Disney sued over a wedgie at TL

Coaster Lover

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
No
Yeah, I'm not going to jump to conclusions on this one... the McDonalds Coffee lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants; 1994) is a prime example of how the plaintiff's injuries were real/significant and all the plaintiff really wanted was a $20K settlement to cover medical bills then the lawyers got involved and everything blew up. In that case, the actual incident happened in Feb of 1992 and it didn't go to trial until Aug 1994 (2.5 yrs later), so the timing here is not suspect either. Similarly, in that case, McDonalds had been serving coffee for decades with no lawsuits for the temperature, so we can't take a multi decade history of no cases on the waterslide to be a 100% assurance of safety.

Based on the filing, it seems her injuries were significant (bleeding after riding, taken to a hospital via ambulance) and, if nothing else, should at least be compensated for the hospital bills. But I could see a situation where Disney pushes back and then she gets a lawyer involved and all of a sudden the wording get's a but more "colorful" and the amount they are suing for jumps way up (lawyers like to get paid).

As for how a similar incident hasn't happened before, the deceleration at the end of the slide is based on body position, body size, and the amount of water at the end of the slide. Other than saying people of certain weights can or cannot ride and instructing people on the proper riding position, Disney doesn't have much control over the first two attributes. I wonder if it's possible that the water in the run out was lower/higher than ideal in this case resulting in a more rapid deceleration than anticipated? (just tossing out theories, I'm not familiar enough with the slide to say how feasible that may be).
 

larryz

I'm Just A Tourist!
Premium Member
Other than saying people of certain weights can or cannot ride and instructing people on the proper riding position, Disney doesn't have much control over the first two attributes.
Definitely not going to victim-blame or -shame here, but the rider's weight and body shape will have a huge effect on how they interact with the deceleration trough at the end. That said, there's a YouTuber who posts his own experiences as a plus-sized traveler, and here's his account of Typhoon Lagoon.
 

MR.Dis

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm not going to jump to conclusions on this one... the McDonalds Coffee lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants; 1994) is a prime example of how the plaintiff's injuries were real/significant and all the plaintiff really wanted was a $20K settlement to cover medical bills then the lawyers got involved and everything blew up. In that case, the actual incident happened in Feb of 1992 and it didn't go to trial until Aug 1994 (2.5 yrs later), so the timing here is not suspect either. Similarly, in that case, McDonalds had been serving coffee for decades with no lawsuits for the temperature, so we can't take a multi decade history of no cases on the waterslide to be a 100% assurance of safety.

Based on the filing, it seems her injuries were significant (bleeding after riding, taken to a hospital via ambulance) and, if nothing else, should at least be compensated for the hospital bills. But I could see a situation where Disney pushes back and then she gets a lawyer involved and all of a sudden the wording get's a but more "colorful" and the amount they are suing for jumps way up (lawyers like to get paid).

As for how a similar incident hasn't happened before, the deceleration at the end of the slide is based on body position, body size, and the amount of water at the end of the slide. Other than saying people of certain weights can or cannot ride and instructing people on the proper riding position, Disney doesn't have much control over the first two attributes. I wonder if it's possible that the water in the run out was lower/higher than ideal in this case resulting in a more rapid deceleration than anticipated? (just tossing out theories, I'm not familiar enough with the slide to say how feasible that may be).
The women in the McDonald's case was a professional. When she went into the McDonald's Rest to complain, the manager openly and loudly criticized her in front of a Restaurant full of patrons. All she wanted was to be reimbursed for dry cleaning of her clothes. If the manager had been professional and handled the complaint with tack, no law suite would of been filed. The good that came out of this, McDonald's went on a crusade to educate/teach good public relations to all their owned franchises and to franchisees.
 

