This is a new one. Pretty sure I remember seeing signs, and why do I suspect someone didn’t cross their legs like instructed?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney sued over a wedgie at TL
- Thread starter Touchdown
- Start date
This is a new one. Pretty sure I remember seeing signs, and why do I suspect someone didn’t cross their legs like instructed?
Chi84
Premium Member
I think that’s obvious from what I’ve read. Apparently Disney did not explain the reason for the instruction and its importance.
Smells like someone wants some money.
And the plaintiff claims they crossed their legs:
"The suit says that McGuinness assumed the appropriate position with her ankles crossed, “as instructed,” but she became airborne toward the end of the slide and slammed into the slide “which increased the likelihood of her legs becoming uncrossed or otherwise exposing herself to injury.”"
I suspect this gets tossed.
Remember the good ol' days, when you only had to be concerned about womens' tops flying off on Humunga Cowabunga? Oh wait, does that mean Disney has been aware of the issues for women on this ride for decades and this lawsuit is treading close to merit-less?
And the plaintiff claims they crossed their legs:
"The suit says that McGuinness assumed the appropriate position with her ankles crossed, “as instructed,” but she became airborne toward the end of the slide and slammed into the slide “which increased the likelihood of her legs becoming uncrossed or otherwise exposing herself to injury.”"
I suspect this gets tossed.
Remember the good ol' days, when you only had to be concerned about womens' tops flying off on Humunga Cowabunga? Oh wait, does that mean Disney has been aware of the issues for women on this ride for decades and this lawsuit is treading close to merit-less?
Notes from Neverland
Well-Known Member
The injuries described are extremely graphic.
Chi84
Premium Member
Interesting that it says “increasing the likelihood of” instead of “causing her to.”Smells like someone wants some money.
And the plaintiff claims they crossed their legs:
"The suit says that McGuinness assumed the appropriate position with her ankles crossed, “as instructed,” but she became airborne toward the end of the slide and slammed into the slide “which increased the likelihood of her legs becoming uncrossed or otherwise exposing herself to injury.”"
I suspect this gets tossed.
Remember the good ol' days, when you only had to be concerned about womens' tops flying off on Humunga Cowabunga? Oh wait, does that mean Disney has been aware of the issues for women on this ride for decades and this lawsuit is treading close to merit-less?
Snow Queen 83
Well-Known Member
People now assume they can sue over everything.
"They wouldn't let me bring in my comfort Grizzly Bear... or Alligator."
"They wouldn't let me bring in my comfort Grizzly Bear... or Alligator."
Good question. I know my back has slapped on the tube a few times, but I've never felt like I was going to go airborne at all.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
Just when you think you've seen it all...
You can literally sue anyone at any time over anything.
There's no guarantee it'll succeed in court, however.
I note that this suit is being filed two weeks prior to expiration of the four-year statute of limitations in Florida -- obviously, the lady's reported grisly injury and the husband's "loss of consortium" weren't all that urgent or concerning...
Last edited:
Chi84
Premium Member
That’s common practice. It says nothing about the merits of the lawsuit.
A wedgie I can see if one goes down the Summit Plummet water slide at 60mph at Blizzard Beach. I still don't have the nerve to go on it. At the bottom of the slide at times there are guests watching and waiting in the viewing platform for someone to go down the slide and one's swimwear fly off in the process.
Weather_Lady
Well-Known Member
I've been down that slide myself, with legs crossed tightly together at all times, and I did bounce around considerably at the bottom. During the "landing," my one-piece modest swimsuit was violently tugged into a Brazilian-style thong in both the front and back, with the sides of the legs having been pulled up over my pelvic bones, up to my waist. Spandex was painfully wedged into hallowed crevices where no spandex had ever trespassed before.
That being said, I just had to spend a few moments yanking everything back into place before standing up, in order to make myself family-friendly once again, and other than a stinging, tingling sensation in my bum that told me I'd just received a free colonic, I don't recall any further discomfort after my suit was readjusted. The degree of genital injuries this woman describes is so much more dramatic that while it's surprising, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, particularly as her description of the experience itself (albeit not the injuries) isn't so far off from mine: perhaps, following the "eggshell skull" rule that's part of every Law 101 curriculum, she's just more delicate in that area than others.
Plus, I'm a skeptic when it comes to the misleading ways the media can report on these cases. Remember that "ridiculous" McDonald's coffee case we all heard mocked on the news and by pundits, until all the facts came out, and people realized that McDonalds had been knowingly inflicting serious burns on customers -- hundreds of them -- for years (while steadfastly refusing to brew coffee at a safer temperature, and paying to keep it all quiet)? In that case, the elderly plaintiff had been handed a cup of coffee through the drive-through window, so hot (per McDonald's own internal requirements) that when she accidentally spilled it, she suffered third degree burns to 6% of her body, including her entire genital area, in less than 3 seconds. McDonald's response was to offer her an insulting settlement that couldn't begin to pay her medical bills (which was all she'd asked them to do), hire a P.R. firm to mischaracterize the case in the media and stage fake protests calling for tort reform, and then insinuate during closing arguments that there weren't any damages to speak of, since an elderly woman has no real need for functioning genitals, anyway.
To make a short story long, I'll withhold my judgment on this one until we know more.
That being said, I just had to spend a few moments yanking everything back into place before standing up, in order to make myself family-friendly once again, and other than a stinging, tingling sensation in my bum that told me I'd just received a free colonic, I don't recall any further discomfort after my suit was readjusted. The degree of genital injuries this woman describes is so much more dramatic that while it's surprising, I wouldn't dismiss it out of hand, particularly as her description of the experience itself (albeit not the injuries) isn't so far off from mine: perhaps, following the "eggshell skull" rule that's part of every Law 101 curriculum, she's just more delicate in that area than others.
Plus, I'm a skeptic when it comes to the misleading ways the media can report on these cases. Remember that "ridiculous" McDonald's coffee case we all heard mocked on the news and by pundits, until all the facts came out, and people realized that McDonalds had been knowingly inflicting serious burns on customers -- hundreds of them -- for years (while steadfastly refusing to brew coffee at a safer temperature, and paying to keep it all quiet)? In that case, the elderly plaintiff had been handed a cup of coffee through the drive-through window, so hot (per McDonald's own internal requirements) that when she accidentally spilled it, she suffered third degree burns to 6% of her body, including her entire genital area, in less than 3 seconds. McDonald's response was to offer her an insulting settlement that couldn't begin to pay her medical bills (which was all she'd asked them to do), hire a P.R. firm to mischaracterize the case in the media and stage fake protests calling for tort reform, and then insinuate during closing arguments that there weren't any damages to speak of, since an elderly woman has no real need for functioning genitals, anyway.
To make a short story long, I'll withhold my judgment on this one until we know more.
Last edited:
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
This is a rather common water slide. Those are awful injuries, however.
$50k seems rather low. I wonder if they acknowledge this wasn’t really Disney’s fault and just want a little money.
If they thought Disney was at fault, I’d expect damages in the area of $500,000 for injuries like these. People get $250,000 for finger injuries. $50k is very low.
$50k seems rather low. I wonder if they acknowledge this wasn’t really Disney’s fault and just want a little money.
If they thought Disney was at fault, I’d expect damages in the area of $500,000 for injuries like these. People get $250,000 for finger injuries. $50k is very low.
Monkee Girl
Well-Known Member
It's so ridiculous. this happened in 2019 and they are only suing NOW? apparently before the expiration date as someone above said. That's ridiculous. The injuries DO sound severe and if she had to go to 2 different hospitals, then they should have sued earlier for the medical bills. Maybe I am getting delusional but $50,000 does sound like medical bills as opposed to a get rich quick shake down. However, there are signs all over and I have a feeling she was either goofing off or doing something she shouldn't have been doing and got tangled up. they tell you to cross your legs for a reason. So this whole 'they didn't provide proper protective clothing' is ridiculous. I hope this suit goes nowhere but I am sure Disney will settle. It's too small a sum to even be bothered with.
Chi84
Premium Member
That’s a jurisdictional amount to get the suit into a particular court. It’s not the amount of damages she is seeking.
ToTBellHop
Well-Known Member
Got it. My mistake.
Monkee Girl
Well-Known Member
Yes! I thought the $50,000 is insanely low which makes me think they are looking at legit medial compensation than wanting a fortune. It sounds like a horrible accident but not Disney's fault. I'm a little half and half on this one in the sense that she WAS injured in the park so pay the medical bills. But some of her reasoning/demands like 'protective clothing' for a 34 year old ride are ridiculous and make her suit sound frivolous.