Disney settles lawsuit with woman who fell on Pirates of Caribbean ride

[Weather_Lady]

My bad. But I wish whoever originally named it chose something else, because it sounds like garbage.

Agreed.

 

[jaklgreen]

If this woman's counsel's representation is correct (I'm an attorney myself, so I'm taking it with a grain of salt) that the woman is looking at over $300K in future medical expenses as a result of this fall, then I can't blame her for going after the "deep pocket" in this incident. That amount -- even half that amount -- would bankrupt a lot of families. I know it seems silly that a simple fall could have caused so much damage, but it can and does happen in rare cases.

If she just got banged up and tried to take advantage of the situation, I'd be judgmental of that. I have injured myself at Disney but didn't report it or sue because I felt I was partially to blame for not looking where I was going, and because my injuries were nothing more than scrapes, bruises and injured pride. However, if I had a loved one who sustained catastrophic injuries and was going to be permanently partially disabled as the result of a slip-and-fall on property owned by a multi-billion-dollar corporation, I'd advise them to sue, too.

I can understand that having medical costs and how they can ruin a family financially. But just because you hurt yourself somewhere other then your own home does not mean that it is the fault of the business and that they should pay. What if the shoe was on the other foot. Lets say someone is taking a walk and you just put your sprinklers on and they slipped in front of your house. You have a nice house and are a lawyer so to them you are rich. Should they sue you because they were careless and slipped on your wet sidewalk? How is it your fault? They can see that it was wet, etc.

 

[Weather_Lady]

I can understand that having medical costs and how they can ruin a family financially. But just because you hurt yourself somewhere other then your own home does not mean that it is the fault of the business and that they should pay. What if the shoe was on the other foot. Lets say someone is taking a walk and you just put your sprinklers on and they slipped in front of your house. You have a nice house and are a lawyer so to them you are rich. Should they sue you because they were careless and slipped on your wet sidewalk? How is it your fault? They can see that it was wet, etc.

My comments related to the impact of damages, not to fault. However, that's why tort cases generally allow apportionment of liability -- in order to account for the fact that in many negligence cases, both parties bear some responsibility. If a trier of fact (judge or jury) determined that Disney ignored a known hazard (e.g., let's say it came out that several dozen people a day slipped getting into a POTC vehicle because the vehicles are wet and the loading area is dark, and that Disney did nothing to address that risk), and that Disney was therefore 10% (or some other percentage) responsible for the plaintiff's injury, then plaintiff could recover 10% of her damages from Disney -- or rather, Disney's insurance carrier. If a trier of fact determined that Disney had not been negligent and was not at fault, then so be it, but with that amount of damages at stake, any plaintiff would be wise to at least put the question before a judge and jury.

As to your example, if I had my sprinklers located so close to a public sidewalk that they created a slippery condition, and I knew that the sprinklers were doing so but failed to act -- then yes, I could be held at least partially liable for the foreseeable consequences of my actions if somebody slips and falls. That doesn't mean that the person who slipped doesn't bear some or even most of the responsibility, but the fact that they were negligent too doesn't absolve me of all legal responsibility if they fall and are greviously injured. (I am not a rich lawyer, however, but one who works for the government, so I cannot choose but to live modestly in the country, in an old farmhouse with no sidewalks. Risk averted!)

 

[LAKid53]

I can understand that having medical costs and how they can ruin a family financially. But just because you hurt yourself somewhere other then your own home does not mean that it is the fault of the business and that they should pay. What if the shoe was on the other foot. Lets say someone is taking a walk and you just put your sprinklers on and they slipped in front of your house. You have a nice house and are a lawyer so to them you are rich. Should they sue you because they were careless and slipped on your wet sidewalk? How is it your fault? They can see that it was wet, etc.

@Weather_Lady, would contributory negligence come into play in this case? While the homeowner, through his/her behavior, created the circumstance that could potentially cause injury, wouldn't the injured individual also have to exercise due care when walking on a wet sidewalk? And would the injured party's attorney have to show that the homeowner knew that their wet sidewalk was a hazard and ignored such?

And if this sidewalk was the one leading to the homeowner's front door and not the one along the street, which in many municipalities is on the easement, could a reasonable defense be trespassing and thus relieve the homeowner of any negligence? Provided, of course, that the injured party wasn't on the homeowner's property due to either invitation or in performance of their job that required such, such as a postal carrier, UPS guy or something similar.

 

[LAKid53]

My comments related to the impact of damages, not to fault. However, that's why tort cases generally allow apportionment of liability. If a trier of fact (judge or jury) determined that Disney ignored a known hazard (e.g., let's say it came out that several dozen people a day slipped getting into a POTC vehicle because the vehicles are wet and the loading area is dark, and that Disney did nothing to address that risk), and that Disney was therefore 10% (or some other percentage) responsible for the plaintiff's injury, then plaintiff could recover 10% of her damages from Disney -- or rather, Disney's insurance carrier. If a trier of fact determined that Disney had not been negligent and was not at fault, then so be it, but with that amount of damages at stake, any plaintiff would be wise to at least put the question before a judge and jury.

As to your example, if I have my sprinklers located so close to a public sidewalk that they create a slippery condition, and I knew that they were doing so but failed to act -- then yes, I could be held at least partially liable for the foreseeable consequences of my actions if somebody slips and falls. That doesn't mean that the person who slipped doesn't bear some responsibility, but it the fact that they were negligent too doesn't absolve me of all legal responsibility.

My mother was a juror on many personal injury cases. She was shocked at the number of her fellow jurors who had the attitude "they have insurance which will pay", even if facts presented during trial indicated the injured party was responsible. They couldn't understand that the award amount would be passed on to all insured as higher premiums, eventually.

The most egregious example she gave was a robber who fell through a skylight in the roof while trying to break into a business and injured himself. He subsequently sued the business owner for creating unsafe conditions because after several robberies where entry into the business was made in this manner, the business owner had taken measures to prevent entry through the skylight. One juror actually thought the robber deserved some compensation. Apparently, another juror had to remind this person that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of his felonious activity. And the guy was a repeat offender.

 

[Weather_Lady]

@Weather_Lady, would contributory negligence come into play in this case? While the homeowner, through his/her behavior, created the circumstance that could potentially cause injury, wouldn't the injured individual also have to exercise due care when walking on a wet sidewalk? And would the injured party's attorney have to show that the homeowner knew that their wet sidewalk was a hazard and ignored such?

And if this sidewalk was the one leading to the homeowner's front door and not the one along the street, which in many municipalities is on the easement, could a reasonable defense be trespassing and thus relieve the homeowner of any negligence? Provided, of course, that the injured party wasn't on the homeowner's property due to either invitation or in performance of their job that required such, such as a postal carrier, UPS guy or something similar.

Hopefully my response (posted before yours) addresses these issues adequately. In any event, comparing this to a potential trespassing scenario wouldn't be helpful, where we're talking about an injury to someone who was an invitee on Disney property, and whose right to be where she was is undisputed. Stated in terms both Disney-fied and legally succinct, "she's a GUEST!"

 

[Pixieish]

My mother was a juror on many personal injury cases. She was shocked at the number of her fellow jurors who had the attitude "they have insurance which will pay", even if facts presented during trial indicated the injured party was responsible. They couldn't understand that the award amount would be passed on to all insured as higher premiums, eventually.

The most egregious example she gave was a robber who fell through a skylight in the roof while trying to break into a business and injured himself. He subsequently sued the business owner for creating unsafe conditions because after several robberies where entry into the business was made in this manner, the business owner had taken measures to prevent entry through the skylight. One juror actually thought the robber deserved some compensation. Apparently, another juror had to remind this person that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of his felonious activity. And the guy was a repeat offender.

And this is why we can't have nice things.

 

[LAKid53]

Hopefully my response (posted before yours) addresses these issues adequately. In any event, comparing this to a potential trespassing scenario wouldn't be helpful, where we're talking about an injury to someone who was an invitee on Disney property, and whose right to be where she was is undisputed. Stated in terms both Disney-fied and legally succinct, "she's a GUEST!"

I was going with the hypothetical scenario @jaklgreen presented. I'll have to read your response to his comment.

 

[TheGhostWithTheMost]

Disney knows those boats are unsafe and that those boats take water. Disney World only got those boats because Disneyland refused to use them. The old boats (pre July 2013) were sturdy and did not take water. These new boats are plastic fisher-price like toys that are disasters and have been disasters since the first day of test adjust.

 

[Weather_Lady]

My mother was a juror on many personal injury cases. She was shocked at the number of her fellow jurors who had the attitude "they have insurance which will pay", even if facts presented during trial indicated the injured party was responsible. They couldn't understand that the award amount would be passed on to all insured as higher premiums, eventually.

The most egregious example she gave was a robber who fell through a skylight in the roof while trying to break into a business and injured himself. He subsequently sued the business owner for creating unsafe conditions because after several robberies where entry into the business was made in this manner, the business owner had taken measures to prevent entry through the skylight. One juror actually thought the robber deserved some compensation. Apparently, another juror had to remind this person that the plaintiff's injuries were a direct result of his felonious activity. And the guy was a repeat offender.

The "burglar fell through a skylight and sued" trope is a tort reform urban legend, born out of a case that occurred in the 1980's in California, in which a trespassing teenager sustained catastrophic brain injuries after falling through a glass skylight that had been deliberately painted-over to make it blend in with the roof, even though the school was aware that students went there at night. Was your mother on the Bodine jury?

The fact is, there are ridiculous tort cases, frivolous ones even, that make it to a jury -- I certainly don't dispute that and clearly your mother has had to witness more than her fair share. I just don't think that the lawsuit we're talking about is one of them, and I believe that the rush to judgment condeming the plaintiff was misplaced.

That's really all I wanted to say in the first place -- if others wish to remain and discuss the larger issues of tort reform and landowner liability, by all means do so, but I'm off to browse trip reports and then get back on the clock.

 

[JoeCamel]

I think the entire article needs some editing - it also says she sued for $15,000 and then goes on to give estimates in the 100's of thousands.

15K is a legal threshold if the disputed amount is above it gets heard in one court and if it is below it is heard in another court. It says (in excess of) not 15K exactly.

 

[LAKid53]

The "burglar fell through a skylight and sued" trope is a tort reform urban legend, born out of a case that occurred in the 1980's in California, in which a trespassing teenager sustained catastrophic brain injuries after falling through a glass skylight that had been deliberately painted-over to make it blend in with the roof, even though the school was aware that students went there at night. Was your mother on the Bodine jury?

The fact is, there are ridiculous tort cases, frivolous ones even, that make it to a jury -- I certainly don't dispute that and clearly your mother has had to witness more than her fair share. I just don't think that the lawsuit we're talking about is one of them, and I believe that the rush to judgment condeming the plaintiff was misplaced.

That's really all I wanted to say in the first place -- if others wish to remain and discuss the larger issues of tort reform and landowner liability, by all means do so, but I'm off to browse trip reports and then get back on the clock.

Funny you should reference a California case - my parents lived in Marin until my mother's death. She didn't tell me the case name, but the facts of Bodine don't match what she told me - the injured party broke his arm. Appreciate your insight and expertise. And yes, we could discuss tort reform until the cows come home....

 

[jaklgreen]

So does anyone think that this is going to cause Disney to replace these boats? Or maybe if this happens a couple more time then they will change them.

 

[JohnD]

You know you're grasping at straws when the third thing you call out is 'loss of earrings'...

Please. I lost my sunglasses at TL. Another time, I lost my cap. I just bought another of the same cap.

 

[LAKid53]

Please. I lost my sunglasses at TL. Another time, I lost my cap. I just bought another of the same cap.

I lost my really nice personal mister over the railing in the standby line at Star Tours. Maybe I should have sued?

 

[Bullseye1967]

When I broke my neck, the first thing the lawyer said to me was "Too bad this did happen at Disney". He seriously said that.

 

[Pixieish]

When I broke my neck, the first thing the lawyer said to me was "Too bad this did happen at Disney". He seriously said that.