peter11435

Well-Known Member
The women in the McDonald's case was a professional. When she went into the McDonald's Rest to complain, the manager openly and loudly criticized her in front of a Restaurant full of patrons. All she wanted was to be reimbursed for dry cleaning of her clothes. If the manager had been professional and handled the complaint with tack, no law suite would have been filed. The good that came out of this, McDonald's went on a crusade to educate/teach good public relations to all their owned franchises and to franchisees.
The women received third degree burns and was hospitalized for over a week. She needed more than reimbursement for dry cleaning expenses.
 

danlb_2000

Premium Member
The women in the McDonald's case was a professional. When she went into the McDonald's Rest to complain, the manager openly and loudly criticized her in front of a Restaurant full of patrons. All she wanted was to be reimbursed for dry cleaning of her clothes. If the manager had been professional and handled the complaint with tack, no law suite would of been filed. The good that came out of this, McDonald's went on a crusade to educate/teach good public relations to all their owned franchises and to franchisees.

Not sure what case you are referring to but I doubt the woman in Liebeck v. McDonald was only concerned about he dry cleaning when she was suffering from 3rd-degree burns. Eventually they did try to settle for just medical expenses but McDonalds refused the offer.
 

Lilofan

Well-Known Member
All very true, and we all know Disney lawyers are very effective bullies.
Effective , yes. In 2015 there was a CM that was sexually assaulted by a House of Blues staff member and a security CM found her half dressed in the early morning hours in the bushes in front of HOB in Disney Springs. The HOB staff member was fired and arrested, charged with sexual battery. Later after meeting with legal teams, the CM decided to drop the charges.
 

Bastet

Active Member
Quick look and I dont see this mentioned in the reports for the 3rd or 4th quarterly reports of accidents/injuries. I may be looking in the wrong place though
 

GCTales

Well-Known Member
Yeah, I'm not going to jump to conclusions on this one... the McDonalds Coffee lawsuit (Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants; 1994) is a prime example of how the plaintiff's injuries were real/significant and all the plaintiff really wanted was a $20K settlement to cover medical bills then the lawyers got involved and everything blew up. In that case, the actual incident happened in Feb of 1992 and it didn't go to trial until Aug 1994 (2.5 yrs later), so the timing here is not suspect either. Similarly, in that case, McDonalds had been serving coffee for decades with no lawsuits for the temperature, so we can't take a multi decade history of no cases on the waterslide to be a 100% assurance of safety.
I studied that one in one of my biz law classes.

IIRC, the big factor was that not only was the coffee extremely hot, but that particular McDonald's ranchise was keeping it well above McDonald's corporate guidelines and had previous reports and been told they were not complying with corporate guidelines.
 

DisneyDebRob

Well-Known Member
I know. Wasn’t making a comparison.

The situation just made me think of that documentary and I thought I’d mention it if people were interested in crazy unregulated water parks that were allowed to operate for years.
I visited that park twice when I was a young kid. It was worse than the documentary made it out to be. I remember going home both times after the visits with bruises and cuts. Most people you saw at the park were hurt in some way. It was fun though! I can only imagine the lawsuits that would be filed daily in today’s world of places like that existed.
 

Splash4eva

Well-Known Member
Yes over NOW - but what makes you think you get that time BACK? The whole world basically hit PAUSE for two years. Jesus man… you were alive back then, is your memory that bad?
Alive & well & lived my life to the fullest if you really want and need to know!!!

So i will repeat myself. If i was as harmed as she says she ways again not saying she is lying there is NO way im waiting this long to file….
 

Dranth

Well-Known Member
Alive & well & lived my life to the fullest if you really want and need to know!!!

So i will repeat myself. If i was as harmed as she says she ways again not saying she is lying there is NO way im waiting this long to file….
I don’t believe it is that uncommon for people to seek other avenues of recourse before suing. Many times, it is a last resort because they aren't having their issues addressed elsewhere. It is even more common for people to wait if it is something they may be embarrassed by or feel shame.

Who knows if that is actual the case here but I don't think the delayed filing is all that out of the ordinary.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom