News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[Disstevefan1]

The Cast Members/Team Members and their leadership are absolutely able to deny someone the chance to ride if they determine it isn’t safe. This happens daily.

Other than folks who don't fit in the restraints, I have never saw anyone denied in the decades of going to the parks both Universal and Disney.

Saying the low paid CM at the load platform should be making medical decisions is unreasonable for the CM

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Of course his girlfriend has no legal duty to reasonable care. But she should have stopped him from going on.

You have no idea if this is true. You are generalizing because he was in a wheelchair and “internet rumors.”

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I never got to ride Stardust. Boy I wish I got to ride it.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Of course his girlfriend has no legal duty to reasonable care. But she should have stopped him from going on.

If the girlfriend has no legal duty to reasonable care, I suspect the Team member at the loading platform who is a total stranger also has no legal duty to reasonable care?

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

If the girlfriend has no legal duty to reasonable care, I suspect the Team member at the loading platform who is a total stranger also has no legal duty to reasonable care?

You think the ride operator of a roller coaster, and it’s employees, have no legal duty of reasonable care towards the paying customers that they are loading onto said roller coaster?

 

[mkt]

Other than folks who don't fit in the restraints, I have never saw anyone denied in the decades of going to the parks both Universal and Disney.

Saying the low paid CM at the load platform should be making medical decisions is unreasonable for the CM

From my own experience working in the parks, I denied guests from riding more than once. It wasn’t common, but when there was a potential safety issue, I stopped them to address it. Guests pushed back, but my leadership always backed me.

Granted, this was years ago, but even recently at Epic as a guest (last month), we were held while a manager and supervisor measured my son to confirm he could ride Mario Kart since he was right at the height line. He was allowed, but it was a clear example of the safety-first approach in action.

The culture is supposed to be safety first, and if employees have concerns, they’re empowered to act on them before a guest rides.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

You think the ride operator of a roller coaster, and it’s employees, have no legal duty of reasonable care towards the paying customers that they are loading onto said roller coaster?

The answer is that they do. That’s not what the issue will be. The issue will be whether they breached that duty, and whether that breach of duty was the factual and legal cause of his death. And we have no idea what the answers to these latter questions are at this point based on the information available. But anyone blaming the victim at this point based on nothing is just plain wrong.

 

[Disstevefan1]

View attachment 884359

I guess you are trying to disparage me but yes, I wish I got to ride Stardust.
I guess there are smarter folks who will elect not to ride going forward.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I guess you are trying to disparage me but yes, I wish I got to ride Stardust.
I guess there are smarter folks who will elect not to ride going forward.

I’m not trying to disparage you. I’m pointing out that all we know right now is that someone died while riding stardust of multiple blunt force injuries. Until we actually find out that this wasn’t due to some design flaw, or ride malfunction, I’m glad I never rode it, because I would find dying inconvenient.

 

[Disstevefan1]

From my own experience working in the parks, I denied guests from riding more than once. It wasn’t common, but when there was a potential safety issue, I stopped them to address it. Guests pushed back, but my leadership always backed me.

Granted, this was years ago, but even recently at Epic as a guest (last month), we were held while a manager and supervisor measured my son to confirm he could ride Mario Kart since he was right at the height line. He was allowed, but it was a clear example of the safety-first approach in action.

The culture is supposed to be safety first, and if employees have concerns, they’re empowered to act on them before a guest rides.

Ha, yes, I will add, I saw kids denied for being too short, and folks being denied for being too large for the restraints.

As for hidden, unknown, undiagnosed medical conditions, I have never seen folks being denied for these things.

A CM that can detect and deny folks for these things and save their life would be a GREAT value to the company!

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

You think the ride operator of a roller coaster, and it’s employees, have no legal duty of reasonable care towards the paying customers that they are loading onto said roller coaster?

This is such a tricky situation, especially with disabled guests and the risk of discrimination lawsuits. I’d say if it’s a noticeable issue (weight, height, missing limbs, etc) the employees have a legal responsibility to enforce the guidelines, for less noticeable issues (back, neck, heart, etc) the responsibility falls solely on the guest to decide if they’re healthy enough to ride.

In a case like this it sounds like he met the rides size/limb criteria, beyond a quick visual check I don’t think any CM is qualified to make medical decisions about someone’s ability to ride though.

 

[Andrew C]

I guess you are trying to disparage me but yes, I wish I got to ride Stardust.
I guess there are smarter folks who will elect not to ride going forward.

You will. I would still ride it today if I could. Asked DW if she would, and she agreed.

 

[mkt]

As for hidden, unknown, undiagnosed medical conditions, I have never seen folks being denied for these things.

A wheelchair is visible, not hidden - and it should warrant a few additional questions to make sure the guest can safely ride.

 

[mkt]

I would still ride it today if I could. Asked DW if she would, and she agreed.

Same.

We loved it.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

Practically every ride nominally prohibits someone with back or neck conditions from riding. This is why people ignore warning signs.

People who have known medical conditions should pay close attention to the warnings. If they take the risk, that’s on them.

If the girlfriend has no legal duty to reasonable care, I suspect the Team member at the loading platform who is a total stranger also has no legal duty to reasonable care?

From my own experience working in the parks, I denied guests from riding more than once. It wasn’t common, but when there was a potential safety issue, I stopped them to address it. Guests pushed back, but my leadership always backed me.

Granted, this was years ago, but even recently at Epic as a guest (last month), we were held while a manager and supervisor measured my son to confirm he could ride Mario Kart since he was right at the height line. He was allowed, but it was a clear example of the safety-first approach in action.

The culture is supposed to be safety first, and if employees have concerns, they’re empowered to act on them before a guest rides.

I think you’re both on to something. If a TM sees someone below the height requirement or something else that is obvious, then they should deny access. However, I wouldn’t fault a TM who allowed access to someone who presented themselves as meeting the ride requirements, even if that rider did actually have a medical condition, as long as it wasn’t obvious. In that scenario, there is clearly an asymmetry of information.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

A wheelchair is visible, not hidden - and it should warrant a few additional questions to make sure the guest can safely ride.

Agreed. I wouldn’t be surprised if this triggers more people being asked questions relating to their eligibility to ride.

 

[Disstevefan1]

A wheelchair is visible, not hidden - and it should warrant a few additional questions to make sure the guest can safely ride.

Agree, additional questions.
Do you take them aide for additional questions to allow boarding to continue?
How may different questions do you ask?
In this case, if the rider did not specify a spinal cord injury, would you let them ride?
Lets say the guest convinces you they are OK to ride and the worst happens. Are you responsible?

We already KNOW Universal will be paying out for this tragedy.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Agreed. I wouldn’t be surprised if this triggers more people being asked questions relating to their eligibility to ride.

That’s treading dangerously close to Hippa regulations and likely illegal, an employee has no right to ask anyone about their disability beyond asking very general question like if they can transfer and if they feel they meet the rides health requirements. Anything beyond that is likely illegal.

Asking for any specifics, like why are you in a wheelchair, do you have neck problems, etc is 100% illegal.

 

[JT3000]

A wheelchair is visible, not hidden - and it should warrant a few additional questions to make sure the guest can safely ride.

Not unless those questions pertain to your ability to transfer into the vehicle. They have no business prying into a guest's medical history just because they see a wheelchair.

People who have known medical conditions should pay close attention to the warnings. If they take the risk, that’s on them.

The warning signs are too vague and too routine to be of any real help to most guests. They're really just there so the park can say "We told you so." If anything actually happens, whether that's on the guest or the park isn't for us to decide. We aren't members of a court.

 

[flynnibus]

I'm guessing that's why we haven't heard from the person sitting next to him

I’m sure everyone close to them is under lawyer lockdown…. But there is a lot of people around them too… who aren’t as obligated to the victim or park. Do we even know where he was on the train?

I just find this lockdown of details hard to believe these days.