Here it goes... Family sues Disney over April accident

[BrerFrog]

Since the parents lost a very young child I find it hard to judge them in a negative way. No, it was not Disney's fault, but this is also far from being a case of a silly accident that gets blown out of proportion by guests who are hungry for money.

 

[Rinx]

I hate people.

So if they win money and buy a new house, let's say, are they gona have a toast? "To our dead 9 year old boy, you're finally good for something." It's almost the same as blood money.

I hate people.

 

[s8film40]

While I don't necessarily agree with this I'm keeping an open mind towards this for a few reasons. The roads in Ft. Wilderness weren't really designed for frequent bus traffic like this, they are narrow and have lots of winding turns. As the family said on the day of the accident you can clearly see ruts in the grass where buses routinely come off the road, I can agree with this I have seen it myself. My personal opinion is that he was riding his bike and was a little nervous, and when the bus came up beside him it made him more nervous, being loud and big and very close and that caused him to lose concentration and fall. Now if that's the case I don't really know that Disney has any fault. I don't know if they deserve to win the case but I think it does deserve a little unbiased exploration into the details.

 

[juscet]

It is unfortunate that a child had to die, but where is Disney at fault? The bike had a flat tire and the boy was 9-years old. Where were his parents saying, "you can't ride the bike it has a flat" or (and maybe this is just me) why is he riding his bike by himself? My favorite, "the sidewalk is too close to the road." Where is a sidewalk supposed to be? As a parent I can't even imagine what it would be like to lose one of my children. But it looks like they are passing blame on Disney because they have money; the parents also have to look in the mirror, too.

 

[DocMcHulk]

Unfortunately, common-sense died years ago and has been replaced by "it's everyone else's fault".
I work for a school and the principal has said lat out that parents dont parent anymore.

 

[disneyjesus]

We're taalking about the cause of the death. Not the cause of the accident. Two very different things. The monorail also operated death-free for decades, that doesn't mean they operated it properly. And I wasn't aware that a newspaper article was the final finding of fact. Silly me. Why even have a court system when people like you think everything in the paper must be what happened. You can be the sole trier of fact and save the tax payers billions!

I'm afraid that your logic, reason and clear understanding of the judicial system will fall on deaf ears here. Concepts such as contributory negligence might be complex, but it's a shame that many people cannot grasp the concept of when a lawsuit is truly "frivolous."

A life was lost, there are issues of material fact in dispute and the judicial system is the appropriate forum to reach a resolution.

 

[s8film40]

It is unfortunate that a child had to die, but where is Disney at fault? The bike had a flat tire and the boy was 9-years old. Where were his parents saying, "you can't ride the bike it has a flat" or (and maybe this is just me) why is he riding his bike by himself? My favorite, "the sidewalk is too close to the road." Where is a sidewalk supposed to be? As a parent I can't even imagine what it would be like to lose one of my children. But it looks like they are passing blame on Disney because they have money; the parents also have to look in the mirror, too.

The tire wasn't flat it was under inflated, while that could have contributed I seriously doubt it was the cause. I've ridden bikes with under inflated tires it really doesn't make that big of a difference. I don't know many people who go to their bike with a tire gauge every time they're about to ride it.

 

[travelgip]

I am sorry for this family for losing their child. However, it is the lawyer :fork: who accepts a case like this that makes the family look money-hungry. Please know it is the lawyer who sees that even if this case is a loser, it is technically a winner for him - large corporations tend to settle BEFORE trial to insulate themselves from large verdicts, even if there is no liability. I have worked in the legal system for years and these families go in to talk to see if they can be reimbursed for funeral expenses, etc. and the lawyer tells them it's a great case. And why not? The family doesn't pay a penny unless they "win (or settle)" and out of that, the lawyer recovers his disbursements and (at least in NYS) 1/3 of the total settlement up to $250K, then a sliding scale, taking just short of 1/2 of whatever is recovered. If any personal insurance policy has reimbursed this family for this incident (hospital expenses, coroner, funeral, etc.), they will take a lein out on the proceeds of the case. If not, it's called "double dipping" If that is the case, I have seen families recover nothing but the lawyer and insurance company are all made whole. Blame the lawyers, not the family.

 

[joel_maxwell]

(...for truth)

I would like to know when money replaced or helped with the emotional healing of a loved one. In some cases, people sue for millions or even settle for it. I know that if I lost a child, I would just want them back (which is impossible) and no amount of money would make me feel better.

It is one of the things on my list of disappointments about our society and sometimes it is embarrasing to be associated with it.

 

[joannecasey]

It's really easy to say all the things that have been said in this thread...until you're the one who lost their kid.

Well said.

 

[disneyjesus]

I would like to know when money replaced or helped with the emotional healing of a loved one. In some cases, people sue for millions or even settle for it. I know that if I lost a child, I would just want them back (which is impossible) and no amount of money would make me feel better.

It is one of the things on my list of disappointments about our society and sometimes it is embarrasing to be associated with it.

Just to be clear, if you lost a child due to the negligence of another, you would accept no financial compensation? And if you didn't know for sure, but thought there MIGHT be a possibility that someone else was even slightly responsible for your child's death, you would not try to hold that individual (or corporation) accountable?

 

[JillC LI]

So then every family member of a person who has ever died from smoking cigarettes can sue the Tobacco company because the almighty CAUSE OF DEATH is the cigarettes and even though it's quite distinct and obvious that smoking will kill you; it doesn't matter because THE CAUSE OF DEATH was the cigarettes?

Or if I drink 100 beers a day and I have liver failure... well my cause of death is liver failure CAUSED BY DRINKING 100 BEERS A DAY!!!!! CAUSE OF DEATH!!! So... I better go sue the Coors company for making beer...

How about I eat only Big Macs from McDonalds for the next 10 years... and then die of a massive coronary attack and my family can sue Mcdonalds because my CAUSE OF DEATH is the McDonalds franchise I so neglegently elected to only eat from for 10 years

Or we could just do this... you could drop this sarcastic, a-hole attitude you've brought in here for absolutely no reason, jump on down from your self-appointed high horse... and realize it's people like you that make McDonalds put "the contents of this cup are hot" on the coffee lids because you'd sue if you ever spilled a hot coffee on yourself.

No one ever said a newspaper article was the FINAL FINDING A FACT...

But guess what buddy, when a newspaper article points out THE FACTS of a case AS DICTATED BY THE OFFICIALS WHOSE JURISDICTION THE CASE FALLS INTO... Yep, that's what you call FACT.

I guess if I watch a baseball game and see Ortiz hit a 2-run homerun and then read in the paper the next day he hit a 2-run homerun I BETTER NOT BELIEVE IT TO BE TRUE BECAUSE THEN THAT MUST MEAN I IMMEDIATELY WANT TO BE A GM AND COULD SAVE MILLIONS OF DOLLARS BY BEING SOME ALMIGHTY GOD.

You made the flatout worst argument in the history of the world, and I politely request you to apologize for being so absurdly rude to the person you were rude to with absolutely no warranted reason for doing so.

The most insightful comments in this thread were all made by fosse. Were they a bit too sarcastic at times? Yes. But your response was no better. The tobacco companies were not liable for smoking deaths just because they made cigarettes - they were found liable because they knew of the dangers of cigarettes and hid that evidence from the public who, years ago, was in the dark about such dangers. Are the tobacco companies liable in the same way nowadays if a person chooses to smoke knowing the dangers? No.

My heart breaks for the parents of the little boy who was killed. Perhaps they were irresponsible parents. Perhaps the case is frivolous and should be dismissed with the parents paying sanctions to Disney. Then again, perhaps there is some information which has not yet come to light. "Facts" printed in the news are not the first hand reports that are provided by witnesses under oath in a court of law. Perhaps the parents of the boy do have some information about possible negligence by Disney and, although they know money will not bring back their son, they hope to induce changes which will protect other children in the future. Or, perhaps they are money-hungry, negligent people. I do not know, nor does anyone here. As fosse said, that is the point of discovery in a lawsuit. With all due respect, it is not for us to judge. :wave:

 

[travelgip]

Blame the lawyers :fork:, not the family

 

[musketeer]

I hate people.

So if they win money and buy a new house, let's say, are they gona have a toast? "To our dead 9 year old boy, you're finally good for something." It's almost the same as blood money.

I hate people.

What an awful thing to say. I hope the parents never have to hear or read something like this said about them.

 

[wm49rs]

I hate people.

So if they win money and buy a new house, let's say, are they gona have a toast? "To our dead 9 year old boy, you're finally good for something." It's almost the same as blood money.

I hate people.

 

[TimNRA757]

The most insightful comments in this thread were all made by fosse. Were they a bit too sarcastic at times? Yes. But your response was no better. The tobacco companies were not liable for smoking deaths just because they made cigarettes - they were found liable because they knew of the dangers of cigarettes and hid that evidence from the public who, years ago, was in the dark about such dangers. Are the tobacco companies liable in the same way nowadays if a person chooses to smoke knowing the dangers? No.

My heart breaks for the parents of the little boy who was killed. Perhaps they were irresponsible parents. Perhaps the case is frivolous and should be dismissed with the parents paying sanctions to Disney. Then again, perhaps there is some information which has not yet come to light. "Facts" printed in the news are not the first hand reports that are provided by witnesses under oath in a court of law. Perhaps the parents of the boy do have some information about possible negligence by Disney and, although they know money will not bring back their son, they hope to induce changes which will protect other children in the future. Or, perhaps they are money-hungry, negligent people. I do not know, nor does anyone here. As fosse said, that is the point of discovery in a lawsuit. With all due respect, it is not for us to judge. :wave:

Being skeptical is good. This isn't being skeptical, this is just trying to manipulate what is a known fact as witnessed by 30+ people and pretty well documented by FHP in a published report. I agree this is part of denial due to grieving, however if they want to waste legal resources of a major company and our tax money it should be on them to pay it back. But hey with a national debt in the trillions what's a couple more thousand?

 

[musketeer]

I hate people.

So if they win money and buy a new house, let's say, are they gona have a toast? "To our dead 9 year old boy, you're finally good for something." It's almost the same as blood money.

I hate people.

You really do hate people don't you, again, I already quoted this, but I have to say, what an awful thing to say.

I hope you aren't a parent, I hope that someone who has a child would never think that anyone losing him or her would ever say "To our dead 9 year old boy...."

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I agree with the people who say this is what courts were designed for.

And since it came up, McDonalds deserved to lose the coffee case. You can't litigate cases like this from brief media snippets.

 

[wm49rs]

I agree with the people who say this is what courts were designed for.

And since it came up, McDonalds deserved to lose the coffee case. You can't litigate cases like this from brief media snippets.

Right or wrong, this is (in part) indeed the role of the courts. Personally, I don't know why the suit is ongoing, and I don't think anyone else here does as well. I don't see it going very far, based on witness and police statements at the time, but it was the family's decision. So be it.....

 

[Rinx]

It is a horrible thing to say, but this matter upsets me. Children are priceless, and if money is the thing that helps these people cope with the loss of their boy then all they are doing is putting a price tag on him. That's just how I see it and I don't think it's right, especially for suing the bus driver as well. Makes it look like a homicide.

I used "dead 9 year old boy" because the article didn't mention his name. I admit it sounds far worse.