Little said his client had no way to prepare for what turned out to be an embarrassing and expensive trip to a strip club. The dancer's shoe allegedly came off, during a pole dance, striking Quagliaroli in the face as he turned toward the dance stage after getting money from an ATM, Little said.
"He has quite a significant amount of dental work that needs to be done," said Little. "He has veneers right now and he's possibly going to need a root canal. His dentist said the treatment he has right now is a temporary fix." Little admits Quagliaroli is embarrassed by what happened but at the same time calls the incident "battery and negligence."
"We're asking that my client be made whole and that his dental bills be taken care of by PT's," Little said. Little said he just wants justice for the unintended shoe launch that left his client with dental damage that allegedly will lead to ongoing dental surgeries.
With news video.
8 comments:
This seems pretty simply to me. A patron was accidentally injured by an action of an employee, the establishment should pay the medical costs.
Agreed
It was an accident, and he obviously got caught being somewhere he didn't want to be seen.
I don't have much sympathy. The law may be on his side, but I don't really see how you could prevent something like this, short of duct-taping the shoes to the dancers' feet.
But this all could have been avoided if the guy had decided to have fun in a way that didn't objectify women.
"But this all could have been avoided if the guy had decided to have fun in a way that didn't objectify women."
Moralistic bullshit.
What's my penis got to do with anything? Rather sexist of you to assume my having such a thing is the basis of my opinions.
Let me explain my previous one-liner. You blamed the man for his own injuries because he went to see a stripper, and seeing strippers is bad because it objectifies women.
First of all, why is objectifying people automatically a bad thing? Isn't lusting after sexy strangers because of their looks a normal, everyday occurence in almost everyone's adult life? Isn't inviting such attention the point of the way many people dress? Isn't our whole Western system of coupling and non-arranged marriages based on initial mutual objectification?
But I digress. Why should it matter whether you or I oppose the objectification of a working stripper? She (or he!) is an independent person, capable of making her own decisions. Assuming every single stripper or sex worker works against her will, with gritted teeth and tears in her eyes is condescending in the extreme. As if they necessarily were victims, weak and without will of their own, in need of a saving authority who knows what's best for them.
Isn't telling women what they can and cannot do on the basis of you knowing better kind of against the whole idea of feminism?
PS. It shouldn't need to be even mentioned, but I am not, of course, talking about victims of human trafficing or slaves of any degree.
PPS. For the record, L, I don't have a negative opinion of you, regardless of what you think of me.
L, you must be a boring person.
I bet some of your friends (male or female) have done something naughty like going to a strip club. Are you saying it is right for them to get injured in the process.
L, you are more sexist than the guy in the article that you are accussing of. What does "having a penis" have anything to do with the guy getting injured?
I'm not saying it's "right" for anybody to get injured. That's your assumption... not mine. If you go out anywhere, there is a risk. You can't go suing everybody for everything that might happen accidentally. I suspect that much of the reason for this lawsuit comes from an embarrassed little man who's licking his wounds and wants some compensation for the humiliation of being caught at a strip club. We don't know the whole story; maybe his girlfriend dumped him after this episode and he wants some "justice". You never know.
And I guess I'd rather be "boring" than contribute to the sex trade. So be it.
If we remove just one dirty, awful, shameful concept from the mix, the sexy sex, we're left with a man who paid and went to see a dance performance, was injured accidentally by a dancer and is now requiring the cost of his medical expenses from the dance establishment. And you, L, are saying the man took a risk, must have an ulterior motive and somehow even deserved what they got. Are you also saying you would think the same if it had been the ballet instead?
Post a Comment