Disney, Family Settle Death Lawsuit

[brisem]

Disney, Family Settle Death Lawsuit
AP
ORLANDO, Fla. (AP) - Walt Disney World has settled a wrongful death lawsuit with the family of a 4-year-old Pennsylvania boy who died after going on one of its rides, court records show.

However, neither an attorney representing Daudi Bamuwamye's parents nor Disney would elaborate on the terms. The court file shows a joint motion for dismissal against Disney filed Jan. 11, and approved that day.

The file says the parties settled the dispute in mediation on Oct. 26, but does not include specifics.

Bamuwamye died after riding "Mission: Space" on June 13, 2005. An autopsy determined the Sellersville, Pa., boy died of a heart condition linked to natural causes.

The condition is an abnormal thickening of the heart that can throw contractions out of coordination. People who have it are at risk for sudden death throughout their lives, especially in stressful situations, a medical examiner said.

The suit alleged Disney did not properly warn the public of hazards associated with the ride and should have done more to help when Bamuwamye became unconscious after riding.

"Mission: Space," which opened in 2003, simulates a trip to Mars and spins riders in a centrifuge that subjects them to twice the normal force of gravity. The ride has motion sickness bags and signs warning people with heart, back and neck problems.

A 49-year-old woman from Germany also became ill and died in April after riding the attraction. She died from bleeding of the brain and had severe, long-standing high blood pressure, according to a medical examiner's report.

The park, owned by Walt Disney Co., has since opened a tamer version of the ride, which does not have a spinning centrifuge.


Copyright 2007 The Associated Press.

 

[bhg469]

Its sad that this came to a settlement. A kid died and it was no ones fault. Should have never tied up the court system with this garbage.

 

[tigsmom]

A settlement makes it go away. I also read today that the gentleman who dies 3 days after riding Space Mountain died of natural causes.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news...jan30,0,3627657.story?coll=orl-home-headlines

 

[PatsRule]

With all due respect to the poor family that lost a child, there are plenty of warnings about that ride. There are more on that ride than any other in Disney.

 

[PaulTetul]

I agree Pats, the ride has alot of warnings and i found it intense and im like 10x older then that kid.

 

[doop]

It's really sad and I'm sympathetic towards the family, but I'm also happy Disney didn't lose any money over this, it wasn't their fault.

 

[nibblesandbits]

It's really sad and I'm sympathetic towards the family, but I'm also happy Disney didn't lose any money over this, it wasn't their fault.

Disney settled...so that means they more than likely paid the family some money. If it had been dismissed, they wouldn't have lost any money over it.

 

[backinaction]

looks like MS costs Disney another 100 mil. So much for the rising stock prices

 

[doop]

Disney settled...so that means they more than likely paid the family some money. If it had been dismissed, they wouldn't have lost any money over it.

Ah you're right, my mistake.

 

[Ralphlaw]

A four-year-old should not even be allowed on the orange version of that ride. I do not recall what the signs say now, but I personally believe that a child should be at least 6 years old before riding Mission Space. After all, any latent health problems are far more likely to be exposed by the time a child is six as opposed to four. It's a good dividing compromise point to allow for fun, while still providing safety. (Of course, there should not be any such restrictions for the new, less intense green version.) A six-year-old also has probably been involved in some organized sporting activity through a league or gym class, which would be more likely to expose any such problems.

Yes, Disney settled, but we'll never know how much they paid. With a company like Disney, they have to walk a fine line between vigorously defending such suits and not appearing unsympathetic to a grieving family. The publicity for Disney would have been very bad, and going to trial would have potentially exposed some alleged shoddiness in design, training, or safety procedures. After all, even Disney is not perfect, and any perceived imperfection by Disney could be blown out of proportion at trial and hurt business dramatically. Oh yes, the media would be in the Courtroom.

Disney, therefore, had to settle, which means that Disney and/or an insurance company probably paid a great deal. Thrill rides, by definition, are thrilling, which means that they stress the body and mind. Unfortunately, some people are dramatically harmed by such stress, and some of those, like this 4 year old, had no clue that he had this heart defect.

I do not blame the parents because the Disney people had no rule against allowing such a young child to ride. Yes, the parents should not have been on this ride with such a young child, but I recall that they were not native English speakers, and probably assumed it would not be this intense.

Thrill rides will never be 100% safe, but any decent lawyer would find foreseeable ways that could have avoided this particular death at Disney World. They would include:

1. Better, multilingual warnings.
2. The 6 year old age limit.
3. Better/faster medical response teams.
4. A "stop" button if the ride becomes an emergency situation.
5. Better video monitoring when riders become seriously distressed.
6. A "green" version, before these deaths.
7. Some medical training for the CMs at the exit to better deal with these situations.
8. Warnings in general around Disney property to have families with young children avoid the thrill rides if possible.

Yes, a lawyer could easily work up a jury to point these things out and get a HUGE award. And Disney would have been perceived as a heartless, thoughtless, careless business. Such exposure would certainly hurt the turnstiles in the long run. They had to settle.

 

[theadmiral459]

You know Ralph i agree with almost everything you wrote but what are the chances even if disney put up signs all around the park about the thrill rides how many people do you think will actually obey these signs especially you drove hundreds of miles to be there to enjoy the parks and more or less be told your son or daughter can't ride those rides . Not trying to start anything but look at how signs are out in front of MS and still people going on the attractions with heart conditions and bad backs .

John

 

[GoofyFreek]

Thrill rides will never be 100% safe, but any decent lawyer would find foreseeable ways that could have avoided this particular death at Disney World. They would include:

1. Better, multilingual warnings.
2. The 6 year old age limit.
3. Better/faster medical response teams.
4. A "stop" button if the ride becomes an emergency situation.
5. Better video monitoring when riders become seriously distressed.
6. A "green" version, before these deaths.
7. Some medical training for the CMs at the exit to better deal with these situations.
8. Warnings in general around Disney property to have families with young children avoid the thrill rides if possible.

Yes, a lawyer could easily work up a jury to point these things out and get a HUGE award. And Disney would have been perceived as a heartless, thoughtless, careless business. Such exposure would certainly hurt the turnstiles in the long run. They had to settle.

1. Better signs?? They are already in 2 languages and you can pick up a language specific brochure at the entrance to each park.
2. What makes 6 better? The child met the height requirements and was allowed on the ride.
3. The EMT's are located on the backside of Mousegears which is located directly infront of MI
4. All rides can be stopped in emergancy.
5. There is a camera that gives a clear view of the riders in each compartment.
6. Thats like saying they need a green version on everyride, cause who knows what could happen( THERE CALLED ACCIDENTS). Belive it or not they do happen and nobody is at blame.
7. What better way to handle the situation by calling they Emergency Responce?
8. I think just about every ride has a warning of some type to it. Heck you even warned getting on to Small World. What more do they need billboards saying "IF YOU ENTER THIS PARK OR RIDE THESE RIDES YOU MAY DIE".:hammer: :hammer:

 

[Rayray]

looks like MS costs Disney another 100 mil. So much for the rising stock prices

I highly doubt they settled for that much. Going to court and winning (which I am sure the WDC believes they could have easily done) would be much cheaper.

 

[nibblesandbits]

You know Ralph i agree with almost everything you wrote but what are the chances even if disney put up signs all around the park about the thrill rides how many people do you think will actually obey these signs especially you drove hundreds of miles to be there to enjoy the parks and more or less be told your son or daughter can't ride those rides . Not trying to start anything but look at how signs are out in front of MS and still people going on the attractions with heart conditions and bad backs .

John

Exactly...I worked at Six Flags for a while...their river raft ride...which had a height requirement on it. People would constantly try to get their kids on that ride who were under the height requirement. They complained so much about how long they'd waited in line and how their kid was only a few centimeters short. Now, there were signs up saying that the kids had to be a certain height...and there was a measuring stick right at the front of the ride with a big cartoon character where people could measure their kid...so you can't tell me they didn't know there was a height requirement. But people still complained. And my Six Flags usually only gets locals. I can't imagine what it must be like at Disney...where people come from all over the place.

Some people just don't seem to care about height requirements. They don't understand that they are in place for a reason...and that reason is for their child's safety. We aren't trying to be mean...it's just a safety precaution. But all these people think about is they've spent x amount of dollars to get into the park and dang it, their children should get to ride everything!

 

[Eyorefan]

looks like MS costs Disney another 100 mil. So much for the rising stock prices

They probably settled for a lot less than it would have cost them to fight this in the courts and go to trial.

 

[Ralphlaw]

All of your concerns are valid. However, a lawyer would have less ammunition in a courtroom if Disney:
1. Had a 6 year old policy against the thrillier rides (not Small World, obviously--no one thinks that). I'm talking Everest, Tower, Rock & Roller, etc . . .
2. Publicized that the youngest of children should not go on the thrilliest rides.
3. When possible, have a green version. For example, use the bottom row on Soarin', use the back row on Tower of Terror. Obviously this would be impossible on the roller coasters and similar rides. But having a less intense alternative, when possible, would be huge during negotiations and possible trials. It might also save lives, and certainly would prevent people from illness.

When people knowingly disobey the signs, it is called Assumption of Risk and/or Contributory Negligence. This means that the person is responsible in large part for their own injuries. For example, if the 4 year old's parents knew that their son had a serious heart problem but they still knowingly went on this intense ride despite the signs, they would probably get zero. Similarly, if a family knowingly disobeys a 6 year old limitation, they would also probably get zero, or at least something close to it.

Yes, I know a 4 year old who loved Tower of Terror, and preventing her from riding it might be very disappointing. But that's a part of the normal frustrations of growing up. However, parents who disregard a warning sogn would be hard-pressed to find success at a potential lawsuit should she get hurt.

 

[nibblesandbits]

All of your concerns are valid. However, a lawyer would have less ammunition in a courtroom if Disney:
1. Had a 6 year old policy against the thrillier rides (not Small World, obviously--no one thinks that). I'm talking Everest, Tower, Rock & Roller, etc . . .
2. Publicized that the youngest of children should not go on the thrilliest rides.
3. When possible, have a green version. For example, use the bottom row on Soarin', use the back row on Tower of Terror. Obviously this would be impossible on the roller coasters and similar rides. But having a less intense alternative, when possible, would be huge during negotiations and possible trials. It might also save lives, and certainly would prevent people from illness.

When people knowingly disobey the signs, it is called Assumption of Risk and/or Contributory Negligence. This means that the person is responsible in large part for their own injuries. For example, if the 4 year old's parents knew that their son had a serious heart problem but they still knowingly went on this intense ride despite the signs, they would probably get zero. Similarly, if a family knowingly disobeys a 6 year old limitation, they would also probably get zero, or at least something close to it.

Yes, I know a 4 year old who loved Tower of Terror, and preventing her from riding it might be very disappointing. But that's a part of the normal frustrations of growing up. However, parents who disregard a warning sogn would be hard-pressed to find success at a potential lawsuit should she get hurt.

The problem with having a policy for rides that states that a specific age group can ride...is that it's incredibly hard to enforce. And if that were in place, it would be quite easy for people lie about their child's age. I mean if people are already trying to weasel their kid's way onto a ride that has a height requirement, what would stop them from doing it on an age requirement ride.

 

[DisneyCane]

Dear Dr. Ralphlaw,

Please cite your scientific sources that say a 6 year old age limit would have prevented this. Your reasoning seems to be that a latent health issue will is more likely to have already occurred 2 years later. Well, obviously, if somebody has a latent health issue that is going to occur, it is more likely to occur as somebody gets older. So why 6 year old, why not 12 or 24 or 48?

The other part of your reasoning is that the latent health issue would have already shown itself. So would it have been better for the body to have dropped dead at the supermarket than after riding M:S? If Disney had a 6 year old age limit than this boy would never have rode M:S because he would have died before he got to ride. That wouldn't have been Disney's fault and it isn't Disney's fault that he died on M:S.

That is the problem with this sue happy society. Everybody wants to get some and a slick lawyer could easily convince a Jury of your peers that couldn't get out of Jury duty that BIG BAD CORPORATE BILLION DOLLAR Disney owes this poor family that lost their son money. You can argue anything, Disney should have everybody hooked up to a defibrillator before riding just in case, Disney should have everybody have a physical while in line..... it just never ends and it is ridiculous. I wish Disney had fought this just to make a statement (like Wal-Mart does) that they won't settle.

 

[GoofyFreek]

WOW... you guys are way to smart for me. But no worries when my dumb butt is climbing on soarin this weekend I will give it a 2nd thought on how I am feeling. And if my dumb butt croaks Ralphlaw I hope you represent my wife.

 

[Ralphlaw]

Of course it would be hard to enforce the 6 year old limit. But it would also be nearly impossible to successfully sue if they knowingly disobey the rule.

No, there is no guarantee that a 6 year old will have exposed these health problems. I know several pediatricians, and I have heard many stories about health problems being exposed because Johnny can't keep up on the soccer field or in gym class. Such opportunities, in general, are less likely to be diagnosed before the age of 5 or 6. It is far likelier that the problem would have turned up at soccer league or gym class before he died at Disney World.

Certainly it would not be any less tragic for the family if he had died on the soccer field, but it would not be in any way Disney's fault. Disney does not want deaths at their parks, so it is in their interest to prevent them from happening on property. Legitimate rules to minimize accidents (not eliminate accidents entirely through overlybroad and strict rules) may be a logical step.

As I have already said, no attraction is 100% safe 100% of the time. Going to a ridiculous logical extreme of ubiquitous defibrillators and 24 year old age limits is moronic. Nobody is advocating for that. However, the line should be drawn somewhere, and the 6 year old line makes sense to me. Feel free to disagree, but I bet that Disney's lawyers and insurers would be far happier riight now if such a rule for the thrilliest rides had been in existence.