Mother of Monrail Pilot files Civil Suit

[JWG]

Over simplifying. This is also a Worker's Comp case, and I don't believe Disney handles WC. Pretty sure it's handled by a TPA. So, she may have a large settlement (which legally through WC laws, she would), already.

Absolutely, there'll be one of those fancy actuarial evaluations of the "value of life" and a payment will be made if it hasn't already. Now, it may not have gone to the mother - who knows who the beneficiary listed is. Either way, yes, WC has or will pay a sum of money based on a complicated formula.

 

[Mouse Detective]

Well that's interesting.
From what I've read it looks like Christine Wuennenberg is only asking for $15,000.

No, no, no. When you file a lawsuit in Florida in a circuit court you have to state that you're seeking damages in excess of $15,000. There is no top end. Under $15,000 puts you in County court. She is seeking in excess of $15,000, I assure you!

The mother did not file the lawsuit. Suit was filed on behalf of the Estate of the deceased. Any individual with a claim under Florida's Wrongful Death statute has to bring their claim through the Estate.

The Estate is entitled to expenses associated with the death; i.e. funeral bills. A large part of the claim of the estate is the loss of net accumulations; the amount of money the deceased would have had left over at the end of his life, had he lived a normal life expectancy, reduced to present value. I forget if he was in college or had already graduated but one has to assume his potential to earn income over his lifetime was substantial.

Parents normally do not have a claim if the deceased was married. Only the spouse would. In this case the deceased was unmarried so parents are allowed to bring a claim via the estate. That's where the mother fits in. Have not heard mention of the father but his claim is there too if he is alive and was part of the deceased's life. If he was providing any financial support to a parent, that is part of the claim. When there is no spouse, each parent may recover for mental pain & suffering. And THAT is where the big money comes in.

As many have pointed out, no money can bring the deceased back. However, the only method we have of compensating people for such losses is monetary. That's just the way it is.

 

[wm49rs]

"Christine Wuennenberg is asking for $15,000 in damages for mental pain and suffering, lost support and services, funeral expenses and loss of net accumulation of estate."

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22333712/detail.html

 

[mmexpress]

"Christine Wuennenberg is asking for $15,000 in damages for mental pain and suffering, lost support and services, funeral expenses and loss of net accumulation of estate."

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22333712/detail.html

I did not read far enough, I gues I'll take my foot out of my mouth now.
I was close to a wrongful death lawsuit a long time ago and it left a bad taste in my mouth.
Long story short... parents lost a daughter, parents sued and won, lawer made LOTS of money...1/3 of the settlement, insurance company is the one who had to pay and the person who was actually at fautl basically got a slap on the hand.
I think in this situation I would want to see the acual people at fault, ie. the ones who control the switch and give the OK to be punished, but the way the courts work that won't happen.

 

[googilycub]

Perhap because he was within the SOP to be offsite? At least that was my understanding of it.

If he was working within SOP and something happens, especially when nothing has happened in 35 years, is that the manager's fault or the SOP's fault?

If he was doing the job as he was trained to do it, then he's not really at fault.

Being offsite is not as big of a deal as people on hear seem to want to make of it. One does not need to be onsite to be able to dispatch trains.

 

[Tom]

Being offsite is not as big of a deal as people on hear seem to want to make of it. One does not need to be onsite to be able to dispatch trains.

No matter how many people say it's OK to control a network of trains from offsite, it still won't be true.

You can't run any transportation network with ONLY radio communication and without first hand knowledge of what's going on. And you absolutely can't authorize a track switching operation without knowing first hand that the switch has been thrown.

No matter who was responsible for throwing the switch, it took more than just that person to cause this accident.

If Disney's SOP allowed for someone to oversee operations of a transportation system from a Perkins restaurant, that's a serious flaw in the SOP. But to participate in such an irresponsible activity is still negligence on the part of the individual, in my opinion.

 

[jakeman]

Being offsite is not as big of a deal as people on hear seem to want to make of it. One does not need to be onsite to be able to dispatch trains.

If Disney's SOP allowed for someone to oversee operations of a transportation system from a Perkins restaurant, that's a serious flaw in the SOP. But to participate in such an irresponsible activity is still negligence on the part of the individual, in my opinion.

I disagree with the amount of fault that should be placed on this individual.

There was 35 years of experience saying that it was okay.

Obviously the SOP is flawed, but I don't think we can hold the manager accountable for following the same thing that was done for the previous 35 years without incident.

Just my opinion though.

 

[Tom]

I disagree with the amount of fault that should be placed on this individual.

