Judges say Disney can be sued over ride safety

[daveemtdave]

I must agree with the underdog here. (Kudos to you for standing your ground!) Disney is responsible for the safety of its guests, plain and simple, unless there is really outlandish behavior going on.

I also agree with everyone else that Disney sets a higher standard for itself than it is generally required to. However, unpredictable things can happen in which case Disney must accept resposibility. People literally put their lives into the hands of Disney when they get on their rides and expect to live through the experience. If one person in 10 million is hurt on a ride than Disney is liable for that one person's injuries, again unless the guest clearly disregarded the warnings.

You NEVER know when death will happen. If you did I doubt you would go to Disney. WHY should Disney be responsilbe for an 'act of nature' - this is a silly notion. If an attraction causes the death through mechanical failure, yes; but someone having a heart attack on a ride or someone who just plain has heart failure ; that is no ones fault. This happens in hospitals also. Is the hospital responsible for everyone who dies. No they are not UNLESS they have done something negligent.

The key word here is unpredictable. No one can predict when a persons time is up - we just live in a sue happy country.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

I wonder why theres not the same stance on automotive transport. Pedestrians are killed every day. if the car were to be banned or its use severely limited then no kids knocked down and killed. I mean its not the drink drivers fault, if Mr Daniels were stopped from brewing his addictive beverage he wouldnt get drunk amd if Mr Chrysler were banned from making cars he wouldnt then pilot a lethal weapon, but perhaps we should blame the government if they didnt build roads there would be no where for the cars to go.


How far do you take this, just issue a law banning accidents, death, ill health, degenerative medical conditions and any thing that may accelerate the risk of death. Well that means stopping birth. So sue your parents for putting you at risk, especially if the have a genetic condition.

 

[frankd1962]

We've had people who sue restraunts because they put a HOT cup of coffee in their crotch area to hold while driving & they won!

I remember hearing on a legitmit radio show (just so you know it was one of those joke news reports) about a woman who sued a Mom & Pop store because she got pregant. She was about to have intercourse and told her partner to wait while she went downstairs to put special medical type jelly on a piece of toast instead of putting it on the place of her body where it should go. If I was the lawyer protecting the store, I would have placed a slice of toast and a jar of Vaseline near her then ask her to eat it. Then tell her next time to read the package. I don't know what happened but I'm hoping the judge tossed it.

People will sue for the thrill of getting fast money and maybe even not having to work the rest of their life. If there are signs with warnings all over the place, then the park has covered itself as much as they can. As for the litle boy who died, I'm sorry for the family's loss but what were they thinking of taking a child that young on a ride like that. Even if he "measured" up to get on, I would have never taken any of my kids on a ride like that until they were old enough to understand that this is a ride and not the real thing. (Only guessing that what the child thought from watching the screens showing their "launch")

 

[chancellor]

Nope. Very generally, that's a great thing called an adhesion agreement. If you read any contract, it is likely in there. However, because you aren't considered a "sophisticated party" (no offense!), most attorneys can get you out of those agreements. However, you would have to establish some other contact to California to bring a suit against Disney there. Disney is easy to establish contact-wise, but a Florida resident would have a more difficult time to just sue.

I respectfully disagree. Forum selection agreements are routinely upheld unless the plaintiff can show fraud. See this case where a Florida court required a cruise passenger to sue in PARIS, FRANCE because that's what it said on his ticket:
http://www.4dca.org/Mar2004/03-03-04/4D03-1333.pdf
So I think Disney can keep these cases in Florida, based on the language on the ticket.

As for swincha's comment, I agree that IF a ride is inherently dangerous, Disney takes the risk of being sued by allowing the public to ride it. Tort liability is tied to the issue of whether the injury was foreseeable, both in the context of deciding whether they had a legal duty to protect the public and in deciding whether the ride caused the injury. Let's say, for example, that Disney knew that Mission:Space could cause children to have brain siezures and die, but decided that warning about that would scare away too many people, so they decided to keep it a secret. I think everyone would agree that they should be liable in that case. On the other hand, if they tested and retested the ride, used all available scientific data, and somebody's death was totally UNFORESEEABLE, then they should have no liability. That's my two cents, and as far as I know, that's the law.

 

[chancellor]

P.S. - here are the true facts about the McDonald's hot coffee case:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Sorry about 2 posts in a row.

 

[MrNonacho]

P.S. - here are the true facts about the McDonald's hot coffee case:
http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Thank you for posting that. Too many people cite that case without knowing its details.

 

[wannabeBelle]

Chancellor, thanks for the great information!!! Please dont ever apologize for two posts especially when they contain such relevant and interesting information. Belle

 

[chancellor]

You're welcome. Actually, now that I think about it, the McDonald's case makes an excellent point. Though it seems absurd on its face, the truth is that McDonald's knew that serving coffee at that temperature could and did cause injuries, it could have served it at a lower temperature and reduced the risks, but it did nothing. Plus, the jury found the lady was 20% at fault for spilling it herself. Simply substitue an amusement park ride for the scalding coffee, and I think you see my point (speaking purely hypothetically, of course-I have no reason to believe Disney actually has information that any of its rides are unsafe).

 

[wannabeBelle]

Great case in point, Chancellor. Belle

 

[testtracker]

They can do anything - but these idiot judges and plaintiffs will continue to try to find every loophole to get something for nothing.

I think I'm going to sue Ford because I was driving down the road in their automobile and drove through a deep pothole - causing me to hit my head on the door, which gave me a huge headache. This is definately Ford's fault!!!!

First, where and how did you conclude that judges and plaintiff lawyers are idiots? Second, potholes do not have numerous warnings. Im also guessing you didn't have some previous head or brain complication. It might seem that they are idiots because you only hear about michael jackson, disney, enron ect..... but thats not true

 

[peter11435]

First, where and how did you conclude that judges and plaintiff lawyers are idiots? Second, potholes do not have numerous warnings. Im also guessing you didn't have some previous head or brain complication. It might seem that they are idiots because you only hear about michael jackson, disney, enron ect..... but thats not true

But if they always make idiotic decisions on the issues we do here about, we can only assume what’s going on with the rest is similar. The judges in this case have clearly made an idiotic decision of their own.

 

[PhotoDave219]

Wow, i Didnt know California Judges had juristiction in Florida :rollseyes

 

[Epcot82Guy]

I respectfully disagree. Forum selection agreements are routinely upheld unless the plaintiff can show fraud. See this case where a Florida court required a cruise passenger to sue in PARIS, FRANCE because that's what it said on his ticket:
http://www.4dca.org/Mar2004/03-03-04/4D03-1333.pdf
So I think Disney can keep these cases in Florida, based on the language on the ticket.

As for swincha's comment, I agree that IF a ride is inherently dangerous, Disney takes the risk of being sued by allowing the public to ride it. Tort liability is tied to the issue of whether the injury was foreseeable, both in the context of deciding whether they had a legal duty to protect the public and in deciding whether the ride caused the injury. Let's say, for example, that Disney knew that Mission:Space could cause children to have brain siezures and die, but decided that warning about that would scare away too many people, so they decided to keep it a secret. I think everyone would agree that they should be liable in that case. On the other hand, if they tested and retested the ride, used all available scientific data, and somebody's death was totally UNFORESEEABLE, then they should have no liability. That's my two cents, and as far as I know, that's the law.

I apologize for the confusion. By Very Generally I meant that it is a very general rule that is not always followed. If you read the exact language of this case, there are 3 factors that set it apart. 1. This is governed by admirality law which actually does have its own set of rules. 2. This was a contracted party, so he is considered more of a "sophisticated party" even though the terms were on his ticket. That means he is more responsible to be on notice for EVERY term included. 3. There were statements made about his being on notice (as in the other cases cited). This changes everything, because it can be the deciding factor in certain jurisdictions.

As for Tort law, I agree that you are correct. The problem is that the term "unforseeable" really has no strict legal use. It is intentionally an expansive term, so that is how things are getting a bit out of control. The law is hesitant to put absolute responsibility (called "strict liability crimes") out there, so lawyers are going after general torts. Then you are dealing with what they "did" know, "reasonably" would have known, "reasonably should have" known, etc. It's an interesting segment of the law, IMHO.

