DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
Lawsuits like this illustrate why we need a "losing party pays" tort system. If the losing party had to pay court costs AND attorneys fees of the winning party these suits would never even come close to being filed.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney goes to trial over safety of Tower of Terror
- Thread starter Ziggie
- Start date
Tom
Beta Return
:sohappy::sohappy::sohappy::sohappy:
unkadug
Follower of "Saget"The Cult
Let's also get rid of the lawyers who are taking 40-60 % of the awards of the plaintiffs.
They are the ones that are usually instigating the lawsuits to begin with.
PeoplemoverTTA
Well-Known Member
This is really out there, but maybe he did not know the big drop was coming and turned around just as the drop occurred? Could that have caused a "whiplash-type motion?"
And if it did, is that grounds for a lawsuit? Assuming that the above scenario is what played out, is Disney responsible for telling/posting signs telling people to remain facing forward at all times?
I have no medical or law knowledge, nor do I think that this theory is necessarily what occurred, but who knows?
I agree that we definitely don't have all the information, but I think this has been a very interesting discussion.
Bender!
New Member
I'm pretty sure there are warnings posted about sudden drops around the ride.
Goofnut1980
Well-Known Member
I agree.. i did the ride and im 29.. and was like.. BARF!!! I can do many rides.. but that one for someone with a good stomach can get into knots... and i was nauseous for days after.. and im in perfect health.. so don't blame disney if you dont follow the signs.. HELLO!!! its a 13 story drop... shouldnt he seek a physicians referral to do something crazy like that.. shoot... an exercise video has that warning... and you are just crunching abs! :hammer:
Bender!
New Member
Not to mention that this happened 12 years ago.
Took him this long to bring it to court?
:hammer:Anyone of this age assumes a greater risk for injury on any thrill ride. This is a clear assumption of risk on behalf of the plaintiff. I am over 30 and am fully aware I am more susceptible to injury, but I assume the risk. Unless something malfunctions in an unexpected manner, this dude has no case.
I dont really see how they are going to prove the injury resulted from a whiplash motion. The mechanics of whiplash require a front to back movement, not an up and down. Also, from what I recall, the up and down motion in ToT is not abrupt. Although it pulls you up and down very quickly, at either end its a smooth transition to the next phase.
:shrug:
:shrug:
If you actually knew anything about the law, you would know that we do have this system. It is NOT automatic, and rightly so. The perfect example as to why it is done on a case by case basis is the recent Fred Phelps decision by the appellate court, where the father of a soldier killed in Iraq was ordered to pay the court and legal fees of the "reverend" Fred Phelps, who picketed the son's funeral in his typical, anti-gay, hateful fashion. (And the son wasn't gay). The father felt he had had a legitimate legal issue, as did a judge and jury. The controversy isn't that the appellate court overturned the decision against Phelps, it's that they awarded legal fees to Phelps. The courts aren't about winners and losers, they are about justice. Corporations' legal fees are typically astronomical, and if "loser pays" were automatically built into the law then there would never be another lawsuit against a corporation again, because who would risk a judge or jury not deciding in their favor. Losing a court case doesn't necessarily mean you were wrong.
The reason it isn't always applied is the equal access to justice doctrine. Let's say for argument's sake that the ride IS responsible, the lawyer proves it, but Disney still wins. Is it fair to make someone who can't afford Disney's lawyers to PAY Disney lawyers for a legitimate claim simply because they didn't win their case? It's why we have judges. They may not always be right, but they are there to determine whether or not a case has merit and whether or not attorneys fees are warranted.
mcjaco
Well-Known Member
No problem! :lol: After handling GL claims for five years for municipalities, I saw a side of the legal system, and society that's not nice. I'm a bit jaded, but I still try to see both sides to these cases.
There is, but it's very rarely used.
I can tell you from experience, that Corporation's legal fees are done on the cheapest that they can get a good defense. We had an approved legal panel of firms that we could use, not only for their expertise, but because they met certain fee requirements to do business with us. We paid them less, but they received more business from us.
In the case that I won, we went after the claimant for repayment of some of the fees. The cast took four years to defend ($110K in costs) for a complete verdict against her (the jury was 12-0 in our favor). We ended up dropping the request for defense costs because she was in debt and had no assets except her 1989 Honda.
I can' go into too many details, but she literally had not held a job in fifteen years, and was banking on a big verdict to live off of.
Monorail_Orange
Well-Known Member
^ THAT is ultimately the problem. People feel like they can win a lawsuit, and thus get to sit on their rear-ends for the rest of their lives.
I'm not saying there aren't times when such a claim is unwarranted (say someone is truly hurt very badly-to the point of actual incapacitation-because of the negligence of another) BUT when you see lawsuits like this one (and say, McDonald's coffee), well I think it becomes like a lottery win.
Just my $0.02, coming from a trial attorney.
If enough companies would go through with getting a judement for the costs to defend themselves, renew those judgements everytime they came up and made it miserable for those who attempt to use the legal system to play the lotto, then this type of crud would slowly cease to exist. That being said, I blame corporations just as much as those who are playing the system as they have done it to themselves by agreeing to settle out of court.....people know they stand a good chance of getting some sort of bank out of an unfortunate situation.
Monorail_Orange
Well-Known Member
You've got a good idea, but I think corporations hesitate to weild a heavy hammer when it comes to recouping legal fees because of potential bad publicity. I mean they're now the "big-bad-company picking on the poor individual" who "had" to file a lawsuit against them. It shouldn't be painted that way, and corporations shouldn't have to bear the burden of these suits, but could you imagine someone losing their house because they sued and lost - even if it was a frivolous suit - the media would tear the company a new one for taking it to that extreme.
I guess there just has to be a happy medium.
I guess there just has to be a happy medium.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I agree that loser pays should be (and is) applied on a case-to-case basis. Not everyone who loses a lawsuit is filing an abusive, frivolous claim. If every loser had to pay the other side's legal fees automatically, our justice system would just favor the side who can hire the most expensive lawyers...more so than it already does, that is.
Getting a judgement and enforcing a judgement are two different things. Get a judgement and if the person actually does come into some cash (i.e., lottery or large judgement against another company) then enforce it. I agree that taking someones house probably would not be in the best interest of the stockholders...:ROFLOL:
Monorail_Orange
Well-Known Member
This is very true (about the judgments). Still, if the company has a mediocre-to-bad- reputation within the news outlets - i.e. Wal-Mart - just getting the judgment could still bring them some serious P.R. headaches.
I do criminal law currently, so civil law concepts don't always occur me right away, but John Q. Public won't immediately understand that difference either, the "sheeple" may just rail against the company with the news. Not taking sides, mind you, just ponitificating the different potential consequences.
I do criminal law currently, so civil law concepts don't always occur me right away, but John Q. Public won't immediately understand that difference either, the "sheeple" may just rail against the company with the news. Not taking sides, mind you, just ponitificating the different potential consequences.
Tinkermommy
New Member
I am not a doctor, but here is what I learned in a different civil case involving an older gentleman who had a minor brain contusion from a car accident that led to his death two months later from excessive bleeding in his brain. As we age, our brains atrophy, which creates more room inside our skulls for movement of the brain and resulting trauma from even minor shaking or jolting. Perhaps this is what happened in this case. I would be curious to know whether theme park rides are tested for safety for all different ages, or just children and adults. Just as young children's brains are more susceptible to injury from shaking, maybe older people (68 in this case) have a similar susceptibility.
The warnings that are posted may focus more toward risk of heart attack or back injury, but I don't remember if they say anything about possible brain injury from the movement of the ride. Seems ridiculous to even suggest that a theme park should have to post a warning for every possible injury that could occur, but maybe that is what the plaintiff is going to argue in this case.
Sometimes even big name attorneys take bad cases because of the publicity they will receive. I agree with everyone who has said we need to know more before we can be sure this is a loser case. (Although I am naturally inclined to believe it is unless the plaintiff can prove otherwise.) I will be interested to see if they can put up any actual evidence to support their claims.
The warnings that are posted may focus more toward risk of heart attack or back injury, but I don't remember if they say anything about possible brain injury from the movement of the ride. Seems ridiculous to even suggest that a theme park should have to post a warning for every possible injury that could occur, but maybe that is what the plaintiff is going to argue in this case.
Sometimes even big name attorneys take bad cases because of the publicity they will receive. I agree with everyone who has said we need to know more before we can be sure this is a loser case. (Although I am naturally inclined to believe it is unless the plaintiff can prove otherwise.) I will be interested to see if they can put up any actual evidence to support their claims.