Judges say Disney can be sued over ride safety

DisneyHoneymoon

New Member
Original Poster
Judges say Disney can be sued over ride safety (EDITED TO SHOW COMPLETE ARTICLE)

June 17, 2005
-------------
03:11 PM ET

In June 16 LOS ANGELES story headlined "UPDATE 1-Judges say Disney can be sued over ride safety," please read in 6th paragraph .... Cristina Moreno suffered a brain aneurysm ... instead of .... Gomez suffered a brain aneurysm ... (Corrects name).
A corrected version follows:

(Updates with Disney statement, paragraph 7)

By Gina Keating

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Days after a young boy died on a space ride at Walt Disney World, the California Supreme Court opened a new avenue to sue Disney and other theme park operators, ruling the parks have a duty to keep customers safe, even when they seek the thrill of danger.

The ruling, released on Thursday, was a victory for the family of a 23-year-old Spanish woman who suffered a fatal brain injury aboard the Indiana Jones ride during her 2000 honeymoon at Disneyland in southern California.

The court said the family could sue Walt Disney Co (DIS.N: Quote, Profile, Research) . under a state law usually applied to transportation companies. Disney declined to comment on the ruling. The case now returns to Los Angeles Superior Court for trial.

The decision comes days after a 4-year-old boy died of unknown causes after riding Disney's Mission:Space ride at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. No cause of death has been identified.

The California court ruled that Walt Disney Co was required to provide vehicles that are "safe and fit for the purposes to which they are put."

Cristina Moreno suffered a brain aneurysm as a result of "violent shaking and stress" she experienced on the ride, her family's lawyer, Barry Novak said. She died in Spain about two months later.

Rob Doughty, vice president for communications at Disneyland resort, commented on the decision: "While we disagree with the decision, it has nothing to do with the safety of our parks. Our commitment to guest safety has been, and continues to be, unwavering."

Novak, who has litigated several brain trauma cases against Disney and other parks, said the opinion means that theme parks "must warn the public that the rides can cause serious injury and even death to people without preexisting conditions."

Disney had argued it had no liability as a transportation provider because its passengers were seeking thrills and pleasure, not trying to get to a destination.

SURPRISED, FRIGHTENED, NOT HURT

But the court responded in its 4-to-3 decision: "Certainly there is no justification for imposing a lesser duty of care on the operators of roller coasters simply because the primary purpose of the transportation provided is entertainment ... The rider expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened but not hurt."

Disney recently prevailed in a safety-related issue in a lawsuit with a ride manufacturer over Mission:Space.

Environmental Tectonics Corp of Pennsylvania, which designed and built Mission:Space, claimed in a 2003 lawsuit that its engineers had been banned from safety tests and wanted to be relieved of liability in the event of an accident.

A federal judge in Philadelphia dismissed the safety claim from ETC's lawsuit on Monday, the same day the 4-year-old boy passed out and died after riding Mission:Space.

An autopsy found no trauma but was inconclusive about the cause of his death. Further test results are expected in about a month.

A lawyer for ETC would not comment on whether the company would try to reinstate the safety claims. The case, which includes cross claims by Disney about time and cost overruns on the ride, is scheduled for trial in September.

ETC was "enormously saddened" to hear of the child's death but made no other comment about the accident or litigation in a written statement released on Thursday.

The boy's death has renewed calls by California-based consumer group Saferparks for federal oversight of theme parks, which are exempted in Florida and other states from ride regulation and inspection laws that govern mobile carnivals.

Data provided by the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions shows 3,900 injuries nationwide in 2003 and an average of two fatalities from 315 million visits made each year to theme parks.
 

Hakunamatata

Le Meh
Premium Member
DisneyHoneymoon said:
Judges say Disney can be sued over ride safety

June 17, 2005

LOS ANGELES (Reuters)—Days after a young boy died on a space ride at Walt Disney World, the California Supreme Court opened a new avenue to sue Disney and other theme park operators, ruling the parks have a duty to keep customers safe even when they seek the thrill of danger.


Anyone have any more details?

Yes, said judges are idiots......
 

FigmentFreak

Well-Known Member
Hi - I'm a long-time lurker, but just wanted to comment on this issue. I worked at Six Flags in Ride Ops for 8 years so I feel I have atleast some perspective on both sides of the issue.

I think an amusement park should only be held liable for ride safety as it pertains to what is within their control such as maintenance, improper training of employees, or ride failure of some sort.

They should not be held accountable for idiot guests who refuse to obey the rules, diagnosed or undiagnosed medical conditions (as long as signage like what is currently present with warnings is clearly posted).

Just my opinion
 

wannabeBelle

Well-Known Member
FigmentFreak said:
Hi - I'm a long-time lurker, but just wanted to comment on this issue. I worked at Six Flags in Ride Ops for 8 years so I feel I have atleast some perspective on both sides of the issue.

I think an amusement park should only be held liable for ride safety as it pertains to what is within their control such as maintenance, improper training of employees, or ride failure of some sort.

They should not be held accountable for idiot guests who refuse to obey the rules, diagnosed or undiagnosed medical conditions (as long as signage like what is currently present with warnings is clearly posted).

Just my opinion
Welcome to the Boards Figment and well said!!!! Belle
 

SirNim

Well-Known Member
FigmentFreak said:
They should not be held accountable for idiot guests who refuse to obey the rules, diagnosed or undiagnosed medical conditions (as long as signage like what is currently present with warnings is clearly posted).
Completely agree. We live in an era of litigation, and if the rules are not obeyed, or undiagnosed medical conditions result in the injury of somebody during a ride, and consequently the park is sued, then what will be next? Amusement parks will be shut down completely. It's obvious that Disney and other companies take extreme measures to guarantee the safety of guests, and only an actual malfunction, improper training, or otherwise should be grounds for legal action.
 

chancellor

Member
Let's keep this in perspective, folks. While I agree this is a stupid decision, it's limited in application to California, so won't apply to accidents at WDW. Even if it did, though, I don't think it changes that much (and yes, I am a lawyer).

In order for Disney to be liable, it must be at fault. This decision raises the standard of care for the theme park operator (and thereby lowers the proof of fault for the injured plaintiff.) If the ride does not malfunction, is not inherently dangerous, and sufficient warnings are given, and the injury is caused solely by the guest's stupidity, there is no fault and Disney will win the lawsuit. So this decision doesn't open the door for idiots who stand up on rides to sue when they get hurt.

What the decision does do, is require that Disney be held to a higher standard of care than the normal person when insuring the safety of its patrons. As far as I know, they already do that. Don't they exhaustively test the safety of these rides, make improvements when necessary, and plaster warnings all over the place? Heck, the whole Mission:Space queue is nothing but one big long warning spiel. So while Disney would obviously prefer to not have to meet this higher legal standard, I have a feeling they already do (though they probably blew it on the BTMRR accident in California).

I wouldn't worry about this too much, especially in Florida. I doubt the Florida Supreme Court would reach the same decision (though don't quote me on that - you never know what they'll do next).
 

Robfasto

New Member
Just back up and look at the numbers....

Injured:
3900 in 315,000,000 or .00124%

Deaths:
2 in 315,000,000 or .00000065%

Here are a few others from 2003
Odds of fatally slipping in bath or shower: 2,232 to 1
Odds of drowning in a bathtub: 685,000 to 1
Odds of being killed on a 5-mile bus trip: 500,000,000 to 1
Odds of a meteor landing on your house: 182,138,880,000,000 to 1
Chance of dying from any kind of injury during the next year: 1 in 1,820
Chance of dying in an airplane accident: 1 in 354,319
Chance of dying from a mountain lion attack in California: 1 in 32,000,000
 

wannab@dis

Well-Known Member
Robfasto said:
Just back up and look at the numbers....

Chance of dying from a mountain lion attack in California: 1 in 32,000,000

so, I'm 5 times more likely to die from a mountain lion in CA than dying at an amusement park on a thrill ride. Hmm... maybe the judges should get rid of all the mtn lions so I don't try to feed them and become lunch. :rolleyes:
 

wannabeBelle

Well-Known Member
wannab@dis said:
so, I'm 5 times more likely to die from a mountain lion in CA than dying at an amusement park on a thrill ride. Hmm... maybe the judges should get rid of all the mtn lions so I don't try to feed them and become lunch. :rolleyes:
:lol: :lol: :lol: I love it!!!!!!! Belle
 

bigbadwolf

New Member
FigmentFreak said:
Hi - I'm a long-time lurker, but just wanted to comment on this issue. I worked at Six Flags in Ride Ops for 8 years so I feel I have atleast some perspective on both sides of the issue.

I think an amusement park should only be held liable for ride safety as it pertains to what is within their control such as maintenance, improper training of employees, or ride failure of some sort.

They should not be held accountable for idiot guests who refuse to obey the rules, diagnosed or undiagnosed medical conditions (as long as signage like what is currently present with warnings is clearly posted).

Just my opinion

true... espcially on MS because it warns you like over 10 times.. lol
 

Figment1986

Well-Known Member
There is always a chance that anything can hurt you...

but allowing people to sue when they read and in many cases heard the instructions...
(Busch has it posted in maps and before rides.... disney announces in some cases and has it clearely posted in maps and for missionspace few dozen times before boarding...)

if the result was from malfunction yes.. but all working order.. no... if everything was working correctly and did what it was suppost to do.. no sue...

Now back to my usual quiet self...
 

TTATraveler

Active Member
FigmentFreak said:
Hi - I'm a long-time lurker, but just wanted to comment on this issue. I worked at Six Flags in Ride Ops for 8 years so I feel I have atleast some perspective on both sides of the issue.

I think an amusement park should only be held liable for ride safety as it pertains to what is within their control such as maintenance, improper training of employees, or ride failure of some sort.

They should not be held accountable for idiot guests who refuse to obey the rules, diagnosed or undiagnosed medical conditions (as long as signage like what is currently present with warnings is clearly posted).

Just my opinion

I agree with you 100%, but with the way our society is, theme parks and amusement parks will probably be responsible for anything. Next thing you know, when some idiot goes on a thrill ride after eating a big lunch, then looses his/her lunch on the ride:hurl:, the park will have to reimburse the customer for their food cost. :rolleyes::D
 

testtracker

New Member
I think the real problem is that the people who sue these companys see how many millions these other people have made from these types of lawsuits. They also say Hey! Disney makes 10 million every day, we could probably get a mil if we sue them like johnny smith did. Lets not forget, it may be possible to sue but in the end it could be the family or whoever that likely loses money.
 

ScrapIron

Member
Being able to sue, and actually winning a suit, are two completely different actions. The only thing this does is allow the suit to go back to superior court.

Cheers.
 

mcfly530

New Member
personally, i think disney does an excellent job illistrating the potential risks involved in these attractions. sueing over ride safety would yeild a weak agruement against disney's operations. they can't offer the types of thrills that prove most profitable and desire while also maintaining the amount of safety that is being presented here. the two cited cases of rare, and out of the millions of vistors who have enjoyed these attractions and left with no injuries, growing increasingly paranoid over their safety is rediculous. these deaths are unfoutunate, and in a perfect world, the rides would effect everyone the same way, but sadly, that is not the case.
 

wannabeBelle

Well-Known Member
Hey all our legal eagles out there!!! I just checked my AP and right on the back of the ticket it says that any suits for injury etc must be litigated in Florida. Does this mean that the California ruling may not have any impact? Also lets say for discussion's sake that the family does sue and loses. Are they required to pay Disney Legal personnel and court costs?? Any other legal points that may be of interest? Belle
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom