Disney World Lawsuit

[Phonedave]

Then you must have exceptional control of your surroundings and kids.

Please re-read my statement


Still, I am of the opinion that when you fill the cup with cheese you know it is hot (you can feel it). If you then have a four year old, you do not put a tray (with cheese or otherwise) in such a position as to permit them to spill it on themselves. If you do, then it is your fault.



I never said that there have never been any accidents with my kids.

I said that when they do happen (and they have) it is MY fault not Disney's. At least as far as when it comes to handling hot cheese.

I am responsible for watching my kids and suroundings. When there is an incident, it is my fault and I take the blame for it, not try to pass it off on someone else. It's a little thing called personal responsibility.

And yes, we do not know all the facts in this case. Maybe the cheese was at 300 degrees because of a defective cheese heater. Who knows? If it was, that changes the story. But in a situaion with 'normal' cheese that is within 'normal' cheese operations paramaters, the parents are responsible.


-dave

 

[inluvwithbeast]

This reminds me of this case:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...AAAAIBAJ&dq=joel-goode disney&pg=2392,5764519

A little boy in '77 climbed over the wall surrounding the moat around the castle. He fell in and drowned. The family sued and won, but the parents were found 50% liable for letting their kid go climb over walls while he was playing. Of course this was over 30 years ago.

 

[sublimesting]

Yup, and that's what a lot of people don't have.

They expect the world watch out for their kids, not to make sure your kids are safe in the world. No responsibility.

They also are going on about a "wobbly chair". QUOTE]


How wobbly could this chair have been.

 

[juniorthomas]

I know. I keep hoping one day someone will finally realize that Disney isn't infallible in lawsuits brought against them. They aren't perfect. And neither are parents, and especially the legal system.... :zipit:

Hard sell to people who expect magic in everything Disney does.

I get you though. Keep fighting the good fight. We'll have to learn sooner or later.

 

[Phonedave]

Hard sell to people who expect magic in everything Disney does.

I get you though. Keep fighting the good fight. We'll have to learn sooner or later.

No,

I do not see the magic in everything Disney does. In fact, if you were to take a look at my past posts, I have been accused of being one of the people who "like to complain about everything WDW does".

While I fully understand that we do not know all the details of this case, and therefore cannot make any sort of ruling, I will stand by my assertation that parents (and people in general) need to be accountable for their actions, and not expect "others" to take the blame when something goes wrong. Sometimes is it your fault, and not some 'bigbad company's'

If your kid stabs himself in the eye with a plastic fork, it is not MY fault because I have plastic forks available for people to eat with. If you fill up a cup with catsup and then spill it, runining your cashmere sweater, it is not my fault because I made catsup availble. That is the point I am trying to make.

Take Disney out of the equation. Take the following hypothetical case.

A restaruant somewhere in America is serving hot cheese at a condiments bar. The cheese is normal industry accepted serving temperature for such an item, the tray is in good shape, the floors are clean and not slippery, the chair is in normal tolerances for a chair, there are no other extenuating circumstances. The parents fill a cup with hot cheese, put it on a tray, carry it to a table, where child is then able to upend the tray and spill cheese on himself, who is at fault IN THIS TEST CASE?

Are you going to say that the parents are not at fault ? Would you recommend the parents bring suit against the restaruant. Would you recommend they bring suit "just in case"?

-dave

 

[juniorthomas]

No,

I do not see the magic in everything Disney does. In fact, if you were to take a look at my past posts, I have been accused of being one of the people who "like to complain about everything WDW does".

While I fully understand that we do not know all the details of this case, and therefore cannot make any sort of ruling, I will stand by my assertation that parents (and people in general) need to be accountable for their actions, and not expect "others" to take the blame when something goes wrong. Sometimes is it your fault, and not some 'bigbad company's'

If your kid stabs himself in the eye with a plastic fork, it is not MY fault because I have plastic forks available for people to eat with. If you fill up a cup with catsup and then spill it, runining your cashmere sweater, it is not my fault because I made catsup availble. That is the point I am trying to make.

Take Disney out of the equation. Take the following hypothetical case.

A restaruant somewhere in America is serving hot cheese at a condiments bar. The cheese is normal industry accepted serving temperature for such an item, the tray is in good shape, the floors are clean and not slippery, the chair is in normal tolerances for a chair, there are no other extenuating circumstances. The parents fill a cup with hot cheese, put it on a tray, carry it to a table, where child is then able to upend the tray and spill cheese on himself, who is at fault IN THIS TEST CASE?

Are you going to say that the parents are not at fault ? Would you recommend the parents bring suit against the restaruant. Would you recommend they bring suit "just in case"?

-dave

Reading back my past posts will show that I wasn't specifically referring to you. Forums like these aren't a hot bed of sound legal positing.

Furthermore, nobody here is in a position to do anything other than gripe about the case. So why get all worked up about it when all it will do is serve the general idea that everybody has different opinions on everything?

 

[chrisrarmstead]

I am going to sue for being too expensive...lol

 

[Phonedave]

Reading back my past posts will show that I wasn't specifically referring to you. Forums like these aren't a hot bed of sound legal positing.

Furthermore, nobody here is in a position to do anything other than gripe about the case. So why get all worked up about it when all it will do is serve the general idea that everybody has different opinions on everything?

You referenced "all" and I had been having a back and forth, so I assumed I was included in your generalities. If I was mistaken I apologize.

As for continuing to discuss the case when none of us have any bearing on the outcome; if you took away all the posts that meet that criteria (i.e. different opinions) you would have to delete more than half of all the posts on this forum.


-dave

 

[AEfx]

Again, there is legal basis in this argument. If they had notice of the chair being defective, legally they must take steps to remedy it before it's used again.

If you don't know the legal arguments to these allegations, well........I've said it already.

And no one has complete and utter control of their kids actions.

Sorry, Disney is probably more legally liable in this case than the parents.

Oh please, stop talking to people like we somehow think Disney is in some bubble or that we are idiots. Most of us are adults who understand that they are not, and most of us are not idiots either.

I understand how lawyers work, and how they make cases, very well. That does not mean I cannot hold opinions about this case, which are just as valid as yours.

Yes, I understand that a wobbly chair can be an issue - though, personally, I think that it's more an issue of the person sitting in it. If you sit yourself in a wobbly chair, and do not take action to rectify it, unless you can prove that Disney intentionally was negligent and had prior knowledge of said wobbly chair, there is not a whole lot to blame on them for the chair.

Obviously none of us, including you, have all the facts here, nor is this a court of law. We are having a discussion on a Disney message board about a Disney lawsuit. A *discussion*, not a trial.

These people may very well win the case. But they still lose because they, at least in this situation, were not very good parents. No one has "complete and utter control" over their kids actions, but that did not take away their responsibility to :

* Test hot food before presenting it to their child (which they served themselves, so one of them had to put it in that little cup - that little paper cup that if this was truly so scalding they should have felt)

* Place a tray of food directly in front of a 4-year old who apparently did not know any better than to grab at it

* Place the child in a chair that they did not believe was secure, or failed to ensure their child was secure

So yup, our screwed up "expect the world to take care of you" laws may be on their side (we won't know until if or when the case goes to trial), but this was obviously some oblivious parenting since they basically set the whole thing up like dominoes to happen. It (most likely) was not intentional, and it could happen to anyone - but if they had taken a bit of care in what they self-served and presented their child, and made sure their child was securely seated (like any good parent would do) it just may not have happened.

 

[flavious27]

And another from our friends on the West Coast...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/09/disneylands-small-world-c_n_820737.html

I wonder if this guy is one of the frequent ada lawsuit plaintiffs that live off the fines. Also this happened in 2009, why did they wait so long to file?

 

[flavious27]

A family is suing Disney World saying that their son suffered severe burns from nacho cheese that was scolding hot. Here is the article about it.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/busi...t-child-burned-cheese20110210,0,2488936.story

FTA: "Typically, to cause the type of burns that Isaiah experienced, the nacho cheese would... have been at least 160 degrees Fahrenheit," said Cahill, who admits he does not know the exact temperature of the cheese at the time.

The temperature of the cheese in the dispenser is 140 - 160 degrees, disney can't kept it at a lower temperature or it will effect the quality of the food.

 

[juniorthomas]

You referenced "all" and I had been having a back and forth, so I assumed I was included in your generalities. If I was mistaken I apologize.

As for continuing to discuss the case when none of us have any bearing on the outcome; if you took away all the posts that meet that criteria (i.e. different opinions) you would have to delete more than half of all the posts on this forum.


-dave

Exactly. There is no point in getting all worked up about any of this.

 

[mcjaco]

No,

Take Disney out of the equation. Take the following hypothetical case.

A restaruant somewhere in America is serving hot cheese at a condiments bar. The cheese is normal industry accepted serving temperature for such an item, the tray is in good shape, the floors are clean and not slippery, the chair is in normal tolerances for a chair, there are no other extenuating circumstances. The parents fill a cup with hot cheese, put it on a tray, carry it to a table, where child is then able to upend the tray and spill cheese on himself, who is at fault IN THIS TEST CASE?

Are you going to say that the parents are not at fault ? Would you recommend the parents bring suit against the restaruant. Would you recommend they bring suit "just in case"?

-dave

An excellent test case. Now add in cheese that is above acceptable serving temperature, and a defective chair that contributes to the occurence. Entirely different case. Even with fault on the parents, there's still liability on the "restaurant."

And yes, if the restaurant balked at my demands for settling, then I would file suit. As there are varying degrees of liability in this case, sometimes it's the only means of getting it settled on way or another.

Unfortunately.

Oh please, stop talking to people like we somehow think Disney is in some bubble or that we are idiots. Most of us are adults who understand that they are not, and most of us are not idiots either.

I understand how lawyers work, and how they make cases, very well. That does not mean I cannot hold opinions about this case, which are just as valid as yours.

Opinions are fine. Uneducated blathering of non-issues in the case, or simply posting that the parent's are morons that can't parent, are completely stupid.

Yes, I understand that a wobbly chair can be an issue - though, personally, I think that it's more an issue of the person sitting in it. If you sit yourself in a wobbly chair, and do not take action to rectify it, unless you can prove that Disney intentionally was negligent and had prior knowledge of said wobbly chair, there is not a whole lot to blame on them for the chair.

Which I'm sure their attorney will more than likely, if he/she hasn't already, will request records of the maintenance to said chairs. I can tell you from experience, that prior knowledge of said defects are a difficult argument to win.

I've sat in wobbly chairs before. Are you saying that most people get up and change chairs?

And yes, these are all my opinions, but handling high exposure premise liability claims for many years gives me a bit more understanding into all the details, even ones that aren't summarized in the article, with cases such as this. It's not as easy as posting, "the parents are idiots, and are sue happy." That's all I'm trying to get too.

 

[Phonedave]

Originally Posted by Phonedave

A restaruant somewhere in America is serving hot cheese at a condiments bar. The cheese is normal industry accepted serving temperature for such an item, the tray is in good shape, the floors are clean and not slippery, the chair is in normal tolerances for a chair, there are no other extenuating circumstances. The parents fill a cup with hot cheese, put it on a tray, carry it to a table, where child is then able to upend the tray and spill cheese on himself, who is at fault IN THIS TEST CASE?

Originally Posted by mcjaco

An excellent test case. Now add in cheese that is above acceptable serving temperature, and a defective chair that contributes to the occurence. Entirely different case. Even with fault on the parents, there's still liability on the "restaurant."

And yes, if the restaurant balked at my demands for settling, then I would file suit. As there are varying degrees of liability in this case, sometimes it's the only means of getting it settled on way or another.

Unfortunately.

Can you answer my question as posed in my original post? No adding in of extra hot cheese, wobbly chairs, mis-aimed animatronics lasers, side effect of pain meds, or any other extenuating circumstances.

We agree on the fact that we do not know all the facts of this case. Neither of us can make a decision on the real world WDW case (and neither of us have).

Where we disagree is on a parents ability (and culpability) of preventing accidents to their children. I made the remark about parents being responsible for their children (as I believe they are, especially when there are no extenuating circumstances) and you made some comment about I must be able to watch my kids with superior vigilance or some such thing.

The point I am trying to make here is that parents are not perfect, and that sometimes accidents do happen that are the parents fault.

So, what is your ruling on the test case as I presented it - are the parents at fault?

-dave

 

[mcjaco]

Originally Posted by Phonedave



Can you answer my question as posed in my original post? No adding in of extra hot cheese, wobbly chairs, mis-aimed animatronics lasers, side effect of pain meds, or any other extenuating circumstances.

We agree on the fact that we do not know all the facts of this case. Neither of us can make a decision on the real world WDW case (and neither of us have).

Where we disagree is on a parents ability (and culpability) of preventing accidents to their children. I made the remark about parents being responsible for their children (as I believe they are, especially when there are no extenuating circumstances) and you made some comment about I must be able to watch my kids with superior vigilance or some such thing.

The point I am trying to make here is that parents are not perfect, and that sometimes accidents do happen that are the parents fault.

So, what is your ruling on the test case as I presented it - are the parents at fault?

-dave

Didn't realize I was supposed to answer your test case.... :hammer:

And no, I would find no liability on the restaurant. They took proper care in everything under their control. Kids do things even with the best of supervision. Whether or not eleven other jurors would feel the same way......who knows. :lookaroun

I was just trying to take Disney out of the equation for some of the armchair lawyers to take a look at the facts, and rid themselves of the emotion of Disney possibly doing something wrong, it being just another silly suit.

In this case, I don't believe it is a silly suit, and it does have merits. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[pax_65]

In this case, I don't believe it is a silly suit, and it does have merits. Nothing more, nothing less.

On what do you base this opinion? Simply the belief of the plaintiffs that the cheese was served too hot?

Just curious.

 

[mcjaco]

On what do you base this opinion? Simply the belief of the plaintiffs that the cheese was served too hot?

Just curious.

Yep. The whole case is based off of that. If it was served per the parameters, I don't think they have a case. If it wasn't, then there's liability. I still don't think it's much, but it's there.

Just my two cents. Like I said, I handled GL premises claims for airports (which are essentially big shopping malls), for years. I'm not completely unversed in this type of thing.

Usually when suit is filed, is more to protect the plaintiff's interests in settlement because negotiations are still ongoing, or have hit a stand still before the statute to file is about to run. This will likely settle before that.

 

[pax_65]

Thanks. Although I'm a firm believer that the responsibilities of the parent to ensure the safety of the child are paramount in a situation like this, I can see the argument that Disney would have some liability if they carelessly served cheese that was dangerously hot.

It's interesting to me to turn it around yet another way. What if the accident occurred in a daycare setting. Let's say the daycare went next store to a restaurant and the accident occurred the same way as in this case, only it was the daycare staff getting the food for the child, not the parents.

Who would have the greater liability? The restaurant for serving hot cheese or the daycare workers for not ensuring the child's safety around hot food?

I know the legal answer is "both", but I'm just throwing that out there as something to think about.

 

[mcjaco]

^ See, that's what I was getting at many pages ago. There very likely could be a tender of defense in this case to the cheese manufacturer. If Disney supplied the cheese at the recommended temperature per the manufacturer, it would start to lean more towards a product claim, which Disney could be absolved of even more liability. We don't know that though, as we don't know if the temperature was too hot.

And yes, in your case, it would likely be both parties. More on the Day Care, as it's their responsibility first and foremost to provide care to the child.

 

[pax_65]

And yes, in your case, it would likely be both parties. More on the Day Care, as it's their responsibility first and foremost to provide care to the child.

Right, and that's really my primary point. Even if Disney is liable for serving the cheese too hot, the parents are really more responsible because they didn't ensure the child's safety.

Too bad the kid can't collect damages from the parents. lol.