 |
| Marcel Strigberger |
She allegedly suffered “severe, traumatic, debilitating and permanent” physical injuries from the collision, along with emotional pain and suffering. She is suing Disneyland, the unnamed employee inside the Goofy costume and Goofy’s “handler,” another employee who was supposed to guide the big guy around the park to make sure he didn’t bump into anything, according to the lawsuit she filed in Orange County Superior Court.
My immediate reaction is that it will be difficult for anybody involved in this case to keep a straight face. Can you imagine Griffin first reaching out to a lawyer?
LAWYER’S RECEPTIONIST: Henry, there’s a walk-in client here who needs a lawyer. She says she got run over by Goofy.
LAWYER: Right, Christine. Tell her to call back later. I’m just having tea with the Mad Hatter.
LAWYER: Right, Christine. Tell her to call back later. I’m just having tea with the Mad Hatter.
Then again, personal injury practice in America can get very lucrative. In fact, many of the billboard ads are aggressive, touting successful results for accident victims. It would not surprise me if, after this case resolves, we see billboards along the highways reading, “Struck by a car, tripped and fell, got run over by the Road Runner? Call us: 1-888-CAR-TOON.”
And, no doubt, the pleadings in this action might sound familiar but maybe a bit different. I can just visualize the Statement of Claim:
…14. The defendant, Goofy, for whose actions Disneyland is at law responsible, was negligent in that:
A) He failed to keep a proper lookout;
B) He proceeded to go through the theme park at an excessive rate of speed;
C) He was distracted in that he was busy texting Donald Duck.”
(He probably was.)
A) He failed to keep a proper lookout;
B) He proceeded to go through the theme park at an excessive rate of speed;
C) He was distracted in that he was busy texting Donald Duck.”
(He probably was.)
Of course, the Statement of Defence will have the usual boilerplate clauses:
A) The plaintiff knew or ought to have known that Goofy was moving around in the area as she was so warned by Jiminy Cricket;
B) The plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune in that she chose to tie her daughter’s shoes in a clearly marked no-shoe-tying zone;
C) The defendant, Goofy, is a canine. The defendants plead and rely on the doctrine of scienter, in that every dog is entitled to one free bump.
B) The plaintiff was the author of her own misfortune in that she chose to tie her daughter’s shoes in a clearly marked no-shoe-tying zone;
C) The defendant, Goofy, is a canine. The defendants plead and rely on the doctrine of scienter, in that every dog is entitled to one free bump.
And certainly, if this case does not get resolved and goes to trial, I would love to be a spectator in the courtroom, especially if this matter goes before a jury.
I wonder how the lawyers might vet potential jurors. Would they hire some expert vetter?
VETTER FOR PLAINTIFF: I would challenge juror no. 11. He might be a bit biased. I don’t like his Mickey Mouse ears.
The trial would conclude with the judge’s charge to the jury:
“Members of the jury. You have heard all the evidence. You have seen all the witnesses. You must judge their comments and demeanour and decide who was telling the truth. I would however be hesitant before believing the testimony of Pinocchio.”
This case will be interesting. I am certain that it will make many of us involved or following it smile, like the Cheshire Cat.
Marcel Strigberger retired from his Greater Toronto Area litigation practice and continues the more serious business of humorous author and speaker. His book, Boomers, Zoomers, and Other Oomers: A Boomer-biased Irreverent Perspective on Aging, is available on Amazon (e-book) and in paper version. Visit www.marcelshumour.com. Follow him @MarcelsHumour.
The opinions expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of the author’s firm, its clients, Law360 Canada, LexisNexis Canada or any of its or their respective affiliates. This article is for general information purposes and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice.
Interested in writing for us? To learn more about how you can add your voice to Law360 Canada, contact Analysis Editor Peter Carter at peter.carter@lexisnexis.ca or call 647-776-6740.