peter11435
Well-Known Member
No, all claims against the Walt Disney Company for accidents occurring at the Walt Disney World Resort MUST be litigated in Florida.PirateJ said:
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Court: Amusement Parks Liable for Safety
- Thread starter Chase24
- Start date
CaliSurfer182
New Member
This shouldn't be categorized as a liberal decision or another liberal decision. It should just be called for what it is a Bad decision. Common sense seems to be missing from this ruling. The wording just seems wholely inappropriate, sure an amusement/theme park has the responsibility for making sure a ride is mechanically safe, and shouldn't normally pose a health risk to the average tourist, but that is where it should end. Things should not be dumbed down to suit every one, because every one is not the same.
An individual might be deathly afraid of ghosts and things that go bump in the night, but if they choose to freely go on the Haunted Mansion and they have a heart-attack or go crazy should the ride be shut-down or dumbed down (removing all the ghosts)? Because it posed to much of a thrill for this individual. Warnings are posted on rides and that is that, if you choose to ride then you made the choice and you are accountable for it.
I mean look at the act of smoking it has been deemed unsafe, and it poses a health risk. There is a warning on the box that this item may lead a normally healthy individual to become unhealthy. So why is it still made available to every one in the state of California? (I am not against smoking, I am just trying to draw a comparison point, I believe people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't negatively effect someone else.) I can almost guarantee more people die as a result of smoking in a year as do the amount of people that die in theme parks. I would even guess more people are unhealthily effected by smoking then by thrill rides.
If there is a warning placed then leave it at that people can read, nobody is forcing a person to ride an attraction. That is where the difference lies you might have to be transported some where, but you don't have to ride an attraction. If you believe it might not suit you then don't ride it.
An individual might be deathly afraid of ghosts and things that go bump in the night, but if they choose to freely go on the Haunted Mansion and they have a heart-attack or go crazy should the ride be shut-down or dumbed down (removing all the ghosts)? Because it posed to much of a thrill for this individual. Warnings are posted on rides and that is that, if you choose to ride then you made the choice and you are accountable for it.
I mean look at the act of smoking it has been deemed unsafe, and it poses a health risk. There is a warning on the box that this item may lead a normally healthy individual to become unhealthy. So why is it still made available to every one in the state of California? (I am not against smoking, I am just trying to draw a comparison point, I believe people should be free to do what they want as long as it doesn't negatively effect someone else.) I can almost guarantee more people die as a result of smoking in a year as do the amount of people that die in theme parks. I would even guess more people are unhealthily effected by smoking then by thrill rides.
If there is a warning placed then leave it at that people can read, nobody is forcing a person to ride an attraction. That is where the difference lies you might have to be transported some where, but you don't have to ride an attraction. If you believe it might not suit you then don't ride it.
ScrapIron
Member
I would respectfully suggest that some of you need to read this story more carefully. Woman wants to sue, and the ONLY thing this ruling really says is that the suit can go forward instead of it being dismissed. She hasn't won anything except the right to a trial. Actually prevailing in the trial is completely different.
I would also respectfully suggest that you pay close attention to WHO is making some of the statements in these news stories. Just because the woman's attorney says "this is what this means" doesn't make it so.
If you think this is a liberal or conservative situation, I would respectfully suggest that you not embarrass yourself by looking so ignorant. It was a 4-3 decision, as close as it gets. To say this court is absolutely one thing or the other when nearly half of the judges disagree doesn't stand up to logic.
It was just an idiotic decision in the mind of myself, a registered independent and absolute liberal.
Cheers.
I would also respectfully suggest that you pay close attention to WHO is making some of the statements in these news stories. Just because the woman's attorney says "this is what this means" doesn't make it so.
If you think this is a liberal or conservative situation, I would respectfully suggest that you not embarrass yourself by looking so ignorant. It was a 4-3 decision, as close as it gets. To say this court is absolutely one thing or the other when nearly half of the judges disagree doesn't stand up to logic.
It was just an idiotic decision in the mind of myself, a registered independent and absolute liberal.
Cheers.
CaliSurfer182
New Member
ScrapIron said:
Yep I agree, and that is where I stand too.
PeeplMoovr
Active Member
ScrapIron said:
Finally something I can agree with. And I'm likewise absolute liberal.