Friend banned from most of Volcano Bay rides due to congenital amputation

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I’ll stipulate that Team Members are required to follow UOR rules or they would be fired. So I’ll give the TMs a pass. So the issue is to the rules themselves. That’s why my physician friend went straight to the GM. Again, I don’t blame him for putting in an inquiry to the ADA.

He had an interesting observation, considering he could ride if he had a prosthetic, “they were defining functioning hand on visible appearance. Not based on actual function.” He argues that a prosthetic inhibits him more than helps him. Interesting to see how this plays out if he pursues this further.
 
Last edited:

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Right or wrong they are certainly not going to change the policy on that day to accommodate one person. I suppose your friend can write to the higher ups in the change of command and see what happens with that. The park actually did the right thing in refunding the ticket even though it was an inconvenience for your friend and his family they also could has been out a lot of money as well. Maybe if he does write a well constructed letter they may reconsider the policy, but I highly doubt they will due to safety concerns.

I agree that TMs had to enforce UOR rules. They can do no other. So, yes, it comes down to challenging the rules. Interesting to see if he follows up.
 
Last edited:

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I’d usually chalk this up to Uni’s poor customer service but in this case I agree with others in this thread.

I find myself in agreement with others. He received proper customer service based on the rules that TMs are charged to enforce. That doesn’t mean agreeing with the rules, of course.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Hey! The OP is still here! To summarize, I’m in agreement that TMs have no choice but to enforce the rules as a requirement of their jobs. So the issue is over the rules themselves. My friend believes that prosthetics actually inhibit, not help him. Interesting to see if he pursues this or let’s it drop (ie won’t return to VB any time soon).
 

mary2013

Active Member
I ageee Universal was just following their policy and it may be reasonable. I would like to know what Disney's policy is on this matter and what Seaworld and Six Flag's policies are. I certainly understand the handicapped can do much more than some people think and accommodations should be allowed based on the ADA.
I was actually reading SeaWorld's Ride Accessibility guide yesterday. They define a functioning hand as "an upper extremity or prosthesis with fingers that have the ability to grasp the restraint device and exhibits good grip control".
Seaworld's Ride Accessibility Program
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
I'm not a lawyer but in a case such as this can Universal have the guest sign some sort of release that if the guest is injured Universal can't be sued

Unfortunately, even a written release is only considered a first line of defense and it still would not keep the person from suing for their injuries. Then, once a case is filed Universal or it's insurance carrier would need to defend the claim. It is much easier and safer for
Universal to deny one persons use of the rides than to deal with a law suit for injuries.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
It was previously noted the person did not have fingers, they would not have needed to go any further than that.

While those are the rules, I agree that TMs are charged to enforce them. That doesn't make the rules right. He makes the argument that a prosthesis would limit him more. He may not be able to release his "grip" from the handle, for example, if using one.
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
Just to throw out an additional view, you need to understand, if the TMs do allow someone to "break" the rules, they leave not
only themselves, but Universal open for prosecution. You may say, "My friend would never do that." but think you are a family man,
you get injured and can't work, but still need to provide for your family. You are going to look for someone to pay.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
While those are the rules, I agree that TMs are charged to enforce them. That doesn't make the rules right. He makes the argument that a prosthesis would limit him more. He may not be able to release his "grip" from the handle, for example, if using one.
What experience does your friend have in determining the safe operation of a water slide?
 

OG Runner

Well-Known Member
I understand the decision by the TM was disappointing, but I do not see that it was wrong. Unfortunately, there are safety requirements for those rides and he did not meet the requirements. I have a friend that could not ride Gringott's due to his size, the restraint did not
fit. It was disappointing he could not ride, it was not wrong that the TM did not let him ride, without the proper restraint.
 

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
I understand the decision by the TM was disappointing, but I do not see that it was wrong. Unfortunately, there are safety requirements for those rides and he did not meet the requirements. I have a friend that could not ride Gringott's due to his size, the restraint did not
fit. It was disappointing he could not ride, it was not wrong that the TM did not let him ride, without the proper restraint.

I'm in complete agreement that the TM has no choice but to follow UOR rules. It's not his fault. So the actions of the TM were "right" given the rules he has to follow and his employment with UOR. My point is the rules themselves.

As for @lazyboy97o 's observation, I think a physician who happens to have a personal handicap has a pretty good experience knowing his limitations. However, just because rules are written up doesn't automatically make them right. They can be challenged in court, if he desires, and leave it to a judge. A judge could rule either way. Then the ruling would either uphold or change the rules. He may not challenge and decide it's not worth the effort and just boycott UOR VB. But that would strictly be on a personal basis.
 

Dead2009

Horror Movie Guru
Again, just because YOU dont think they're right doesn't mean they aren't. That's like saying the rule about keeping your arms inside a moving ride is unfair because you're unable to flail them around like a wackjob. What happens if they did let him on the ride and he ended up getting an injury? UOR is then liable for that and subject to a lawsuit which would surely happen.
 
Last edited:

JohnD

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
Again, just because YOU dont think they're right doesn't mean they aren't. That's like saying the rule about keeping your arms inside a moving ride is unfair because you're unable to flail them around like a wackjob. What happens if they did let him on the ride and he ended up getting an injury? UOR is then liable for that and subject to a lawsuit which would surely happen.

And again I’m not arguing with what TMs are tasked to do. They know the rules they are charged to enforce and must enforce them. I understand my friend couldn’t ride that day. The question is whether he wants to challenge the rules in court as is his right. He probably won’t though and will never return to VB. A shame really.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom