If this ain't karma...

[Nanuk]

Oprah's now on the receiving end of a lawsuit (http://www.chicagobusiness.com/cgi-bin/news.pl?id=28671) filed by one of her formerly-devoted Cheeto-eaters...


Woman sues Oprah's company over injuries at show taping

March 21, 2008
(AP) — A woman claims in a lawsuit that she was injured in a dash for seats at Oprah Winfrey's talk show.
Orit Greenberg's lawsuit seeks at least $50,000 in damages.
She claims Winfrey's Harpo Studios failed to control the audience on December 5th, 2006.
The lawsuit says audience members were told to sit where they wanted to sit. The crowd allegedly pushed Greenberg down a flight of stairs causing "severe and permanent injuries."
A Harpo Studios spokeswoman tells The Associated Press that the studio doesn't comment on pending litigation.
The lawsuit was filed in Cook County Circuit Court this week.

See what happens when you pander to the "gimme something free" crowd? :p

[Wormdoc]

Good thing she didn't have a cup of hot coffee in her hands and spilled it somewhere on her person! Would that be double indemnity or just double doofiness?

[Chutney Daftcraft]

If indeed this woman was trampled or injured on the property, then she is at least owed any treatment costs, which in my opinion should be paid directly by Harpo's insurance company. If she missed any work because of it, she's owed her lost wages, too. Anything over a request for reasonable compensation will surely be scrutinized on merit and decided accordingly.

[Nanuk]

If indeed this woman was trampled or injured on the property, then she is at least owed any treatment costs, which in my opinion should be paid directly by Harpo's insurance company. If she missed any work because of it, she's owed her lost wages, too. Anything over a request for reasonable compensation will surely be scrutinized on merit and decided accordingly.

But the company didn't trample her. Other people did. (Probably because she was too fat and slow to move with the crowd.) The other people should pay.

I know you have this idea that any time something happens to someone on property owned by someone with money, the property owner should pay, but property owners owe a reasonable duty of care under the law, not an absolute one.

And lost time from work? Please...Oprah's target audience is women who don't have jobs. That's why they're sitting around watching her all day.

[TokyoHits]

Not knowing the specifics of the case makes it hard to determine whether $50,000 is a fair amount. If Harpo Studios is found negligent then I would expect them to pay fairly for the damages.

[grafxgirl]

Please...Oprah's target audience is women who don't have jobs. That's why they're sitting around watching her all day.

Hey!!! I watch Oprah and Dr Pheeeeel! I set the DVR because I'm way too busy during my day cleaning, taking care of the kids, working from home, and running errands to sit on my butt, eat Cheetos and watch the shows in the afternoon. I wait until the kids have been put to bed in the evening and watch when I have a free moment.:p

Don't make me come over there and beat you up for that comment.:handbag:

[JiveTurkey]

My job would not interfere with any Oprah watching, if I was so inclined. I am not; I think she is in league with the devil.

[Nanuk]

if I was so inclined. I am not; I think she is in league with the devil.

And this is one of the reasons that I love you. :D

[Jenniffer]

We don't watch any TV over here, but if I went to a show and someone said something that started a stampede (and goodness knows I wouldn't run any distance for a close-up view of Oprah) and I was pushed down some stairs because of it, somebody would need to pay. Just sayin'. There's a reason you're not allowed to scream "Fire!" in a crowded theater, and this sounds right up that alley.

[Steveo]

Also, did any of you see that a woman is also suing Oprah for her "big give" idea. Said woman says she sent in the idea to Oprah and then got a return saying they were not interested in that idea and then it bacame a show and she has proof of this, could this be the down fall of Oprah probably not but I can hope.
PS you think Richard Sher hates her? Older people will get that question.
Steve

[KemCam2]

I like Oprah. :bugout:
She does a lot of good.
Things 'you' and I can't do.

She came up hard and made something of herself. Nanuk, you for one, should love her, for she isn't sitting on her couch, eating cheetos, watching Maury Povich, collecting your hard earned dollars.
She could have gone that route instead. You know, based on her past.:eek:

But anyhoo...

The studio should have some sort of "no running" rule in place. And people (security guards) to enforce the rule. Then things like this wouldn't happen. I think she is entitled to 50K. That's less than what O makes in intrest in just one hour...lol...:spin2:

[Chutney Daftcraft]

If the studio actually had a "no running" policy, and this was demonstrated on many signs, then the dynamics of this case would be much different.

But seriously, Nanuk, who would you rather pay for her damages, Harpo Studios, or the taxpayer? Not everyone that comes to the Hospital in an ambulance has the ability to pay, and we all know what happens when they don't have that ability...

[Nanuk]

But seriously, Nanuk, who would you rather pay for her damages, Harpo Studios, or the taxpayer? Not everyone that comes to the Hospital in an ambulance has the ability to pay, and we all know what happens when they don't have that ability...


Ideally she should pay her own bills, but failing that, I wouldn't have a problem with the studio paying her ACTUAL MEDICAL EXPENSES that aren't already covered by other insurance. I don't, however, think that they should write her a check for more than she'll make in three years on welfare payments just because she was running with the bulls in the Oprah studio instead of out looking for a job.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Was she on welfare?

Let's say that this happened to me. Let's also say that I had my throat stepped on and I could never speak again. While this isn't neccesarily a crippling injury, it would put an official end to my occupation.

Are you saying that I should have to deplete my savings to pay for it, and then be forced to also pay for training for a new occupation, and then have to pursue that - all because I was in the wrong place at the wrong time on someone else's property?

I think not. You're forgetting that Harpo *is* liable for injuries that occur on their property, short of fraud. It's a cost of doing business, just like every other business. When you pack people into a studio, you'd better have the proper controls in place, or else face the consequences of not having proper controls. After this lawsuit plays out, I bet they get those controls in place real fast, which is the point all along. People don't make semi-expensive changes until they are sued into submission. That's just the way it is.

[Nanuk]

I think not. You're forgetting that Harpo *is* liable for injuries that occur on their property, short of fraud. It's a cost of doing business, just like every other business.


I know that you're a staunch advocate of handing any business' money to any individual under your theory of "take from the rich at every opportunity just to punish them", but I need remind you--again--that property owners--business and non-business alike--are only liable for things which are reasonably forseeable. (You might want to look up the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island railroad (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/cases/palsgraf_lirr.htm) which still controls.) The liability of a property owner is not absolute as you keep insisting. The studio should only be liable if they were aware that the Oprah audience tended to act like cattle in a stockyard run and did not take precautions to deter or prevent it.

And if you get injured, why should you automatically be allowed to put your costs on someone else who did not directly injure you just because you cannot afford them? Remember that the studio did not force her to be on their premises. She was there by her own choice for her own benefit.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I know that you're a staunch advocate of handing any business' money to any individual under your theory of "take from the rich at every opportunity just to punish them"

Please provide backup and proof of this assertion. Or STFU.

The choice is yours.



The studio should only be liable if they were aware that the Oprah audience tended to act like cattle in a stockyard run and did not take precautions to deter or prevent it.



I'm sure this will come out one way or the other in the court room. Your continuing assertion that certain people should not be allowed to enter the court room is very unamerican.

[Nanuk]

I keep telling you that prior consistent statements made by you here on this forum are admissible, and that because you made them here in this forum, other members who recall you saying such things can take the on-line equivallent of judicial notice and simply accept that it's true without any additional proffer being required.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

Please outline where I said that I enjoy the taking of money from businesses and handing it to other people that don't deserve it in any way. "Your translations" don't work, either, because I will not be held liable for your distortions.

[Kensey]

...property owners--business and non-business alike--are only liable for things which are reasonably forseeable. (You might want to look up the case of Palsgraf v. Long Island railroad (http://www.courts.state.ny.us/history/cases/palsgraf_lirr.htm) which still controls.)

In the Palsgraf case, a plain package exploded and injured a bystander. That's not reasonably foreseeable as it's not something that happens regularly -- in fact I'd wager that may be the only such incident ever in the history of rail travel.

In this case we have a stampede of patrons in the absence of traffic management, which is not only foreseeable but practically an everyday occurrence. Not a month goes by, it seems, that there isn't a story in the paper about some concertgoer or soccer spectator or store shopper trampled because of a crowd being released into a space with no attention given to crowd control.

[Nanuk]

In this case we have a stampede of patrons in the absence of traffic management, which is not only foreseeable but practically an everyday occurrence. Not a month goes by, it seems, that there isn't a story in the paper about some concertgoer or soccer spectator or store shopper trampled because of a crowd being released into a space with no attention given to crowd control.


Correct. However this case will turn on whether or not the Oprah fans have in the past behaved like water-starved horses approaching a river and what if anything that the studio did to prevent it OR encourage it. Bear in mind that the courts have long found that the criminal actions of others are not foreseeable as it relates to finding that property owners owed injured parties any liability. When members of the public do wrong on someone else's property, that does not automatically impute liability to the property owner absent some contributory act, or omission or negligence on the property owner's part.

In sum, it's not all as cut and dried as City typically makes it look. The only determining factor in this case is likely to be an assessment of how much it will cost to the studio to try this case vs. the cost to settle it out.

[betcsu]

hmmm.. i cant help but wonder if this is the way theyve always let the people get their seats. i can see oprah being proud of the fact that her fans fight to get the best seats. as if she needs a bigger head....

[JiveTurkey]

as if she needs a bigger head....
Right on.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_AXaDIKBDQ4