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

[Tiggermom2]

I have to agree that the family is only looking for someone else to blame rather than themselves. Who are entirely at fault. One for not supervising their child, two for not maintaining his bicycle before vacationing. To sue the bus driver seems far fetched, he did nothing wrong, just drove the bus like his job requires. Also I don't believe the suit will get far either based on the facts. It's sad the world we live in where parents think money and court time will solve their grievances.

 

[Disneykidder]

The parents are greiving their child and using Disney as a crutch for their neglegence. #1 Why was the child alone? #2 why was he on a malfunctioning bike?

I'm sure the parents are trying to blame someone for their sons death and not wanting to admit they had any part in it...that's tough to bear. Maybe as time goes on they will realize what they are doing and deal with their anger/grief properly.

 

[JWG]

This is an odds play. Happens to all major company's all the time. Family is playing the odds that Disney would rather settle for some amount less than the cost to defend at trial or even in mediation. Anything costs money, whether settling, arbitrating/mediating or going to trial. The costs of counsel preparing for those have a cost that escalates as you move to each next step.

Therefore, there's a point where the plaintiff's believe Disney will cut bait and run by paying to them instead of continuing to lose more in attorney's fees. That, at some point, the cost of making a point isn't worth it.

We play that game all the time at work, deciding when settling is a better business decision versus making a point. Depending on the situation we do both, settle to save cost (and paying the person absolutely sucks, even when cheaper then defending) or pay the attorney's fees to make a point.

 

[mrbghd]

Also I don't believe the suit will get far either based on the facts. It's sad the world we live in where parents think money and court time will solve their grievances.

Do you have additional information that is not available to the rest of us? The public does not know all of the facts. The public knows what it is told. Does anyone know if there were ever any situations where a pedestrian was struck on a road owned/operated/maintained by Disney? Your assumptions are based on the facts you know, not necessarily all of the facts.

 

[Victor Kelly]

I hate to do this on my first post, but here goes.

My new wife and I recently came back from a two week honeymoon in Disney. We were all over the property and noticed several problems.

1. The carts that were driven through Fort Wilderness by the people staying there are being driven by maniacs who should not be driving the things.

2. The people on bikes are no better than the people in the golf carts. We saw them numerous times dart in front of our buses.

3. The mobility scooters that are used by the handicapped folks seemed to used more as battering rams. And if those people drive their cars like they drive the mobility scooters, I know why car insurance is so high.

 

[TimNRA757]

I see the only result from this being the banning of bicycles outside of the immediate campground area just so it can't happen again. Of course one day someone will break that rule and God forbid this happens again, that will also somehow be Disney's fault even though what they were doing was banned in the first place. No matter what you think of the sidewalk design, it's pretty indisputable that the bike hit the bus just before the rear doors based on all the data and physical evidence. Imagine having to see that sitting in the back, just terrible. I still am very upset at the poor decision of the family to go after the individual bus driver.

 

[wm49rs]

Do you have additional information that is not available to the rest of us? The public does not know all of the facts. The public knows what it is told. Does anyone know if there were ever any situations where a pedestrian was struck on a road owned/operated/maintained by Disney? Your assumptions are based on the facts you know, not necessarily all of the facts.

I believe his assumptions were based on the facts from the FHP report that cleared the driver of any wrongdoing, and stated the lad was riding a bike with a flat tire, which was inherently unsafe....:shrug:

 

[draybook]

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 didn't read past this because I felt like responding now. You sure seem to have a bunch of built up angst when it comes to WDW stuff. I can't rememebr the topic, but I remember you bashing them before and we debated for a bit.

To say that Disney is at fault because their bus was involved is plain moronic. The parents weren't supervising their child, allowing him to use a crappy bike that shouldn't have been in use.

And maybe you should learn how to read, because the official FHP report states that the driver was not at fault. Check it out at www.wtsp.com .

Now I'm going to read the rest of this thread.

 

[mrbghd]

I believe his assumptions were based on the facts from the FHP report that cleared the driver of any wrongdoing, and stated the lad was riding a bike with a flat tire, which was inherently unsafe....:shrug:

Except, other than the suit against the driver, the determination made by FHP is irrelevant to the suit against Disney. Even if the kid was 99% negligent a recovery can be made by his parents for the 1%. I agree, based on what we know there is no basis for a suit against the driver. We do not know enough about the rest to make determinations on the merits of the case.

 

[wm49rs]

Except, other than the suit against the driver, the determination made by FHP is irrelevant to the suit against Disney. Even if the kid was 99% negligent a recovery can be made by his parents for the 1%. I agree, based on what we know there is no basis for a suit against the driver. We do not know enough about the rest to make determinations on the merits of the case.

I understand where you're coming from, but as the driver was a WDW employee in a WDW bus, then I would have to believe that the FHP report as to his culpability reflects on WDW as well, in regard to the merits of the lawsuit.....

 

[mrbghd]

I understand where you're coming from, but as the driver was a WDW employee in a WDW bus, then I would have to believe that the FHP report as to his culpability reflects on WDW as well, in regard to the merits of the lawsuit.....

I see how you would think that. Legally however, the basis of this suit involves any negligence on Disney's part. Things that are not impacted by the FHP report are: the design of the road/ sidewalk; the scheduling of drivers and their breaks; the length of shift for drivers; any previous instances of people being struck on Disney roadways; and whether Disney reasonably should have foreseen this type of accident and could have prevented it or taken measures to attempt to prevent.

There is much more to a suit like this than the surface "facts."

 

[TimNRA757]

I see how you would think that. Legally however, the basis of this suit involves any negligence on Disney's part. Things that are not impacted by the FHP report are: the design of the road/ sidewalk; the scheduling of drivers and their breaks; the length of shift for drivers; any previous instances of people being struck on Disney roadways; and whether Disney reasonably should have foreseen this type of accident and could have prevented it or taken measures to attempt to prevent.

There is much more to a suit like this than the surface "facts."

Speaking specifically about driving time, I'm pretty sure it's a lot like aviation to where you're capped to a certain amount of time before a mandatory break. So unless we're saying Federal DOT rules are inadequate, this one pretty much goes out the window.

 

[mrbghd]

Speaking specifically about driving time, I'm pretty sure it's a lot like aviation to where you're capped to a certain amount of time before a mandatory break. So unless we're saying Federal DOT rules are inadequate, this one pretty much goes out the window.

Which is fine as I am not by any means an expert on DOT regs. It was just one of the issues that would be looked at in a case like this.

 

[TimNRA757]

Which is fine as I am not by any means an expert on DOT regs. It was just one of the issues that would be looked at in a case like this.

Well seek and ye shall find.
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/
Basically it's a max of 15 hours on duty, 10 hours driving. I'd highly doubt a Disney driver gets anywhere near these limits since it's probably just a regular 8 hour day except for really busy times, then I could see them going up to the max 10.

As far as the part about the lawsuit about driver breaks, that doesn't sit well with me at all. Really the whole thing doesn't but especially this part because it's something Disney doesn't even set the rules for.

 

[mrbghd]

Well seek and ye shall find.
http://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/rules-regulations/topics/hos/
Basically it's a max of 15 hours on duty, 10 hours driving. I'd highly doubt a Disney driver gets anywhere near these limits since it's probably just a regular 8 hour day except for really busy times, then I could see them going up to the max 10.

As far as the part about the lawsuit about driver breaks, that doesn't sit well with me at all. Really the whole thing doesn't but especially this part because it's something Disney doesn't even set the rules for.

Thanks for the link. Something to keep in mind is that many times lawsuits will include multiple parts that will never make it to a hearing. This is because some things must be affirmatively plead. Meaning if they don't plead it up front they cannot do it. So they put things in because it is easier to remove them later than it is to add them.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Don't the roads technically fall under the jurisdiction of the Reedy Creek Improvement District?

 

[TimNRA757]

Don't the roads technically fall under the jurisdiction of the Reedy Creek Improvement District?

Yes, but the Feds still have authority over any major commercial vehicle in the US. However, there is a way around it for Disney if they were so inclined to do so and they don't, all the buses have DOT numbers.
What Disney could do is say they aren't commercial vehicles since Disney doesn't directly charge for any of their bus transportation and then they'd be free. Though I'm not sure if that loophole has been closed now or not.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yes, but the Feds still have authority over any major commercial vehicle in the US. However, there is a way around it for Disney if they were so inclined to do so and they don't, all the buses have DOT numbers.
What Disney could do is say they aren't commercial vehicles since Disney doesn't directly charge for any of their bus transportation and then they'd be free. Though I'm not sure if that loophole has been closed now or not.

I was speaking in regards to suing Disney over the road and sidewalk design and alignment. If the roads are Reedy Creek's responsibility, then shouldn't they be getting sued? Maybe they are and the news is just calling them "Disney", I have not looked at any court documents.

 

[2bornot2be]

A few weeks ago while driving down the freeway I hydroplaned and spun out of control and into another lane and was hit by another car. Thankfully I was Ok, but my car was totaled and the car that hit me had very little damage.
I’m saying all this to say this, I was hit by the other car and because it was me that went into the other lane I was at fault. I cannot sue the other driver. My heart goes out to the family but sometime we are fault and have to come to realize it.
:shrug:

 

[TimNRA757]

A few weeks ago while driving down the freeway I hydroplaned and spun out of control and into another lane and was hit by another car. Thankfully I was Ok, but my car was totaled and the car that hit me had very little damage.
I’m saying all this to say this, I was hit by the other car and because it was me that went into the other lane I was at fault. I cannot sue the other driver. My heart goes out to the family but sometime we are fault and have to come to realize it.
:shrug:

Glad you're OK! That's what really counts. It does stink about the car though. Accidents are just that really, some truly don't have anybody to blame. They're just that.