Disney sued over a wedgie at TL

MichWolv

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
Six Flags makes no bones about what you can expect on their similar slide outside of Chicago.


1696273872424.png
 
I

Isamar

Well-Known Member
Weather_Lady said:
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 tingling 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 particularly delicate in that area.

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 lead 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.
Click to expand...

I don’t know the ride at all but I’m inclined to reserve judgement too. I have some thoughts but they’d just be wild speculation at this point.

The comparison to the McDonald’s coffee case is interesting, because in this case media headlines written for clicks are being amplified by social media in both directions based on scant information. Lots of people are posting about a woman suing for a “wedgie” based on headlines (and some of the attached articles don’t fully describe the alleged injuries either). That spreads and becomes a joke. At the other end of the spectrum are people accusing Disney of intentionally spreading the “wedgie” description to trivialize her injuries. I’ve seen a number of Twitter posts from accounts with large followings making this accusation. But the “wedgie” description and the quote “injurious wedgie” came straight out of the claim written by her lawyer.
 
Last edited:
Dranth

Dranth

Well-Known Member
Lilofan said:
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.
Click to expand...
That's why I take my swim trunks off before going down. Can't fall off if you aren't wearing one.
 
I

Isamar

Well-Known Member
DCBaker said:
Yes, it's there - you'll be able to find it with a search of the case number 2023-CA-015576-O.
Click to expand...

Thanks! And double thanks because now I know that Orange County’s case number search actually works!
(I had found it on a different government site yesterday and it’s gone there. I don’t know why I didn’t think to check Orange County’s site 🤷‍♀️.)
 
larryz

larryz

I'm Just A Tourist!
Premium Member
Chi84 said:
That’s common practice. It says nothing about the merits of the lawsuit.
Click to expand...
It does to me -- I'd wonder why they waited 3 years, 11 months and 2 weeks in filing it, just days before the SoL expired. To my mind, something so egregious and dangerous would demand immediate action on my part to seek compensation and restitution.

Without getting too clinical, I have to wonder about the kind of forceful water intrusion through a layer of clothing that would result in ripping through internal organs. Having never been on the slide, I'd expect people in the waterpark would be wearing more than a thong, especially going down a slide of that height.

ETA: court documents claim she was wearing a one-piece suit, so it seemingly wasn't a lack of covering contributing to her injuries.
 
Last edited:
bpiper

bpiper

Well-Known Member
larryz said:
It does to me -- I'd wonder why they waited 3 years, 11 months and 2 weeks in filing it, just days before the SoL expired. To my mind, something so egregious and dangerous would demand immediate action on my part to seek compensation and restitution.

Without getting too clinical, I have to wonder about the kind of forceful water intrusion through a layer of clothing that would result in ripping through internal organs. Having never been on the slide, I'd expect people in the waterpark would be wearing more than a thong, especially going down a slide of that height.
Click to expand...

I don't think it said it ripped though internal organs.

I could see that that when the cloth of the swimsuit was pressed into the opening of a certain female body opening, that it may have cut the skin around such opening, which would account for the blood. Transferring her to another hospital could have because due to the nature and location of the cut, the 1st hospital didn't have someone on staff capable of properly suturing it so that future complication don't happen.

I do agree, someone told them should sue, and finally found a lawyer willing to take it on contingency or saved up enough money to pay the lawyer themselves.
 
Disstevefan1

Disstevefan1

Well-Known Member
In addition to a lawsuit against Disney the person wearing the swimsuit should also bring a lawsuit against the swimsuit manufacturer.

The swimsuit manufacturer may claim the swimsuit may not be suitable for that kind of use.

But whether the swimsuit was suitable or not suitable I think the person wearing the swimsuit should file lawsuits against the parties they think are sueable. ;)
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
larryz said:
To my mind, something so egregious and dangerous would demand immediate action on my part to seek compensation and restitution.
Click to expand...
This is an emotional approach- but not really a legal one.

You have a far better shot at suing for actual expenses or ones you can qualify instead of future predictions. Having the data collected goes much further in court than ‘what ifs’
 
D

DCBaker

Premium Member
bpiper said:
I don't think it said it ripped though internal organs.

I could see that that when the cloth of the swimsuit was pressed into the opening of a certain female body opening, that it may have cut the skin around such opening, which would account for the blood. Transferring her to another hospital could have because due to the nature and location of the cut, the 1st hospital didn't have someone on staff capable of properly suturing it so that future complication don't happen.

I do agree, someone told them should sue, and finally found a lawyer willing to take it on contingency or saved up enough money to pay the lawyer themselves.
Click to expand...

The injury you mentioned is noted, however the complaint goes on to say "a full thickness laceration causing Plaintiff's
bowel to protrude through her abdominal wall, and damage to her internal organs."
 
flynnibus

flynnibus

Premium Member
The woman unfortunately probably suffered the equivalent of blunt force trauma to what is a highly sensitive and easily damaged area of the body. Probably the equivalent of being punched violently if she was at speed, skipping, and then suddenly stopped with her legs separated.

Just think bruising rather than the wedgie itself.

I’m sure she’ll get something… but I doubt this ever sees trial. Disney has years of avoiding major injury on this attraction but surely doesn’t want to go through discovery of all the minor injuries and complaints that obviously come with a highly physical attraction.

Disney can point out the rider’s obligations and point to the success of many to achieve it… but injury audits will still look bad
 
Drdcm

Drdcm

Well-Known Member
I legitimately injured myself on a slide there. It was one of the open top straight slides, somehow I got airborne on one of the curves and when I landed it created this weird suction on my lower back that ended up causing this huge bruise. Despite doing nothing wrong and riding like I should have, I went on with my day and didn’t sue over it.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom