Judges say Disney can be sued over ride safety

[1disneydood]

Imagine how the law was 50 years ago. Look at how the law is now. and imagine how it will be 50 years from now. Doesn't paint a pretty picture.

 

[Pumbas Nakasak]

The sad thing is the impact in other areas. The UK has gone American in the No win no fee law route. The result is that people are more willing to sue, this has led to a dramatic increase in insurance rates, so evencompanies with inpecable safety records are now having to close because they cant afford insurance.

Also how many companys settle out of court cause its cheaper, even though they know the individual is in the wrong or lying, and this further encourages rip off merchants, who are quite blatant but believe "the insurers can afford it"

But as has been said theres no thing as free money, and you nad I pick up the tab.

 

[Photo Mickey]

Excuse me, Everyone is getting way out of hand about this. How about a moment of silence for the child, and respect for the mourning of a child.
There is nothing wrong with "MS" and this is a unfortunate event, and that
is all.

 

[chancellor]

Excuse me, Everyone is getting way out of hand about this. How about a moment of silence for the child, and respect for the mourning of a child.
There is nothing wrong with "MS" and this is a unfortunate event, and that
is all.

Actually, this thread is about a California Supreme Court decision which held that Disney should be considered a "common carrier" in a suit involving a woman who suffered a brain anyeurism after riding the Indiana Jones Adventure. There is another very, very long thread about the child who died after riding M:S. I was just using M:S as an example in some of my posts, since it hits closer to home. Perhaps I should have stuck to the facts.....


Pumbas Nakasak: sorry to hear the UK has gone American. If there was one thing I would change about the system, it would be the banning of the contingency fee contract (dead giveaway - I'm a defense lawyer).

 

[testtracker]

Excuse me, Everyone is getting way out of hand about this. How about a moment of silence for the child, and respect for the mourning of a child.
There is nothing wrong with "MS" and this is a unfortunate event, and that
is all.

We're just talking about some cases involving disney and other places. Read these argument filled threads for more info on that.



http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=57699

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=57746

http://forums.wdwmagic.com/showthread.php?t=57723

 

[Hakunamatata]

There were three other threads about the child. This thread is not about the child, its about a rougue court.

 

[flyersmv]

the warnings on that ride are insane...they warn you over and over..its your own fault if you dont follow the restrictions

 

[Epcot82Guy]

Pumbas Nakasak: sorry to hear the UK has gone American. If there was one thing I would change about the system, it would be the banning of the contingency fee contract (dead giveaway - I'm a defense lawyer).

I agree completely (probably branding myself just as much that I will likely be a defense attorney myself).

I also am quite surprised (with the exception that it is California) that the "common carrier" law was extended because courts have been so hesitant to extend it previously. Interesting legal precedent to say the least. The concept is well reasoned; I just don't know that I agree with it.

 

[frankd1962]

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).

You made a good point about the McD's case. But anyone placing a cup of hot beverage anywhere near their privates is asking for trouble. That's why there is things called cup holders. But to each their own.

 

[Elonwy]

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:

Hey Josh,
I partly agree with you and partly want to explain what some people may be thinking...

Here's my experience. this was quite a few years ago when Disney didn't have too many thrill rides but Universal Studios did. My father had a heart attack about 3 years prior to the trip with no complications since then. One of the 1st rides we went on was Earthquake and my dad sat outside while the rest of the family went on because the warning said that people with heart problems shouldn't ride

We soon realized that not only were we confident that Earthquake would not cause another heart attack for my father but that almost EVERY ride had the same warning.

Sooo...yes, my Dad rode the other rides with us even though he had a history of heart problems and though we didn't have a problem we talked about it later and said how if he croaked on the ride we wouldn't be able to sue because it was his own darn fault!

though we're in Canada and I think we tend to sue less than Americans (though I could be wrong)

So while I agree that people should know their limitations, it's hard to enjoy the parks with one member not being able to go on most rides, especially if he/she may be able to enjoy them.

BTW, we did limit the number of thrill rides my dad went on and we didn't do any rides that spin or have a feeling of being on the water because he can get motion sickness (not always but sometimes) so I felt OK with our choice of rides though it could have been a terrible decision.

 

[tigger_rox00]

There are some really good points made in these posts. Medical insurance rates have skyrocketed because doctors are constantly getting sued. Yes, some of them get sued for legitamate things, but the rest are getting sued for stupid crap. Car insurance has doubled because people sue to get more money for their "pain and suffering". I hope Disney won't make any major changes to their rides and i really don't think they will.

 

[lawyergirl77]

though we're in Canada and I think we tend to sue less than Americans (though I could be wrong)

Nope, you're not wrong. Our "lawsuits per capita" rate is much lower as a whole(although Ontario's rates are definitely on the rise).

By the way - this thread is really interesting! I never really have anything to add to it because I practice in a Civil Law jurisdiction (Quebec), buuut I am currently writing the bar in a Common Law province (Ontario), so this thread is reminding me of the concepts that I should uh... be studying for! Which makes reading these forums like studying... right? RIIIGHT??? :lookaroun

 

[wannabeBelle]

Right LawyerGirl!!!!!!!!!!! Belle

 

[Mimi]

There sure are a lot of lawyers and law students on these boards.... great citations guys. It's kind of nice to have a place where we can debate the way we did in the classroom.

 

[KevinFSU]

Haven't really had to worry about this in practice yet, but I am pretty sure most forum selection clauses are valid.

As far as someone who sues and actually having to pay defense fees and costs..... Florida has something you can send to the opposing side called a "proposal for settlement". Either side can send one to the other. I, as a plaintiff's attorney, can send one to the defense saying we will agree to have a settlement entered in the amount of $$$$$$. The defense can send one to my client for $$$$, saying they will agree to have judgment entered against them for that amount. The receiving side has 30 days to accept the proposal. If we don't accept, and we take a case to trial, if my client gets a jury verdict 25% or more greater than the proposal we filed, the defense will have to pay my client's attorney's fees and costs. Likewise, if a verdict comes in 25% or more less than the proposal filed by the defense, my client can end up paying the defense attorney's fees and costs. So yes, there are ways to make the losing side pay the other side's fees and costs.

As far as "let's just call them accidents and forget about them", that is a silly comment. I have clients whose spouses have died because no one bothered to read a chest x-ray that would have revealed a collapsed lung sitting on their heart, who have required back fusions because someone looked down to pour a coke and crushed their car, and who have had heart attacks and resulting brain damage because someone forgot to close a stopcock and they pumped a load of air into her heart. I'm sure we should just say, "hey, it was an accident, let's forget about it."

 

[tigger_rox00]

Those are all very good reasons to sue someone, but sometime people sue over stupid crap. People sue because they got minor whiplash in a car accident. Better yet, some burglar in Texas just sued a lady whose house he was trying to rob and her dog attacked him and took off three of his fingers and disfigured his face. He won. He was trying to rob her house. That's crap. Some lawyer took his case. medical malpractice, serious injuries due to a car wreck, your house collapses because it was built poorly. Those are reasons to sue, but not because of some minor fender bender where all you get is minor whiplash. That's an accident, medical malpractice and the aforementioned are not accidents.

 

[KevinPage]

As an insurance adjuster who deals with litigation injury cases all the time, most Plaintiff's don't want to go to trial as much as Defendant does, you never know what will happen.

Most cases that go to trial, you achieve a Defense verdict (injuried party claim is denied) but you only hear about the cases where people get something. Plaintiff attorneys don't want people knowing alot of cases are thrown out or denied, that would hurt their business.

 

[KevinFSU]

As an insurance adjuster who deals with litigation injury cases all the time, most Plaintiff's don't want to go to trial as much as Defendant does, you never know what will happen.

Most cases that go to trial, you achieve a Defense verdict (injuried party claim is denied) but you only hear about the cases where people get something. Plaintiff attorneys don't want people knowing alot of cases are thrown out or denied, that would hurt their business.

Now Kev, you know that last statement is not even close to being the truth. And before you say I don't know what I'm talking about, I was an insurance adjuster with one of the major auto insurers for 13 years, prior to switching sides and becoming a plaintiff attorney (the side of the white hat :animwink: ). There are a decent amount of defense verdicts WHEN a case goes to trial. But you and I know that a trial is somewhat of a rare bird. In PI cases, a substantial majority of cases are settled because the adjusters and attorneys know what cases are really worth, and they get them settled. The cases that usually go to trial are usually the garbage cases (hence why you get a lot of defense verdicts) and the big $$$$$ ones. I have many suits filed, just as many attorneys do, and probably over 90% of them will settle. They will not get tossed, and business is certainly not hurting.

 

[Hakunamatata]

I have many suits filed, just as many attorneys do, and probably over 90% of them will settle.

Ive been in the insurance claims business almost 15 years now. I have seen the pendilum (sp?) swing both ways on jury verdicts. I am not apposed to jury trials. Its the way the system is set up. Everyone has a right to have a jury decide if and how bad they were injured.

My problem is the flat out lies advertised on television. If you listen to some of the adds on T.V. in the market where I live, you would think that insurance companies:
1. Have a team of attornies handling each and every BI claim presented. (Which is not true, only when our insured gets sued do attornies get involved)
2. Every Claim Professional has an unethical character flaw.
3. We sit back and look for ways to screw people out of money (When in fact, most Claims Reps are so overworked we look for ways to give money to settle claims.)

In my opinion, most T.V. advertisements for Personal Injury Atty's border on flat out lies and false advertising.

 

[KevinPage]

I have many suits filed, just as many attorneys do, and probably over 90% of them will settle. They will not get tossed, and business is certainly not hurting.

Spoken like a true Plaintiff attorney. :lol:

Obviously most cases settle prior to ever going to suit, but generally speaking, defense verdicts occur over 50% across the board.

Business will only be "hurting" when people get some morals & ethics (ie - not anytime soon).