Disney sued over death of monorail driver

[jakeman]

This one gets trotted out a lot as a poster child for the need for tort reform. The facts are a little more nuanced.

McDonalds was serving coffee at temperatures hot enough to cause third degree burns in around 5 seconds, and had received hundreds of complaints. The plaintiff had to undergo skin grafts after being burned and had medical bills in the thousands. There were serious injuries involved in that case and McDonalds was found liable because it knew of the potential dangers and didn't lower the temperature of the coffee.

Sorry for the digression, but I think the lady in that case has been unfairly maligned over the years.

Point taken. I agree it is the most trotted out one though and is probably in the realm of folk lore now more than anything else. :ROFLOL:

Hopefully that doesn't detract from the point I was trying to make though. :wave:

 

[BigThunderMatt]

I hope that the family comes out with enough for them to try to heal their wounds, and then some.

This is the kind of mentality about these kinds of things that needs to change. Regardless of how much Disney decides to get them it will neither bring Austin back from the dead nor heal the emotional trauma the family has suffered. They may recoup funeral costs from it, but to suggest that some giant monetary compensation Disney is going to just fix things and make them forget about how much they've suffered is ludicrous.

Disney got a slap on the wrist and the amount of money I'm sure Austin's family will be receiving is simply a drop in the bucket to such a company.

 

[Main Street USA]

As they should.

And that's all I'll say on the subject.

Indeed. This is one of the few lawsuits against the company that I believe is totally justified.

 

[WDW1974]

There are many lawsuits against Disney that are legit. Because we've become a nation of victims, we tend to dump 99% of folks into 'they're just trying to scam Mickey' (not in this case, but in general). Realize if we're all victims then none of us are ... and sadly that's the mentality many people have.

As to Disney's strategy, normally their lawyers lowball the plaintiffs and try and insinuate ... well, let's justs say they play as dirty as star. This case may well be very different and they may throw a seven or eight figure number out there because they absolutely don't want to go to court (there are plenty of ex-CMs -- and a few current -- who would love to take shots).

No matter what, though, it isn't going to bring this kid back. And I hope his family gets a large enough number so they never have to worry about money again.

 

[The Mom]

This one gets trotted out a lot as a poster child for the need for tort reform. The facts are a little more nuanced.

McDonalds was serving coffee at temperatures hot enough to cause third degree burns in around 5 seconds, and had received hundreds of complaints. The plaintiff had to undergo skin grafts after being burned and had medical bills in the thousands. There were serious injuries involved in that case and McDonalds was found liable because it knew of the potential dangers and didn't lower the temperature of the coffee.

Sorry for the digression, but I think the lady in that case has been unfairly maligned over the years.

And if you research the case, you will discover that she was a passenger, and the car was not in motion, but had pulled to the side so she could take the lid off to add cream & sugar. She placed the cup between her knees while she lifted the lid (which I suspect many of us without cup holders have done) and it spilled on her lap. Because she was wearing pants with porous material, it instantly wicked into her groin/genital region, causing severe burns and long term complications. Also, because she didn't instantly jump up and remove her pants and underwear, the heat stayed next to her skin like a hot pack.

Sorry for the digression; you may return to the topic at hand.

 

[fosse76]

There are many lawsuits against Disney that are legit. Because we've become a nation of victims, we tend to dump 99% of folks into 'they're just trying to scam Mickey' (not in this case, but in general). Realize if we're all victims then none of us are ... and sadly that's the mentality many people have.

As to Disney's strategy, normally their lawyers lowball the plaintiffs and try and insinuate ... well, let's justs say they play as dirty as star. This case may well be very different and they may throw a seven or eight figure number out there because they absolutely don't want to go to court (there are plenty of ex-CMs -- and a few current -- who would love to take shots).

No matter what, though, it isn't going to bring this kid back. And I hope his family gets a large enough number so they never have to worry about money again.

Precisely. Disney absolutely does not want this to go to trial. They were found negligent AND fined by a government agency. The official report will be considered irrefutable fact by the court, so no one from the agency will actually have to testify, and if I recall correctly the reports cleared Austin of any wrongdoing. At MOST Disney can attempt to mitigate damages by pointing its fingers at two employees: the one who didn't switch the beams but gave the go ahead anyway AND the monorail pilot of the reversing train.

 

[Buried20KLeague]

Precisely. Disney absolutely does not want this to go to trial. They were found negligent AND fined by a government agency. The official report will be considered irrefutable fact by the court, so no one from the agency will actually have to testify, and if I recall correctly the reports cleared Austin of any wrongdoing. At MOST Disney can attempt to mitigate damages by pointing its fingers at two employees: the one who didn't switch the beams but gave the go ahead anyway AND the monorail pilot of the reversing train.

To the "legal eagles" we have floating around here...

How much liability (if any) do these two people have? Are they at risk of lawsuit, or are they covered by the umbrella of their employer?

My guess is there IS some degree of liability these two can be held to, but I'm surprised if that's the case that they haven't seen lawsuits yet either.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

To the "legal eagles" we have floating around here...

How much liability (if any) do these two people have? Are they at risk of lawsuit, or are they covered by the umbrella of their employer?

My guess is there IS some degree of liability these two can be held to, but I'm surprised if that's the case that they haven't seen lawsuits yet either.

I'm far from any brand of eagle, legal or otherwise, but experience tells me that suing the average Disney employee individually would be like bleeding a turnip. It would likely be a waste of time and legal fees, even if they won.

 

[wm49rs]

I'm far from any brand of eagle, legal or otherwise, but experience tells me that suing the average Disney employee individually would be like bleeding a turnip. It would likely be a waste of time and legal fees, even if they won.

Yeah, I'm not going to break out my Blackstone's Commentaries either, but I think that a corporation is held liable for the actions of it's employees, which usually protects them individually from legal action. But I'm open to anyone telling me otherwise for my edification.....:wave:

 

[Giraffe Lounge]

This one gets trotted out a lot as a poster child for the need for tort reform. The facts are a little more nuanced.

McDonalds was serving coffee at temperatures hot enough to cause third degree burns in around 5 seconds, and had received hundreds of complaints. The plaintiff had to undergo skin grafts after being burned and had medical bills in the thousands. There were serious injuries involved in that case and McDonalds was found liable because it knew of the potential dangers and didn't lower the temperature of the coffee.

Sorry for the digression, but I think the lady in that case has been unfairly maligned over the years.

Thank you, I frequently find myself pointing this out to people. It's also a reason why people need to read more than the headlines.

And if you research the case, you will discover that she was a passenger, and the car was not in motion, but had pulled to the side so she could take the lid off to add cream & sugar. She placed the cup between her knees while she lifted the lid (which I suspect many of us without cup holders have done) and it spilled on her lap. Because she was wearing pants with porous material, it instantly wicked into her groin/genital region, causing severe burns and long term complications. Also, because she didn't instantly jump up and remove her pants and underwear, the heat stayed next to her skin like a hot pack.

Sorry for the digression; you may return to the topic at hand.

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Those details seem completely inconsequential. Unless you're suggesting she should have stripped nude in a public parking lot?

 

[fosse76]

I'm not sure what you're getting at? Those details seem completely inconsequential. Unless you're suggesting she should have stripped nude in a public parking lot?

As is evidenced by the constant use of this McDonald's case to illustrate frivolous lawsuits, most people have absolutely no clue about anything in the case. Most people assume it was a middle-aged woman who was driving and the coffee spilled as a result of her own negligence. The Mom added the details to illustrate that the woman was not being reckless and that the spill wasn't necessarily out of her own carelessness.

 

[Giraffe Lounge]

As is evidenced by the constant use of this McDonald's case to illustrate frivolous lawsuits, most people have absolutely no clue about anything in the case. Most people assume it was a middle-aged woman who was driving and the coffee spilled as a result of her own negligence. The Mom added the details to illustrate that the woman was not being reckless and that the spill wasn't necessarily out of her own carelessness.

Fair enough

 

[Giraffe Lounge]

Yeah, I'm not going to break out my Blackstone's Commentaries either, but I think that a corporation is held liable for the actions of it's employees, which usually protects them individually from legal action. But I'm open to anyone telling me otherwise for my edification.....:wave:

That's true, it's called the "corporate shield" (i'm sure there are ways for getting around it, but that I'm not familiar with).

 

[raven]

No matter what, though, it isn't going to bring this kid back. And I hope his family gets a large enough number so they never have to worry about money again.

Disney offered the mother $20 Mil. but she didn't take it. I'm not one to say someone's life is more valuable than others but it seems she's out to make a big stink.

 

[The Mom]

Thank you, I frequently find myself pointing this out to people. It's also a reason why people need to read more than the headlines.




I'm not sure what you're getting at? Those details seem completely inconsequential. Unless you're suggesting she should have stripped nude in a public parking lot?

No, but what she was wearing, and the location of the burns, plus the duration of the scalding water against her skin, made her injury much more serious, and more difficult to treat. Had the coffee spilled on a bare arm, it would have still burnt her, but she would not have been dealing with grafts, infections (think about it), healing problems, etc. She would have been able to run inside and hold her arm under cold water, and might have had a lesser burn.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

Yeah, I'm not going to break out my Blackstone's Commentaries either, but I think that a corporation is held liable for the actions of it's employees, which usually protects them individually from legal action. But I'm open to anyone telling me otherwise for my edification.....:wave:

That's true, it's called the "corporate shield" (i'm sure there are ways for getting around it, but that I'm not familiar with).

My point was more along the lines that it would be useless to sue anyone who makes a Disney CM's salary, whether the law allows it or not.

 

[hansel1]

I'm not a florida attorney, but what about worker's compensation? In most states the only remedy for an individual being injured or killed at work would be through that state's worker's compensation program unless there was a third party involved.

Most of these WCC admistrations take the place of civil claims against your employer. Instead of the plaintiff proving the employer did anything wrong, they just have to be injured during the normal course of employment. In return the employer pays compensation based on a scale. For example, you lose a hand and its worth X amount of money.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

No, but what she was wearing, and the location of the burns, plus the duration of the scalding water against her skin, made her injury much more serious, and more difficult to treat. Had the coffee spilled on a bare arm, it would have still burnt her, but she would not have been dealing with grafts, infections (think about it), healing problems, etc. She would have been able to run inside and hold her arm under cold water, and might have had a lesser burn.

I believe she was 79 years old at the time, as well. At her age, her skin was probably more susceptible to injury than a healthy 40-year-old woman's would be. It really was a perfect storm of conditions for nasty injury, unfortunately for her.

 

[hansel1]

No, but what she was wearing, and the location of the burns, plus the duration of the scalding water against her skin, made her injury much more serious, and more difficult to treat. Had the coffee spilled on a bare arm, it would have still burnt her, but she would not have been dealing with grafts, infections (think about it), healing problems, etc. She would have been able to run inside and hold her arm under cold water, and might have had a lesser burn.

Her jury verdict was also reduced on appeal!

 

[WDWFigment]

That's true, it's called the "corporate shield" (i'm sure there are ways for getting around it, but that I'm not familiar with).

You sure you're not thinking of the 'corporate veil'? That's not at all applicable here.

You certainly can sue in the individual employee, but they have many defenses. More importantly, from a practical standpoint, why wouldn't you go after the deeper pockets? Most Cast Members will be judgment proof.