote:

Two words.....Gold Digger

I was going to say...Dirt Bag...but that may be a compound word.

knows the system wrote:

In response to Chester, the victim was white, not black.
This is pathetic. This is the reason the general public distrusts lawyers. I sincerely hope this generates a lot of press in the same manner the Casselberry police officer tried to sue the homeowners in the slip in fall. Greedy attorney and a gold digging piece of white trash. I hope Disney takes it to trial.

The general public may distrust lawyers, but who do they call the minute they are in a car accident or they get a bad burger at McDonalds. I work for an attorney and we et calls from people who want to sue because smeone was rude to them in the grocry store or at the emergency room. No damages, just greed.

wondering wrote:

All this is mute, why was she not acting as a adult when this all started and let the woman back in line with her friends, who cares????

i think you mean moot...however I'm sure Disney would prefer that Krause remained mute.

Pachacutec wrote:

<quoted text> Yeah, I'm a former EMT myself, so I know what you're talking about there. But Disney does have its own set of rules, I had no idea they weren't allowed to touch people even if there was a fight; I was just wondering if it applied to other instances as well.

Its the difference between policing and assisting. They can certainly help in a medical, give a hand to help a fallen guest, to assist out of a ride when requested, or to take the hand of a lost child. In each of these cases it is considered alright because it could not be considered aggressive or assault. There are very strict laws down here as to how a person may be contacted for purposes of control. In many cases security guards cannot touch a guest suspected of theft, they must ask them to return to the property willingly. For that reason the use of the word Security is being eliminated due to liability. I noticed one large box store now calls it guards something like asset management or such. Many years ago Disney lost much of its security guards power due to another suit, they no longer run with red lightbars and they cannot contact guests, all law enforcement activity is handled by local authorities.