 

[tigger_rox00]

:hurl: once again, lets all sue because thats the American Way....why can't people look at accidents and go,"hmm, it's a shame that it happened, but its an accident and it will probably not happen again". There are some things to sue over like racial or religious discrimination by an employer or a doctor leaving a surgical tool in your body and he refuses to take it out. Come on, why are we so sue happy.:brick:

 

[Hakunamatata]

You wonder why this country is litigation happy.....watch daytime television. 80% of the commercials are from "mill" type attorneys who claim "They will get you every dollar you have coming". Wake up America, those attorneys could care less about you. They care more about how much their 33% will be that they get for sending a couple of letters. Most of the time, the attorney you see on television never comes into the office and a paralegal is handling your claim for you. Save yourself some money, do it yourself.

 

[disneyplanet]

Kinder and gentler Disney! Can it any kinder or gentler?

The hope of a new E+ ticket ride just died. Disney softened the dinosaur ride because people said it was to rough, they got rid of AE because it was to scarry. well now what will they do to MS. What ever happens I bet Everest will change and anything on the drawing board will be softer.

 

[josh_e_washie]

I can't understand....people with KNOWN conditions (i.e. past brain or heart problems, etc.) STILL go on attractions that WARN about these things. I mean, no offense, but how stupid can these people get?! Warnings are there for a reason.!!! :hammer:

 

[peter11435]

The hope of a new E+ ticket ride just died. Disney softened the dinosaur ride because people said it was to rough, they got rid of AE because it was to scarry. well now what will they do to MS. What ever happens I bet Everest will change and anything on the drawing board will be softer.

Everest will not change. This ruling will not last long so don't worry too much about it anyway.

Disney softened the Dinosaur ride when they changed the name to Dinosaur because they wanted to lower the height requirement to allow more kids as a way of cross promoting the Dinosaur film. It had nothing to do with guest complaints.

They will do nothing to Mission: Space because nothing has happened on M:S to warrant any change.

And lastly an E-Ticket does not have to be rough. Don't forget that Pirated of the Caribbean is also considered an E-Ticket. The E-Ticket rating has absolutely nothing to do with an attractions level of thrill.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

Everest will not change. This ruling will not last long so don't worry too much about it anyway.

Disney softened the Dinosaur ride when they changed the name to Dinosaur because they wanted to lower the height requirement to allow more kids as a way of cross promoting the Dinosaur film. It had nothing to do with guest complaints.

.

I was under the impression that nothing has ever changed on the ride, or at least thats what im sure was posted on here

 

[chancellor]

But if they always make idiotic decisions on the issues we do here about, we can only assume what’s going on with the rest is similar. The judges in this case have clearly made an idiotic decision of their own.

See, you would think that, but the opposite is actually true. The decisions that make sense and that keep the "wheels of justice" turning are never reported by the media. People aren't interested in those. The media only reports what will draw attention to themselves - sensationalism, a form of which is controversy, an example of which is a stupid opinion by a judge. Granted, judges and juries aren't perfect, but the VAST majority of what goes on in the legal process is perfectly reasonable.

Epcot82Guy - you are correct that there are some things about that case that are distinguishable from what we are talking about. There are other cases, though, which enforce forum selection clauses - that was just the easiest one I could find a link for (without going through Westlaw, which you need a subscription to view). At any rate, there are very few rules in the law that are black and white, because no two cases are the same, so I'm sure you can beat a forum selection clause with the right facts. I think more often than not, though, they will be enforced. That's just my opinion.

On the general topic, the whole point of tort law is to shift the cost of an injury from the innocent victim to the at-fault party. In a capitalist society, this has the effect of causing companies that interact with the public to be careful that they don't cause an injury, or else they will have to pay for it. I really don't see anything wrong with that general concept. Keeping in mind that if the injury isn't anybody's fault, that it is truly a freak accident, nobody will have to pay. At least that's how it's supposed to work.

So, as long as Disney exercises reasonable care in designing its rides, warns about potential hazards it knows (or "reasonably should know") about, it can build a ride with any level of thrill. Even if they are considered a "common carrier" in California. I don't see this as having any effect on E:E whatsoever. At least I hope not.