That doesn't seem like a good way to avoid a lawsuit as it suggests that sitting in that seat is somehow dangerous. It seems that this would push liability from the guest (who ignored safety warning) to the company.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Accident on Pirates
- Thread starter NowInc
- Start date
note2001
Well-Known Member
Didn't they just recently (as within the past couple of years) refurb all those ride boats to add in safety measures such as places to hold while getting in/out and a taller back?
Edit to add: MP added a note and pic on his blog for the first week of 2014, (about 2/5ths of the way down the page) regarding the refurbished boats: http://www.mouseplanet.com/10578/Walt_Disney_World_Resort_Update
Edit to add: MP added a note and pic on his blog for the first week of 2014, (about 2/5ths of the way down the page) regarding the refurbished boats: http://www.mouseplanet.com/10578/Walt_Disney_World_Resort_Update
Last edited:
notnothin
Active Member
Are they really not loading the last row?! That had the best back rest!
Not sure if confirmed yet, but this article states they are no longer using the last row.
http://www.katc.com/news/new-report-boy-also-injured-fingers-on-disney-pirates-ride/
Timekeeper
Well-Known Member
Yes, it would seem that way (correcting a problem seemingly acknowledges that there was in fact a problem to begin with).
However, that's not how the law operates. The rules of evidence law, for example, were written in a manner that encourages the correction of problems (called "subsequent remedial measures") by generally prohibiting those corrections from being introduced into evidence by a plaintiff who seeks to prove negligence on the part of the defendant.
- - -
Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 407 provides:
When measures are taken that would have made an earlier injury or harm less likely to occur, evidence of the subsequent measures is not admissible to prove:
• negligence;
• culpable conduct;
• a defect in a product or its design; or
• a need for a warning or instruction.
But the court may admit this evidence for another purpose, such as impeachment or--if disputed--proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures.
Florida Statutes § 90.407 provides:
Evidence of measures taken after an injury or harm caused by an event, which measures if taken before the event would have made injury or harm less likely to occur, is not admissible to prove negligence, the existence of a product defect, or culpable conduct in connection with the event. This rule does not require the exclusion of evidence of subsequent remedial measures when offered for another purpose, such as proving ownership, control, or the feasibility of precautionary measures, if controverted, or impeachment.
- - -
So, the legislature wants businesses to correct problems and make things safer for the well being of the general public, without incurring additional liability or allowing for the presentation of remedial measures evidence that would "suggest" something was somehow dangerous simply because it was fixed/improved.
If I understand your post, it could be argued that an ignition switch used in a vehicle caused a safety problem, but the company's replacing of the module isn't, in and of itself, evidence of the safety issue.
Timekeeper
Well-Known Member
Yes, that's the general idea. Per your hypothetical, it (car company replacing parts) may be "evidence" of a safety issue in laymen's terms, because we all understand why the parts were replaced, but likely not admissible evidence for a jury to consider if the negligence lawsuit against the car company went to trial.
That doesn't mean the plaintiff won't win... A plaintiff can still prove negligence in many other ways, but "look, they fixed the problem and added a safety feature" is not something that a jury would generally be allowed to consider (unless an articulated exception applied).
There are many, many things that are not admissible evidence in both criminal and civil trials, and it is for the attorneys to argue and the judge to decide as to what constitutes appropriate, admissible evidence that may be presented to the jury.
WondersOfLife
Blink, blink. Breathe, breathe. Day in, day out.
I've always had a major fear for doing that.
dstrawn9889
Well-Known Member
now, you cannot grandfather an attraction that can easily cause bodily harm, they would have to close it and bring it to safety standards, to not do so would be criminally negligent. so you need not worry about hitting anything in space
PAW PAW 70
Active Member
Are thru finally using the last row?
ninjaprincesst
Well-Known Member
Just asked my little cousin and that works there he said they are using the back row when it is busy, in the mornings or late at night when the boats are not filled to capacity anyway they are being told to not load the back row. Both the man and the little boy stuck there hands in the water and had them smashed by the boat. (owww!) but I guess some people just have to learn the hard way, the older man is not suing, but the parents of the boy are.
LudwigVonDrake
Well-Known Member
I was in WDW when this happened and every time I rode Pirates the back row was roped off (I left 7/18).
The day after the accident we were loading on to the boat and a little girl lost her sandal/flip flop getting into the boat. The father wanted to reach down and see if he could get it and the CM freaked out. Common sense...
The day after the accident we were loading on to the boat and a little girl lost her sandal/flip flop getting into the boat. The father wanted to reach down and see if he could get it and the CM freaked out. Common sense...
HRHPrincessAriel
Well-Known Member
would WDW lawyers/management really share that last bit of info with their ride operators? Seems odd.
ninjaprincesst
Well-Known Member
Nope, that part has been in the news , he told me the name of the paper but of course me and my middle aged memory can't remember, of course just because the man said he wasn't going to sue does not mean he won't change his mind. The 12 year old boy was hurt several months ago and they are just now filing. I also don't see how not using the back row helps anything, to me that just makes Disney look guilty ( I don't think they are, I mean they tell you again and again to keep your arms and hands inside the boat), but not using the back row even when it's slow seems to me like they somehow think the back row is dangerous. As far as employee info, they were not even given a reason for not using the back row were just told to do it.