Disney faced with lawsuit in Mission: Space death

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Cha ching, a million or two buys a lot of tissues to dry the tears.

 

[shoppingnut]

We're not a Judge nor jury. Let the judicial system handle it. If someone has an attorney that thinks he can beat Disney attorney(s), I say go for it. I HATE to see WDW sued, but this family is doing what everyone else would do if we weren't just a bystander behind a computer screen.

But we possible could be the jury (well if anyone live in the county/state where it was filed) if it goes that far.

 

[Captain Chaos]

But we possible could be the jury (well if anyone live in the county/state where it was filed) if it goes that far.

Nope.. no one here would make it on to the jury.. We'd all get kicked off once they find out we are Disney geeks LOL....

 

[Epcot82Guy]

IMO that is a misinterpretation of the McDonald's lawsuit. The reason why the plaintiff won was because the jury found that "a reasonable person would know or suspect the coffee to be hot" was NOT true. A reasonable person wouldn't expect that spilling McDonald's coffee would give "third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay." "A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible." "Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants."
http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

This leads to an interesting parallel to M:S. Would a reasonable person actually believe that people would be dying the way they are from having ridden this ride?

I'm glad someone beat me to it. McDonald's in that case was likely negligent. However, obviously, the media's presentation says otherwise. Now, I'm not advocating these types of suits (and, more importantly, these types of damages), but I think misrepresenting them to the public is worse.

And, yes, about 95% of cases (actually 94.6 if memory serves) settle. However, there is a trend starting away from that in some cases. Disney may actually field this one in the court because they have already suffered some major reputational damage from this and a ruling of "not negligent" would be a helpful verdict. Time will tell, though.

I find this very interesting (enough that I am actually writing an article on it right now). It really is an issue of education, understanding, and responsibility. The height requirement is irrelevant in this case. The age is likely irrelevant, too. There are many practical and legal questions here, and the parks have to do something to get around these suits. It's just the tip of the ice berg IMHO.

 

[sjnichol]

In my opinion, this suit screams settlement only. Any reputable attorney knows they have no shot in winning this case at trial. It has been proven that this was caused by a pre-existing condition. Disney will weigh the cost to defend against a possible negative campaign, which, to the average person, would paint the disney parks as unsafe. We all know how much the media loves to jump on a negative disney point and a lawsuit regarding the death of a child at a park would be horrible negative press.

 

[wdwishes2005]

Every ride at the parks have a warning. At least every ride i have gone on at any of the Disney Parks has a warning. They all say the same stuff, if your motion sick dont get on it, if your a pregnant woman dont get on it, if you have heart problems dont get on it.

I side with the family on this one. We dont know what they are sueing for, or their reasons, other than they have a dead 4 year old. Maybe they just want the ride shut down to try and help others from receiving the same fate? The truth of the matter is you and i, do not know why they opted to sue.

I beleive Disney uses the warnings to much, and they are overlooked. I was recently at Epcot and i did not ride this ride. the reason was not warning signs, it is because of what i read here about the sick people, and the deaths. Or maybe people should take the warnings seriously. They are there for a reason. Thats your own fault if you're de-sensitized to it...

Everyone can believe what they want, but disney changed the ride, and they did it for a reason. they know the ride is too intense. Most of you will say its because they needed a way to get more riders to go on the ride, it wasnt making enough money. I will agree with you, and add people were not going on it, because they knew it was in fact a health risk. That is why it was toned down. They NEVER toned it down. Where did you hear this? the tabloids?

Disney is guilty, and i hope the parents get the money back to pay for their sons burial, and funeral costs. I do not feel they are entitled to anything more than that however. I also hope all the centerfuges are turned off. Guilty of what? giving this kid a prexisting condition? He could have died playing basketball, or drinking too much caffeine, or sitting down. fact is, it just happened to be on MS when he expired......

My answers in bold.

 

[wdwishes2005]

The issue is not simply whether they were warned. The issue is whether the ride is inherently dangerous. Is there something so harmful that no amount of warnings can make up for the risk built-in to the ride itself?

That's the legal perspective. From the family's point of view, they went to WDW for a great time. They lost their child. Should a ride kill? How many deaths are acceptable? 1? 2? 10? At one point does it show a REAL problem with the very existence of the ride?

I agree the warnings are there. But look at it from another perspective. Ski lift tickets all say, "we cannot be held responsible for rocks, dirt, boulders that exist on slopes..." But that won't protect them if they not only post warnings but make EVERY REASONABLE EFFORT to make it safe.

I don't know the answer, but this doesn't not seem frivolous. Maybe some good can come from this. Visitors become more educated, Disney becomes better prepared to handle cardiac emergencies...

How exactly? open a mayo clinic outside the ride?

 

[WDWToddKaren]

I always felt great sympathy for that family, but my respect for them just took a big hit.

there isn't anything else to say but this

 

[disneymickey123]

I have a four year old brother i would never let him ride even if he met the height of 44 inches. And to that family i feel sorry but what idiot lets there kid ride that ride when know that the ride is fast disney has so many signs and two pre-shows telling you it fast. and scar

 

[autumndawn1006]

In my opinion, this suit screams settlement only. Any reputable attorney knows they have no shot in winning this case at trial. It has been proven that this was caused by a pre-existing condition. Disney will weigh the cost to defend against a possible negative campaign, which, to the average person, would paint the disney parks as unsafe. We all know how much the media loves to jump on a negative disney point and a lawsuit regarding the death of a child at a park would be horrible negative press.

Exactly-the best bet is to settle and get it off the news as quickly as possible. Even if Disney won at trial the media spin on it would be billion dollar company overpowers lowly lawyer and grieving family.

 

[pluto77]

I truely feel sorry for what happened, I don't have any kids, but I can't imagine how it would feel to lose a young child, but money will not replace their son, and it will not take away their pain. If the autopsy showed that the boy did not have a medical condition or if the ride somehow malfunctioned, maybe this would look like Disney's fault, and I'm sure something worse than a frivilous lawsuit would be in the works. Fact is, the boy did have a medical condition, and the ride did not malfunction. This lawsuit is their last chance at pointing the finger at Disney, and I guess they are jumping at the chance. If it truely was Disney's fault (which I don't think it is), I would hope for something more than a lawsuit.

 

[pluto77]

They say company officials didn't adequately warn the public of the ride's hazards,

I don't know what more they can do. Honestly, I've heard so many people comment about the number of warnings Mission Space has. Anyway, if there was more warnings, the family still would have chose to bring him on the ride because they did not know about his condition.

should never have allowed a boy so small onto the ride

The boy did not die because he fell out of his seat. You could argue that the ride triggered his death, but it was not the cause of his death. The cause of his death was his heart disease. Anything else could have triggered his death, it just happened to be on Mission Space. Age restriction would also be useless. If they made the age restriction 10 and something did happen to a 10-year-old who rode the ride I'm sure the lawyers would be all over that. His age nor his size was a factor in this case, the autopsy showed that he had an enlarged heart and a number of things could have set off his condition. Also, if they don't think Disney should have let him on the ride, why did they take him on the ride?

and didn't do enough to help him when he got off unconscious and stricken

What else could Disney do to help? Disney doesn't have doctors standing on every corner. So I would like to know what more Disney could've done. Maybe they should sue the hospital or the doctors over this argument.

Thier claims don't make any sense to me, unfortueatly I'm not a judge or a jury.

 

[hokielutz]

If this is taken to trial... the plaintiff's lawyer will have to have better claims or arguments than the one's he has given to the press for the story on the lawsuit. All of his points can be reasonably explained away by the company. Maybe they are going public with the lawsuit to hope for a settlement from Disney, since, like someone mentioned before, the rate for suits settling out of court is 94%. Maybe they had no real intention of going to court. I guess we will wait and see how it all plays out.

 

[TAC]

So who is to blame then other than "$hit happens" ? The healthcare system of this country for not providing extensive top notch medical examination to all its young citizens?

Why does someone or something have to be blamed when "________ happens?" If you feel that is so, then maybe the parents should then be blamed for having a defective child.

 

[ScrapIron]

I have a four year old brother i would never let him ride even if he met the height of 44 inches. And to that family i feel sorry but what idiot lets there kid ride that ride when know that the ride is fast disney has so many signs and two pre-shows telling you it fast. and scar

Calling someone an idiot for allowing their child to ride something when the child meets all the qualifications is grossly out of line. You're by no means the first, but I think it's long overdue for this viewpoint to, excuse the expression, drop dead. Every doctor quoted after this incident said chidren's bodies can handle those forces better than aduts.

Cheers.

 

[dig8x]

Ok I made my last post while I was eating lunch, so it was very brief and did not go into anything to complex; for that I am sorry.

Disney does a fantastic job at putting up the signs, and I will not argue that at all. When I go into the park I see warnings for every ride I go on. I am just an average person, I do not have any medical condition that I know of, and so I do not worry about the warnings, as they do not pertain to me. I do not have heart problems that I know of, I am certainly not a pregnant female (I am in fact a man), and I do not suffer from motion sickness. To me, the signs essentially mean nothing. I have read them, and I understand them.

<O
I believe majority of the Disney guests read them as well. Like me, I would bet majority of people pay no heed to them, because they do not know, or have any idea that something might be wrong inside them. The point is that the signs are overlooked. A reasonable person would surmise that Disney would not put a ride in that your average healthy person would be injured or possibly even die on. However, the sad fact is this ride is really intense. Astronaughts, and Air force pilots are trained to be able to handle G force speeds. This is a ride that puts visitors through a force that the average person has never experienced, and the body is not made to handle. I would also like to specifically point out that in the article they are not saying the Engineers don’t understand what G Force is, but the average rider does not know what it is, and the stress it causes your body.

<O
It really has nothing to do with warning signs, but more to do with what a person would typically think. There was no reason for the parents to believe their child was ill. This ride was the catalyst to cause his death. That is sad, and unfortunate. If someone robs my house, and hurts themselves I am responsible for it. I see no difference here. Although it was an accident, it was on Disney’s property, and I am sure they have insurance for when things like this happen. Like I said before, I do not believe the family should make out like a bandit, but I do not feel it is unreasonable for them to sue for funeral costs. The ride caused the Childs condition to become aggravated, and that led to his death. Like it or not, the ride ultimately is what killed the child. It is not a matter of anything could have set it off; it’s that the ride was the trigger.

<O
I understand a lot of people think the lawsuit is bunk, and I agree there are a lot of suits these days that have no real lines to be based on. I do think this has some substance to it.
<O
Also, in my previous post I noted the ride “was toned down”, and someone claimed it was not. They turned off two of the centrifuges, which takes out the G Force that you experience during the ride. So it was in fact toned down. Disney claims, and I believe them, that they did it because it would allow more people to ride. The reason they did that is people were not riding the ride because they knew it was too intense. Disney knew this as well, and that is why there are now two versions. Disney has to take some credit for what happened. The kid did not just die on his own, the ride set off the condition.

<O
So in closing, I think some of you misunderstood what I was trying to say. I took a whole 10 minutes and actually typed this out the right way this time. I feel sorry for the family, and I do think they should be compensated for the funeral expenses. I would ask that you put yourself in the shoes of this family, and truly ask yourself what you would do. Is it unreasonable to think you, and your healthy (to your knowledge) child are safe to ride the attractions at Disney World?

 

[pluto77]

Also, in my previous post I noted the ride “was toned down”, and someone claimed it was not. They turned off two of the centrifuges, which takes out the G Force that you experience during the ride. So it was in fact toned down. Disney claims, and I believe them, that they did it because it would allow more people to ride.
<O

They did not tone down the ride, they offered a separate experience for people that don't want to ride the more intense version. The orginial centrifuge version of the ride is still there for anyone to ride, but now there's a SEPARATE line for people who want to ride the no g-force version. Yes now more people will ride because people who want to ride the original intense version will, and people who don't can ride the less intense "toned down" version.

 

[DDuck1974]

<O...If someone robs my house, and hurts themselves I am responsible for it. I see no difference here. Although it was an accident, it was on Disney’s property, and I am sure they have insurance for when things like this happen. Like I said before, I do not believe the family should make out like a bandit, but I do not feel it is unreasonable for them to sue for funeral costs. The ride caused the Childs condition to become aggravated, and that led to his death. Like it or not, the ride ultimately is what killed the child. It is not a matter of anything could have set it off; it’s that the ride was the trigger.

I appreciate your very articulate post.

I do not mean to single you out directly, because many people have expressed a similar sentiment, but I do have to take issue with the quoted portion above.

The way you expressed your thoughts on why the family should be compensated with funeral expenses is exactly the problem I see with our justice system. Essentially, your position is one of absolute liability: It happened on Disney's ride, so Disney must be held liable and pay the funeral expenses. All too often, that is the view expressed by so many people in this country when someone is injured or, unfortunately, killed. Someone must pay. But that is not the law. The law requires that Disney did something wrong that caused the injury or death. For example, plaintiff might have to show that Disney's conduct in the design of or posting of warnings for the ride was negligent and that negligence was the cause of the injury or death. Negligence and cause have legal meanings that are often different from how they are used in lay conversations.

Sometimes accidents happen, and no one is at fault. In those situations, as sad as it may be, the injured party is not entitled to compensation. Based on the facts as we all know them at this point, I believe it is going to be very hard for the plaintiffs to prove that Disney's conduct with respect to the warnings was negligent, and it was that specific negligence (and not the ride itself) that caused the death of the child.

As for the robber in your house, you will not necessarily be liable if some moron trespasses on your property and gets hurt. Premises liability, just like wrongful death, is not absolute liability. In Florida, you will only be liable if you engaged in intentional misconduct that causes injury to the trespasser, or were grossly negligent once you discovered the presence of the trespasser. If a trespasser breaks into your house and happens to slip down the stairs and injuries himself, you will not be liable.

Now that I have bored everyone, I return you to your regularly scheduled Disney talk. :wave:

 

[goofntink]

Here in Florida there is a old statute called the Castle law.In other words breifly says " A mans home is his castle, and as such has every right to defend it,his family and himself by any means necessary. Personally speaking,If a man breaks into my home while I or my family is inside he won't be around to sue me.If I don't know who you are in a situation like that, I would fear for my life and that of my family,and the consequeces for your actions would be the loss of your life. I would rather be tryed by twelve than be carried by six.

 

[Dr Albert Falls]

I gotta say, some of you are the most heartless, ignorant people I've ever heard of.

This family lost a child, for God's sake. The worst imaginable thing that could happen. Now I'm sure alot of you are teenagers or 40-year-old-virgins, but please understand that there is nothing more heartwrenching than losing a child.

With that said, how DARE anyone criticize this family. Your comments are WAY more inflammatory than Ann Coulter's recent criticism of 9-11 widows. This family did NOTHING to you. And they did nothing wrong by filing a lawsuit.

I'm sure all of you consider yourselves patriotic Americans. Thanks to our Founding Fathers, this country has a system whereby, if you feel you were wronged, you can seek remedy. That is your RIGHT when you are a citizen of this country.

Yes, there are frivilous lawsuits. But even those people have the right to file them.

This, however, is in no way a frivilous lawsuit. A family goes to Disney World. Their child dies. The family has UNDERSTANDABLE questions about whether that death could have/should have been prevented. The family asks the courts to help answer those questions.

And yes, there ARE questions.

*Is 44 inches a proper height requirement?
*How in-depth was Disney's scientific study into Mission Space? (Guess what. Disney is not going to voluntarily turn that info over to the public unless they're dragged into court).
*Had Disney been warned by doctors or engineers that there was an increased chance of death on this ride?
*Is there someone working in the company right now that tried to put the brakes on this $100 million attraction with concerns about its safety, but was silenced by corporate and budget pressures? (And you don't think something like that is possible? Do some research on Space Shuttles Challenger and Columbia)
*With 130 people in two years formally complaining of illness after riding Mission Space, was it irresponsible for Disney not to provide better medical care at the attraction?
* Do those TV commercials and print ads showing children smiling while riding Mission Space--- which are technically "invitations" --- contradict and override the numerous warning signs. (In other words, are the warning signs the equivilent of "fine print" on a glossy magazine advertisement, where the main image grabs your attention, but not the disclaimer)

I guarantee that NOT A SINGLE ONE OF YOU can definitively answer ANY of those questions.

There is one way to obtain those answers, and that's by taking Disney to court.

Yes, the family is seeking money. That's the only remedy our justice system allows. And if a court finds that Disney was wrong, then yes, this family DESERVES that money.

Likewise, if Disney did nothing wrong, then the courts will clear them of any suspicion.

And perhaps Disney will settle this lawsuit. That's DISNEY'S choice. They make plenty of money by inviting millions of people with different health backgrounds onto their property. In order to take money from the majority of healthy people, they may sometimes be forced to pay for injuries to people who had unknown health problems. It's the cost of doing business.

But if there are serious, undisclosed problems with Mission Space --- problems that could harm YOU --- then a lawsuit is the only way to reveal those issues (Don't forget, there was a time when the tobacco companies said cigarettes wouldn't kill you. And Disney says Mission Space won't kill you. How are we supposed to know the difference?)