WDW Guest Argues Tower of Terror Warnings Misled Him....

I_heart_Tigger

Well-Known Member
Wasn't there a woman who claimed she had a doctors prescription to ride TOT and when she was thrown out of the park for being verbally abusive she sued because ToT was the only thing keeping her alive...did she die yet or was there actually a lawsuit?
 

Sans Souci

Well-Known Member
Wasn't there a woman who claimed she had a doctors prescription to ride TOT and when she was thrown out of the park for being verbally abusive she sued because ToT was the only thing keeping her alive...did she die yet or was there actually a lawsuit?

I remember reading about that last year. I think she had a GAC for ToT and riding it was the only thing relieved her pain.
 

jlevis

Well-Known Member
I wonder if I could sue claiming It's A Small World causes my night terrors? (I really don't have them but it might be worth a try)
 

copcarguyp71

Well-Known Member
DoubleFacePalm3.jpg


That is all...
 

Thrill

Well-Known Member
The warnings are posted and what on earth did he think "13 Story Free Fall" and "High speed drops" were euphamisms for?:brick:

They're obviously euphemisms. Disney should have made it more obvious that the ride was actually scary. For example, maybe make the name include a scary sounding word like "Terror", or have guests screaming so loud while on the ride that you can hear them down the street.

Furthermore, any number of things could have happened between his riding of the Tower of Terror and the stroke that occurred just 23 days later. If I were his lawyer, I would file suit against at least six other companies, just to be sure.


These lawsuits are great.
 

Clever Name

Well-Known Member
The current available literature in the medical community suggests that if a person experiences a sudden drop of 1-story (typically about 10 feet) and subsequently suffers a stroke, the stroke may reasonably be attributed to the 1-story drop experienced if the stroke occurs within 48 hours (2 days). This means that if a person experiences a sudden drop from a height of 13-stories, any stroke suffered within 26 days may be reasonably attributed to the 13-story drop, given the 2-day-per-story allowance.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the ToT drop is not actually 13 stories high, and so he was just beyond the time allowance for any medical professional to reasonably attribute his stroke to the (more like 9-story) drop.

:hammer:

However, the "drop" in this case is not a drop at all. It is a rapid downward acceleration far exceeding the force of gravity. The rate of acceleration and the sudden arrest of the movement is problematic in this lawsuit. :wave:
 

tdpolo26

Active Member
I do not feel he should have to pay court fees. I think he should have to wear a sandwhich board in front of tot that states this is what happens when you try to sue disney for being stupid. Then they should chain him to its a small world for 48 hours. After that in the family guy idea he should have to be in the next tim allen christmas schedule.
 

docandsix

Active Member
Substantiate this claim.

The rate of acceleration and the sudden arrest of the movement is problematic in this lawsuit. :wave:

You can't, because it's complete bull, especially with respect to a stroke which occurred 23 days after the event.

There is little, if any legitimate physiologic explanation for how sudden drops and abrupt stops could "cause" a stroke. Those that might pass muster as reasonable would include dissection (typically associated with deceleration injuries related to forward motion of the neck and abrupt stops like those caused by seatbelts in highway-speed motor vehicle accidents), plaque rupture, and embolus. That link would be supported only if imaging supported those occlusive mechanisms of stroke and in none of those cases could the direct, medical cause of the stroke be linked conclusively to "sudden arrest of... movement" 23 days earlier.

In a reasonable society, the pathetic attempt to link a single ride on a theme park attraction to a spontaneous and unpredictable medical catastrophe that arose a month later would be cause for disbarment. Lawyers that file these kinds of cases are the worst representatives of their profession.
 

Clever Name

Well-Known Member
The issue here has nothing to do with whether or not the ToT caused this person to have a stroke. That is a separate issue and will be decided later. The issue at hand is whether or not the warning given by WDW was adequate to properly describe the ToT attraction. WDW uses the term “drop” or “high speed drop” to describe the ride. Those terms are completely wrong and dangerously deceptive.

The ride consists of repeated high speed downward accelerations complicated by repeated rapid decelerations coupled with repeated upward accelerations. :wave:
 

I_heart_Tigger

Well-Known Member
If you watch the footage of the lawyer and judges his argument is that he had no idea that there was any type of acceleration, drop, free fall or any type of "thrill ride" movement at all. He thought the words "drop" and "fall" were euphamisms and that the ride had nothing to do with any unusual motion.

The judge made it clear that he found the warning signs were adequate to warn any "reasonable person" of the expectations of the ride and that Disney's only responsibility was to word warnings so a reasonable person could understand them.

Therefore, this man is not only unreasonable but irresponsible to go on a ride when he didn't get the clairification he needed on how the ride works. The judges also made it clear the man is responsible for clarifying that himself since he was not able to understand the sign that any reasonable person that can read would easily grasp the meaning of. The CM's non-comment was simply not answering the question and the man's responsibility was to get clarification before getting on the ride if that is what he needed. He did not have to accept the non-response.

He is either simply a money grubbing pig or he is completely incapable of comprehending basic warnings and looking after himself and perhaps should be put in a home where someone much more capable can be concerned with his welfare since he is obviously unable to.

Also, his own lawyer has stated that their main concern is that the CM was vague when asked about the ride which, according to the lawyer, is contrary to the handbook. His own lawyer knows he doesn't have a leg to stand on arguing about the warning sign that clearly shows what type of ride this man was going on which is why they don't discuss the sign that much - more discussion is based on whether the CM had a responsibility to completely explain what will happen on the ride.
 

Ginzuishou

Active Member
I guess lawsuits like this happen all of the time and the funny (or not really funny) thing is the people get money out of it, since companies would rather just pay to shut them up than have a bad publicity.

The woman who broke her nose by walking to the Apple store door will probably get money, even though it was her fault, and the list goes on.
 

Timekeeper

Well-Known Member
The issue here has nothing to do with whether or not the ToT caused this person to have a stroke. That is a separate issue and will be decided later. The issue at hand is whether or not the warning given by WDW was adequate to properly describe the ToT attraction. WDW uses the term “drop” or “high speed drop” to describe the ride. Those terms are completely wrong and dangerously deceptive.

The ride consists of repeated high speed downward accelerations complicated by repeated rapid decelerations coupled with repeated upward accelerations. :wave:

Not to mention strobe lighting effects combined with gusts of compressed air. It's really all just one big recipe for serious bodily injury or death. :eek:

(sarcasm)

gmo_tower_of_terror_01.jpg
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom