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

[disneyjesus]

No arrogance meant.
Why do you think I'm being arrogant? I'm sorry if my post came across that way.

No I don't keep my kids on a leash.
I try to instill in them responsible behavior. All I'm saying is I wouldn't have let them ride their bikes while the rest of my family was in the resort somewhere else.

Fair enough. I say this reluctantly, but I agree that more responsible parents likely do not allow their young kids to ride bikes near a street without supervision. However, I take exception to the idea that the 10-year-old child of a "responsible" parent would never disobey or find themselves in the path of danger despite the parent's best efforts.

I think only the most cruel parent does not have the "values" to want to be a responsible parent. On the other hand, I don't doubt that your effort is exceptional when it comes to ensuring the safety of your children. And the world would be a better place if more parents, like yourself, made that extra effort. I appreciate your reply.

 

[BwanaBob]

Fair enough. I say this reluctantly, but I agree that more responsible parents likely do not allow their young kids to ride bikes near a street without supervision. However, I take exception to the idea that the 10-year-old child of a "responsible" parent would never disobey or find themselves in the path of danger despite the parent's best efforts.

I think only the most cruel parent does not have the "morals and values" to want to be a responsible parent. On the other hand, I don't doubt that your effort is exceptional when it comes to ensuring the safety of your children. And the world would be a better place if more parents, like yourself, made that extra effort. I appreciate your reply.

dj-
Thanks.

and for the record...I'm not perfect.
I go running almost every day. My youngest (10) wants to go with me on her bike. Sometimes I let her, but it scares the crap out of me when we go on certain streets because there are no sidewalks and I can't keep her away from the idiots that speed by on those certain stretches. Needless to say, she knows she is not allowed to go near these areas when I'm not with her. For that matter, I won't take her with me when I go that way anymore.

I can't (and won't) wrap her in bubble-wrap... and she is the most daring out of the whole family (cuts, scrapes, broken bones, etc)... but when she gets older, I know I won't be able to spend this time with her like I can now.

 

[jakeman]

What I've learned from this thread:

• The driver of the bus is not credible in what he experienced.
• The people on the bus are not credible for what they saw.
• The FHP is not credible for the conclusion they drew.
• The newspaper isn't credible for gathering the above information and presenting in an article.
• People more than likely employed by the law firm handling the case that are compiling information from the above non-credible sources in addition to visiting the scene potentially months later, are credible.

It is unfortunate that this tragedy occurred, but just because you can take someone to court, doesn't mean you should.

I can't speak for how others deal with grief (including this family) but the last thing I would want is to wallow in that sad day for the years it may take for this case to be settled.

 

[TimNRA757]

What I've learned from this thread:

• The driver of the bus is not credible in what he experienced.
• The people on the bus are not credible for what they saw.
• The FHP is not credible for the conclusion they drew.
• The newspaper isn't credible for gathering the above information and presenting in an article.
• People more than likely employed by the law firm handling the case that are compiling information from the above non-credible sources in addition to visiting the scene potentially months later, are credible.

It is unfortunate that this tragedy occurred, but just because you can take someone to court, doesn't mean you should.

I can't speak for how others deal with grief (including this family) but the last thing I would want is to wallow in that sad day for the years it may take for this case to be settled.

This.

We're getting a great ambulance chasing lesson from here.

 

[Phonedave]

I was trying to think of something to say like this, and this is pretty much exactly what I was thinking.

I guess I don't understand how letting your 9 year old ride a bike unsupervised has anything to do with values. I rode a bike unsupervised younger than 9, it doesn't mean my parents didn't have good values or were irresponsible. Bad things happen, the kid was in the wrong place at the wrong time, that doesn't mean his parents were terrible.

Maybe they trusted him a bit more than they should have, maybe he had demonstrated that he can be trusted before, and maybe he just had a distraction at the wrong moment.

I wondered about that as well.

My 9 and 11 y/o ride their bikes all the time, unsupervised.

They know to stay in the area, they don't go out on the main street, and they wear helmets.

I really don't know FW all that well. I might have told my kids to stay in the loop where we were camping, or if they were going to the store, to walk their bikes on the busy roads. Maybe I would have said that, maybe not. It's a tough call to make.

I know that when I was 11 I was riding, unsupervised (without a helmet), going over a mile from my house, to the local 7-11 to play video games. We had to cross some major streets to get there too. In fact, my brother got hit with a car crossing one of those streets. He crossed in the middle, not at the light. The driver asked my parents if they were going to sue. They said no, our son was the idiot who crossed in the middle of the street, why would we sue. (He had a broken leg)

-dave

 

[mrbghd]

This.

We're getting a great ambulance chasing lesson from here.

I was cool with the discussion until right here. I almost bankrupted my practice to persue a claim for a family that everyone said was a lost cause. They eventually won their case and a large amount. It did not bring back their loved one but it did cause several policies to be changed. While my case had nothing to do with Disney it was with a major company that ignored many warnings about the flawed design of a part of its operation. This caused a person to die.

For those trying to say that the FHP is credible and the final determination of fault you are incorrect. The police are wrong everyday (and I was once one!). They are human, it happens. What some fail to realize is that while the kid should not have done what he was doing and the parents were dopes, that does not mean Disney was without fault. They may be, the may not be. If this type of accident could have been reasonably expected and reasonably prevented, Disney had a legal obligation to prevent it.

For all those that say Disney should not be at fault I wonder if you know all of the background regarding the Disney grounds. Have htere been any other reported or unrported incidents like this? Was Disney ever warned of something like this being a possibility?

Nobody here knows what the motives of the parents are. They may be complete scumbags, they may be shell shocked, they may have other intentions. All we know is that they lost a child and are suffering.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Ditto! And how on earth could Disney have prevented it? The kid was riding next to the bus, where he wasnt supposed to be, and unsupervised. Sorry.

A bike trail separated by a fence might have prevented this. My guess is that this is what is going to be argued, is that Disney should have had an area designated for non-motorized traffic that was separated from the road.

 

[Tigger1988]

A bike trail separated by a fence might have prevented this. My guess is that this is what is going to be argued, is that Disney should have had an area designated for non-motorized traffic that was separated from the road.

You mean...a sidewalk?

 

[mrbghd]

What I've learned from this thread:

• The driver of the bus is not credible in what he experienced.
• The people on the bus are not credible for what they saw.
• The FHP is not credible for the conclusion they drew.
• The newspaper isn't credible for gathering the above information and presenting in an article.
• People more than likely employed by the law firm handling the case that are compiling information from the above non-credible sources in addition to visiting the scene potentially months later, are credible.

It is unfortunate that this tragedy occurred, but just because you can take someone to court, doesn't mean you should.

I can't speak for how others deal with grief (including this family) but the last thing I would want is to wallow in that sad day for the years it may take for this case to be settled.

Jake, my point is not that these sources, except for the paper(s), are not credible. My point is that they are only part of the story. I think we can all agree, based on the available info, the driver did nothing wrong. The issue is potential negligence on Disney's part. They may or may not have underlying fault but that has not been established by any of the sources you mentioned.

 

[Tom]

You mean...a sidewalk?

 

[jakeman]

For those trying to say that the FHP is credible and the final determination of fault you are incorrect. The police are wrong everyday (and I was once one!). They are human, it happens.

Jurors, judges, parents, and lawyers are all human as well. Should we just as consistently doubt them in the same manner or only when is serves a purpose?

I don't see anyone here doubting the findings of the collision expert or whoever they sent out to accident site. Never mind the fact that they have a vested interest in finding issue with the officer's more than likely unbiased evaluation.

While errors are made all the time by everyone, it seems like most of this argument about "reasonable prevention" hinges on the officer being wrong in his evaluation of the event. Additionally, not only does he have to be wrong, but so does everyone who is at the scene.

What some fail to realize is that while the kid should not have done what he was doing and the parents were dopes, that does not mean Disney was without fault. They may be, the may not be. If this type of accident could have been reasonably expected and reasonably prevented, Disney had a legal obligation to prevent it.

Reasonably expected is one thing. Most accidents on property in retrospect has people saying...well it was only a matter of time.

However, reasonably preventable is a completely different horse. Disney cannot be held responsible for the actions of another person and be able to reasonable predict and prevent anything bad from happening.

That's the other hinge this argument is hanging on: that Disney must take responsibility for the actions of its guest. That, to me, is unreasonable.

 

[Wilt Dasney]

I was cool with the discussion until right here. I almost bankrupted my practice to persue a claim for a family that everyone said was a lost cause. They eventually won their case and a large amount. It did not bring back their loved one but it did cause several policies to be changed. While my case had nothing to do with Disney it was with a major company that ignored many warnings about the flawed design of a part of its operation. This caused a person to die.

For those trying to say that the FHP is credible and the final determination of fault you are incorrect. The police are wrong everyday (and I was once one!). They are human, it happens. What some fail to realize is that while the kid should not have done what he was doing and the parents were dopes, that does not mean Disney was without fault. They may be, the may not be. If this type of accident could have been reasonably expected and reasonably prevented, Disney had a legal obligation to prevent it.

For all those that say Disney should not be at fault I wonder if you know all of the background regarding the Disney grounds. Have htere been any other reported or unrported incidents like this? Was Disney ever warned of something like this being a possibility?

Nobody here knows what the motives of the parents are. They may be complete scumbags, they may be shell shocked, they may have other intentions. All we know is that they lost a child and are suffering.

Good post. I really can't think of a less objectionable position than "I don't know what happened." I don't get why that simple idea seems to be so offensive to some folks here.

 

[WDWmazprty]

A bike trail separated by a fence might have prevented this. My guess is that this is what is going to be argued, is that Disney should have had an area designated for non-motorized traffic that was separated from the road.

The sidewalk. And again, he was riding next to the bus, apparently really close. Designated area or not, he shouldnt have been that close to the bus.

You mean...a sidewalk?

Exactly! :sohappy:

 

[TimNRA757]

I was cool with the discussion until right here. I almost bankrupted my practice to persue a claim for a family that everyone said was a lost cause. They eventually won their case and a large amount. It did not bring back their loved one but it did cause several policies to be changed. While my case had nothing to do with Disney it was with a major company that ignored many warnings about the flawed design of a part of its operation. This caused a person to die.

For those trying to say that the FHP is credible and the final determination of fault you are incorrect. The police are wrong everyday (and I was once one!). They are human, it happens. What some fail to realize is that while the kid should not have done what he was doing and the parents were dopes, that does not mean Disney was without fault. They may be, the may not be. If this type of accident could have been reasonably expected and reasonably prevented, Disney had a legal obligation to prevent it.

For all those that say Disney should not be at fault I wonder if you know all of the background regarding the Disney grounds. Have htere been any other reported or unrported incidents like this? Was Disney ever warned of something like this being a possibility?

Nobody here knows what the motives of the parents are. They may be complete scumbags, they may be shell shocked, they may have other intentions. All we know is that they lost a child and are suffering.

Sorry if my comment offended you. Yes human errors are made by people in some positions but I just really believe there's overwhelming evidence that points to this case being dead in the water and a waste that's doing nothing but making a bus driver more miserable. Nobody wants to see any more suffering by anyone and I don't think this is helping anybody.

I can't answer about the background, though I can try googling for it, we know anything recent is always in the news but I'd highly doubt there's been a case like on the property.

 

[lazyboy97o]

You mean...a sidewalk?

The sidewalk. And again, he was riding next to the bus, apparently really close. Designated area or not, he shouldnt have been that close to the bus.

Except that what I described included a fence separating the road from the path. A fence would have potentially stopped the boy from falling under the bus. Of course, then I could see a family suing because the fence caused more injury than a fall to the ground, and people are accustomed to sidewalks and trails along roads without fences.

 

[fosse76]

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.

Nope. Just at people's on this board blind defense of Disney.

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.

Never said that.

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 .

You clearly nead to learn how to read with comprehension. He can still be held liable under civil law, where the burden of proof is MUCH lower. He may have done things that under criminal law were correct, but could fall under negligence in civil law. Are you that dense that you don't understand that?

 

[fosse76]

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?

Yes. And they win their cases quite frequently. And Florida seems to be the state where they win the most.

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...

Unlike smoking, which was commonplace long before the health effects were known, there has always been a more direct link between drinking and health effects. Also, alcoholic beverages in moderation aren't harmful. Cigarettes are completely harmful and toxic at all levels.

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

Unlike smoking or alchol, eating McDonalds is not as addiction. As such, the liability of McDonalds is almost non-existent.

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.

The coffee incident you alluded to was not a frivolous claim, and McDonalds was heating their coffee to an unecessary temperature that was dangerous.

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

It was implied. As I stated before, simply because law enforcement cleared the bus driver of wrongdoing doesn't mean he (and by extension, Disney) wasn't negligent. The bus driver was driving the bus. He ran over the child. He is automatically responsible for the death of the child. The child falling off his bike wasn't what caused his death. His death was the result of being run over by a bus. The ONLY questions is whether or not the bus driver (and Disney) is legally liable for damages.

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.

Facts are distorted by the media all the time. And, as I said before, it isn't a question of criminal law. This is a civil matter. That finding is not relevant in a civil trial.

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.

That's not the same thing and you know it. The newspaper presented the facts of a criminal investigation, which has no bearing on a civil matter. People like you shoiuld learn the law. This is EXACTLY the way it is supposed to work.

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.

I wasn't the one who was rude first. And I don't answer to you.

 

[Tigger1988]

Mmm calling people idiots is a great way to validate your argument. Mature.

 

[musketeer]

What an interesting thread. I rarely get to follow one of these long threads like this from the beginning.

 

[fosse76]

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.

But that's just it. HE drove the bus that killed their son. The bike and their negligence was contributory, absolutely. But the child died because a bus ran him over. The purpose of the suit...assuming that they aren't being greedy moneygrubbers, is to establish liability on the civil level. Did Disney contribute to the accident by knowingly continue to allow bike riding, or by allowing busses to travel on roads that perhaps couldn't really accomodate them. And so on. There are many questions (though many of them are probably unanswerable). Perhaps there were facts that haven't been included in media reports and investigation reports that point to a civil liability that we don't know about.

This is why threads like this infuriate me, when people automatically paint such suits as frivolous. And whether it is or not, and NO ONE on this board knows for sure, we need the ability to file such suits. The judge is there to determine the law on the subject. The trial is merely a determination of facts. The truth is this was a horrible accident. The bus driver wasn't aiming for the kid. But he is responsible for the boy's death. The only question is his liability. Will Disney lose? Probably not. But all it takes is to find one document in Disney's possession for an assessment by a consultant or contractor that states the road is dangerous for pedestrians/bike riders for Disney to be in big trouble. As I mentioned in a previous post, sometimes a suit has to be filed to initiate discovery to determine if all the facts have been revealed.