Evil Genius
Well-Known Member
My question is...what parent would allow their nine-year-old child to ride a bike unsupervised along a sidewalk that boardered a busy street?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Here it goes... Family sues Disney over April accident
- Thread starter TimNRA757
- Start date
PhilharMagician
Well-Known Member
I rebutted some of you points above. Let me say thanks for keeping it civil. Reasonable people can differ. I will say this, I have litigated many civil cases in my practice so I feel I can provide some insight to the process. I am not saying Disney is right or wrong here, it is more complicated than that. The suit may never proceed. There are filing deadlines that must be met and sometimes cases are filed to preserve the option. Also, I am waiting for Disney's answer to this complaint. If the claim has no legal standing the case will most likely be dismissed. It is important to remember there is always multiple sides to every story.
No worries, it wasn't so much being offended but that phrase is just a pet peeve. I know ambulance chasers and I HATE them. They make my malpractice rates so high. As far as previous instances or incidents, there may be things that were settlled with non-disclosure agreements and such. I don't want to come off as overly defensive of Disney, because I'd like to kick the parents in the head. But, there is always more to every story.
durangojim
Well-Known Member
It's the American way -- when something bad happens, someone has to pay. If a loved one dies and the doctor didn't provide the correct diagnosis or treat them quickly enough, it's his/her fault. If someone is killed while driving drunk, it's the bar's fault. If your kid dies at Disney it's Disney's fault because it's magic couldn't save the child.
I had a thought. For those that do not like that in America we have been given the right to pursue legal remedies in court maybe you should check out North Korea or China. They have a great system of dealing with their citizens' grievances--they execute them. We do not have a perfect system but it is better than anything else out there.
spectrodanny
Active Member
such a shame there isn't some legal way to toss out lawsuits against Disney, imean a good majority are BOGUS anyways
I meant it in a joking manner, my law prof this semester is far more used to my crap though LOL.
Now back to this issue. If we're going based on sidewalk and road design, there's plenty of sidewalks and roadways around the nation designed like this so you'd have to look way beyond just WDW to find fault, and yes I'm sure somewhere there has been a case about this. In fact there's plenty of communities around that have no sidewalks (Right now in College Park/Metrowest Orlando there's an issue about putting in a sidewalks). I still think you're going to be hard pressed to find an actual fault with the design of the roadway and sidewalk other then they didn't have a bike lane and I know of very very few places anywhere that have all 3 because then you get into how much land that takes. Of course Disney doesn't have the issue of land and eminent domain.
Another thing is, I'm not sure about the time of construction since bike lanes are relatively new, I never even saw one until I was about 10 years old when they first started appearing in Ohio I think it was. Maybe though they've been around longer.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
We do, its called dismissal and its available to all of us, not just Disney.
powlessfamily4
Well-Known Member
Want to know why they cannot fix the Yeti or do many other things we would all like to see???? This is why. Suing Disney will not bring their child back, however maybe on some level they feel they can alleviate their guilt by pointing the finger at Disney.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
I really don't want to be rude here, but the Yeti hasn't been fixed because Disney has either decided it isn't worth the expense/effort, or hasn't figured out how to.
To suggest that park maintenance has taken a hit because Disney is being forced to shell out too much on legal fees is taking sympathy for the Mouse waaayyy too far IMO. They have PLENTY of money to spend on the parks, if they choose to...and they see to it that they take in more every year by raising prices.
I can see feeling sorry for the bus driver being sued here (and I honestly do)...but Disney is nobody's victim.
To suggest that park maintenance has taken a hit because Disney is being forced to shell out too much on legal fees is taking sympathy for the Mouse waaayyy too far IMO. They have PLENTY of money to spend on the parks, if they choose to...and they see to it that they take in more every year by raising prices.
I can see feeling sorry for the bus driver being sued here (and I honestly do)...but Disney is nobody's victim.
Tom
Beta Return
I wonder how many grief counselors say to a family that recently lost a child, "You know what would make all of this pain and anguish go away? A big fat check! That's right...sue their pants off and this will all just become a distant memory."
I hope NONE say that. It's the lawyers who put this idea in their clients' minds. The lawyers are the only ones who win in situations like this. It costs a lot of people a lot of money just to find out that a lawsuit is frivolous - including the wrongly sued plaintiffs (in this case, possibly the bus driver) and the taxpayers.
It's one thing to bring attention to real and actual deficiencies in a system - like in the case of the monorail accident. But what good does a monetary suit do (other than reimbursing your costs associated with the matter)? If a large settlement makes the grief easier to deal with, that's about as depressing to hear as the loss itself.
I hope NONE say that. It's the lawyers who put this idea in their clients' minds. The lawyers are the only ones who win in situations like this. It costs a lot of people a lot of money just to find out that a lawsuit is frivolous - including the wrongly sued plaintiffs (in this case, possibly the bus driver) and the taxpayers.
It's one thing to bring attention to real and actual deficiencies in a system - like in the case of the monorail accident. But what good does a monetary suit do (other than reimbursing your costs associated with the matter)? If a large settlement makes the grief easier to deal with, that's about as depressing to hear as the loss itself.
Well that's what I've been hitting at all along. I do think the legal system needs to be changed to where whoever loses the case is responsible to pay all fees, especially a losing plaintiff. You really shouldn't be able to just go to court for anything without any repercussions if you're blatantly wrong. Prices go up, all businesses, especially small ones suffer. People scream their heads off though because of this great fear that you're taking their right to sue away, in my eyes you're just leveling the playing field.
Who are you to decide if this is a frivolous suit?
Tom
Beta Return
I used broad, generic terms for a reason. "...situations LIKE this..." "...find out that A lawsuit is frivolous..."
I still have my opinions about this specific case, but my post was primarily based on the hypothetical. Thank you for asking though.
Tom
Beta Return
Agree 100%. The system needs reform. You lose...you pay. Nobody should ever have to pay legal fees or lose income for something that they are completely exonerated from.
This position requires a fundamental change of American law. The great part about this country is that as a citizen if you feel you have been wronged you have the ability to seek justice. Placing stipulations on when a person can sue disproportionately impacts the lower classes. The way the system is now is a level playing field; placing restrictions on the ability to access the court system gives preferential treatment to the wealthy.
FYI, in most states, if a civil case goes to court and the judge or jury finds for the defendant, the plaintiff can be held liable for reasonable attorneys fees. Also, in some states there is mandated arbitration prior to a trial and if a plaintiff refuses a reasonable settlement and proceeds to trial and either loses or gets a lesser amount than the settlement offer they are required to pay.
The funny thing is everyone hates attorneys, right up until the moment they need one!
Tom
Beta Return
Nope - just MOST attorneys, especially the ones who have TV commercials.
I have an awesome attorney. He wouldn't take a case like this for all the money in the world, unless he really believed there was gross negligence involved.
So let's say you are injured by using a product that was negligently designed (think Ford Pinto) You decide to sue and by some means you lose. You are now on the hook for 100,000 in attorneys fees. In addition to the life changing injury you recieved. So what does that mean for the next person that is injured by someone's negligence like this? They will be afraid or at least reluctant to seek justice. Also, in this case the only person, based on what is known to the public, that has been exonerated is the bus driver.
Wilt Dasney
Well-Known Member
What if you're not "blatantly" wrong, though? What if you lose a closely decided decision that hinges on one or two technical points of law? Should you be responsible for paying a multi-national corporation's six figure attorney fee because you took a chance in a case that could have gone either way and lost (perhaps because you couldn't afford as expensive a lawyer as the big boys brought in)? That sounds like a provision every corporation in this country would celebrate to me.
Loser pays is one of those things that (IMO) sounds like a cure-all on the surface, but the more time I spend thinking about it, I really think it would be a horrible idea. The only way I would be willing to get behind it is if it could only be triggered by a judge's finding that the suit was filed in an abusive/frivolous manner.