Man loses defamation case over alleged theft of rubber duck

hatrickpatrick

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/wheres-the-duck-i-know-you-have-it-i-want-to-see-it-take-it-out-584001.html

A 28-year-old Dublin man's claim that he was defamed after he was wrongly accused of stealing a toy duck by a security guard has been dismissed.

David Mongan's action, which was in its third day before a High Court jury, was struck out by Mr Justice Eamon De Valera following legal argument made on behalf of the defendants.

Mr Mongan claimed he was defamed when a security guard at Smyths Toy Superstores on the Belgard Road Tallaght on November 27, 2007 asked him in a loud voice in front of other shoppers: "Where's the duck? I know you have it. I want to see it. Take it out. I'd like to see where the duck is and what have you done with it."

Mr Mongan, a member of the Travelling Community, of Owendoher Haven, Ballyboden, Rathfarnham Dublin 16, brought a High Court action seeking damages against Smyth's Toys, Smyth's Toy's Holdings, and Smyth's Toys properties Ltd, and security company Goldforce Ltd T/a Goldforce Security Management.

He alleged that following the incident he suffered from depression, which became so bad that at one point he considered taking his own life. The defendants had denied all the claims against them.

They have a nice picture of a rubber duck there too in case anyone's confused as to what's being talked about.

dr.bollocko

Is that actually his name or is it just Mangan in a D4 accent?

sellerbarry

Must have been looking for a new hiace.........

MagicSean

There's a common M.O. for thefts that I've seen. It involves three people. Person 1 picks up an item and gives it to person 2. Person 2 then gives it to person 3 (who will often have a child and buggy). Person 3 leaves shop with item in buggy.

Person 1 has the excuse that they only gave the item to person 2 to look at.

Person 2 has the excuse that they were showing the item to person 3 to see if they wanted to buy it.

Person 3 will claim that they thought person 1 had purchased the item and misunderstood person 2.

Don't know why but this case reminded me of that.

Praetorian Saighdiuir

<Duck joke>

magick

"He alleged that following the incident he suffered from depression, which became so bad that at one point he considered taking his own life. The defendants had denied all the claims against them."

really? over a rubber duckie?

castletownman

Shams wrote: »

"He alleged that following the incident he suffered from depression, which became so bad that at one point he considered taking his own life. The defendants had denied all the claims against them."

really? over a rubber duckie?

Apparently he went to see a quack over it.

msg11

http://sphotos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/488099_539926886031305_489470619_n.jpg

Leave this here...

Turner

Who is paying this mans legal costs ???

I presume it is us, the tax payer.

michael999999

Bloody quackers!

beaver111

if the duck is ever found he have a big bill

WindSock

When asked if the defendent was in the toy shop that day, he was heard replying "yes m'llard".

Amirani

The judge has an unfortunate name.

msg11

Turner wrote: »

Who is paying this mans legal costs ???

I presume it is us, the tax payer.

Same folk forking out for the iPad's for the Dail. Wait, yeah. That's us !

HTML5!

Shams wrote: »

"He alleged that following the incident he suffered from depression, which became so bad that at one point he considered taking his own life. The defendants had denied all the claims against them."

really? over a rubber duckie?

Scumbag.

PC CDROM

Death and Taxes

Turner wrote: »

Who is paying this mans legal costs ???

I presume it is us, the tax payer.

Then you are wrong, you cant get legal aid for a case like this!

admiralofthefleet

that quacks me up

michael999999

WileyCoyote wrote: »

Then you are wrong, you cant get legal aid for a case like this!

Its Ireland, you can be sure he's not paying for it!

Kristopherus

HTML5! wrote: »

Scumbag.

From a posh address as well, Ohendoher Haven:rolleyes::D

MadsL

All new Smyths ducks to be horse-sized.

the purple tin

MagicSean wrote: »

There's a common M.O. for thefts that I've seen. It involves three people. Person 1 picks up an item and gives it to person 2. Person 2 then gives it to person 3 (who will often have a child and buggy). Person 3 leaves shop with item in buggy.

Person 1 has the excuse that they only gave the item to person 2 to look at.

Person 2 has the excuse that they were showing the item to person 3 to see if they wanted to buy it.

Person 3 will claim that they thought person 1 had purchased the item and misunderstood person 2.

Don't know why but this case reminded me of that.

There's also a scam where someone very obviously steals something but ditches it on the sly before they leave the shop. Security stops them outside and the 'innocent' victim then threatens to take the shop to court. Most times the shop will make a goodwill gesture, ka-ching.

Maybe this guy was trying his luck and it actually went all the way to court.

ITS_A_BADGER

I like toy ducks and i cannot lie
all you other brothers cant deny
when a duck quacks in with an itty bitty tail
and a duck bill in your face
you get sprung

deandean

And in the entire case, the Dis**********n word was never mentioned. That's a first.