Billy Elliot being sued for $4 million by injured theatre goers- Page 3

[Cape Twirl of Doom]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 3:13pm

And how you can defend the McDonald's verdict with facts while at the same time decry this situation before you know them is beyond me, but I guess that's part of the hypocrisy that pollutes the board.

The woman in the McDonald's case originally sued for only $20,000 to cover her medical costs. They refused to settle, and she was eventually awarded a total of about $650,000 in court due to punitive damages. She did not start out by bringing a $4 million dollar lawsuit, which looks like nothing more than someone being opportunistic to get a big windfall of money.

(McDonald's was hit with punitive damages by the way, because they found hundreds of other instances of people being severely burned. Have there been any other cases of people being hurt at BILLY ELLIOT to justify the claim that they knowingly did something wrong for which they should be punished?)

[DooWahDiddy]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 3:32pm

I totally agree with you (although I don't know the answer to your question). I'm not defending or attacking the McDonald's case; I'm just saying that TheatreDiva was quick to point out the woman in that case had real damages done to her, and that maybe we should wait and see what the extent of these damages are before we dismiss it so quickly.

[East Village]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 4:07pm

Two million each is a typical figure if the women sustained a permanent facial scar or concussion -- in fact, its actually a little low. It's normal for a suit like this to be filed a year after the injury -- filing it sooner would look like money grubbing. It would not be typical to settle a case like this until after depositions have been taken and the trial date approaches. Its very easy to dismiss cases like this as nuisances unless of course you are the injured party. Yes, its an accident but our society places a dollar amount upon injuries sustained in accidents for legal items such as medical damages, future pain and suffering, legal fees, punitive damages, emotional distress, negligence, etc. It's up to the lawyers to arrange a settlement -- or for the jury to award dollar values assigned to each of the above items.

Edited to add: Or for a judge to dismiss the case if it was filed improperly or lacks sufficient evidence to prove a responsible party to the injury.


Updated On: 2/16/11 at 04:07 PM

[PalJoey]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 5:08pm

Mamie--I LOVE that Marin Mazzie story!

[anthony95401]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 5:19pm

When my sister and I saw "Hedwig" at the Jane Street Theater, Michael Cerveris kicked a mic stand and it flew off the front of the stage and the heavy base hit my sister right on the knee (we were in the front row). Michael knew what had happened and made a point of checking with us after the show to make sure she was alright. Her knee swelled up like crazy, but it never entered our minds to try to gain anything from it. We thought the genuine concern Michael showed more than made up for what was truly just an accident.

[Mr Roxy]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 5:57pm

Can you sue if a show just plain *****?

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 6:29pm

Thank you, CapeTwirl.

"I'm just saying that TheatreDiva was quick to point out the woman in that case had real damages done to her"

I only posted that because someone else brought it up.

I never compared the two. Stop putting words into my mouth.

[ADayOnBroadway]

Posted: 2/16/11 at 11:26pm

Litigation in the country is out of control. Accidents happen all the time. I understand that some people got hurt but be reasonable get what you need to pay for recovery and get over it. No one needs four million dollars. People are greedy.

[Patash]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 8:54am

Maybe they should be awarded dictionaries, so they can look up the word accident.

A friend was knocked down on a escalator in an airport by a suitcase that got away from its owner. She broke her wrist and went through quite a bit of surgery. She was contacted by half a dozen ambulance chasing lawyers who wanted her to sue the airport for negligence which she refused to do. (How do those guys get these names to call anyway?). Can anyone in his right mind explain how the airport should or could prevent people from losing control of their suitcases on an escalator?

It's called an accident, folks. Accidents are unfortunate, but they really don't have to be blamed on anyone. Has no one ever heard that s**t happens?

[DooWahDiddy]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 12:35pm

But you're making it way too simple. Let's raise the stakes a little and see if you still agree. Let's say you were the one standing behind the suitcase owner on the escalator. And let's say you were holding your 6-month-old baby girl in your arms. And let's say the falling suitcase hit you and caused you to drop your baby, who fell over the side of the escalator and died upon impact. Now do you think you would still be saying "Accidents happen"?

Now, that wouldn't necessarily give you grounds to sue the person, but if you could prove he was being negligent with the suitcase (maybe he wasn't holding on to it very well, or maybe he was distracted by his own kids), you would definitely have a case. Why do you think we have the phrase "involuntary manslaughter"?

Obviously this woman wasn't killed, but the rules we've created for accidents have to apply to ALL accidents, not just the ones where death is involved.

[Yero my Hero]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 12:53pm

In Patash's example, he said that lawyers were trying to get his friend to sue the AIRPORT for negligence. Your post says that the owner of the suitcase may have been negligent and you would have a case against him. Those are two entirely different things.

Patash's analogy works because these women are suing the producers, who cannot do anything to prevent these fluke accidents short of erecting a wall in front of the audience.

Your analogy would work if the women were suing the individual dancer who accidentally let the crate fly into the audience.

Two VERY different situations.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 1:13pm

^^^^

Exactly.

You can hypothesize all you want.
What about suing the makers of the flooring used?
Why not sue the maker of the luggage?
Why not sue the makers of the lotion that might have caused the parent to lose their grip on the child?

Why does there always have to be someone at fault?

What ever happened to 'It was God's will?'

(I can't believe I just posted that)

Updated On: 2/17/11 at 01:13 PM

[DooWahDiddy]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 1:33pm

Yero, I see your point, but I believe that's the protocol in situations like this. Much like when an accident happens on a movie set and the studio itself is sued, rather than the individual who might have caused it. I believe people go straight to the top because you're right, it would be silly to sue the individual dancer every time something like this happens.

I should also point out that I haven't seen the show and have no idea what kind of "crate" we're talking about here. I'm just speaking in generalities, and I think people are being a little too quick to jump on the ol' "Everybody sues everybody in America! What a world we live in! Think of the children!" bandwagon.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 1:45pm

"I believe people go straight to the top because you're right, it would be silly to sue the individual dancer every time something like this happens."

No. They go for the person who has the most money. It has nothing to do with who actually was involved.

[DooWahDiddy]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 1:59pm

Dude, there's a reason I responded directly to Yero's post and ignored yours. I prefer to have intellectual conversations with people who can have them, not people who use inane questions to prove what little point they think they might have.

Run along now.

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 2:45pm

Yes, I see that you like to talk around people who actually have a point.

Maybe it's because I keep pointing out that you're wrong.

I really don't care.

[Jordan Catalano]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 3:07pm

Diva, you got schooled. You must be so embarsssed right now!!

[TheatreDiva90016]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 3:28pm

The only thing I learned was that some posters hate being proven wrong.

[East Village]

Posted: 2/17/11 at 3:55pm

It's wrong to blame the victim and call them greedy, that's just the way the system works.

The dollar amounts are always crazy in these type of suits which makes it difficult for lawyers to even consider introducing reasonable figures without looking inept. It will continue this way until legislation starts to put a cap on these things -- which comes with its own set of problems and so far have been resisted.

Their lawyer is probably looking for a reasonable settlement which will begin with offers in the 50K range.