There was 35 years of experience saying that it was okay.

Obviously the SOP is flawed, but I don't think we can hold the manager accountable for following the same thing that was done for the previous 35 years without incident.

Just my opinion though.

Disney definitely holds most of the responsibility, but individuals still have to assume some personal responsibility.

I liken it to the construction industry (in which I work), and the use of crane spotters. Crane operators can't see most of their picks, and are often blindly lowering things like steel beams to points on the other side of a building from where their crane is setup.

They rely on their spotters, who have radios and are located within eye sight of the pick. If a company's SOP has a loop hole that doesn't specifically say that the crane spotter has to actually be on-site when he's giving the crane operator instructions, that's a problem.

However, consider a situation where the crane spotter is at McDonald's for lunch and has another worker on site (not near the crane picks) telling him that things are "all clear", which the spotter then relays to the operator (blindly) and ends up in a situation where the crane drops a steel beam onto a crew, killing them.

In this hypothetical situation, just because the "handbook" didn't say that the spotter actually had to be on-site, he's still partially responsible for what happened because he relayed all-clear orders that he couldn't validate.

I'm not placing all the blame on the monorail manager in question, but he definitely shares some.

 

[jakeman]

I'm not placing all the blame on the monorail manager in question, but he definitely shares some.

I agree.

I'm just not sure he bears enough of the blame to cost him his job.

 

[Tom]

I agree.

I'm just not sure he bears enough of the blame to cost him his job.

Could be. I've never read the monorail SOP, and I don't know what his role or job description was. Heck, maybe his role didn't require him to be in that position at all.

 

[Alektronic]

I disagree with the amount of fault that should be placed on this individual.

There was 35 years of experience saying that it was okay.

Obviously the SOP is flawed, but I don't think we can hold the manager accountable for following the same thing that was done for the previous 35 years without incident.

Just my opinion though.

I don't know why you think the SOP has been the same for 35 years. It has been changed many times.

Also, he let the on site lead go home early and was supposed to be on site to supervise.

 

[googilycub]

No matter how many people say it's OK to control a network of trains from offsite, it still won't be true.

You can't run any transportation network with ONLY radio communication and without first hand knowledge of what's going on. And you absolutely can't authorize a track switching operation without knowing first hand that the switch has been thrown.

No matter who was responsible for throwing the switch, it took more than just that person to cause this accident.

If Disney's SOP allowed for someone to oversee operations of a transportation system from a Perkins restaurant, that's a serious flaw in the SOP. But to participate in such an irresponsible activity is still negligence on the part of the individual, in my opinion.

What are you qualifications to make such a statement? I just so happen to work as a train dispatcher for a class one railroad. I might have just a little more knowledge on this subject than you. One does not need to be on site to be able to dispatch, equip my house with a radio and a train sheet and I would never have to leave home to do it. Most switches on the railroad can not be seen by the dispatcher, one has to rely on the train crews ensure they are lined correctly. Now I am not saying that Disnsy's operating plan does not have flaws, I do not know as I have never seen it.

 

[The Mom]

Someone else looking for blood money.

The whole thing is tragic and the Disney workers were negligent and irresponsible, but no amount of money will bring him back.
Just another case of someone trying to fill their pockets.

I'm going to speak from a mother's perspective. I agree that nothing would compensate me for the loss of my child, but I would still file suit if I thought a company was at fault.

1. It is the only way to punish a company in our society. It's not as if they can go out and execute someone in charge.

2.I would be able to use the money to benefit society in some way by using the money to donate or set up a charity in my child's name. That way, something good would come out of my tragedy, and the memory of my child would be kept alive, at least for a little while.

So I don't see it as blood money.

 

[JWG]

I don't know why you think the SOP has been the same for 35 years. It has been changed many times.

Also, he let the on site lead go home early and was supposed to be on site to supervise.

I think people are forgetting the lead went home sick with no advanced notice. I don't think it was ever established if the supervisor was already gone at that time. It's entirely possible that the supervisor was already gone for their lunch/dinner period (which they're allowed) when the lead unexpectedly had to leave.

No where has it been confirmed that the supervisor failed to follow appropriate Disney protocol. If I'm wrong, I apologize.

 

[parkgoer]

Exactly. Being the monorail manager on duty and directing train movement via radio from a booth at Perkins coffee shop off-property? And this wasn't just a rogue manager doing it one night only with horrible consequences, but was instead a long accepted practice by Disney management?

Inexcusable.

They have now instituted a rule that if you make ONE mistake while driving the monorail, The managers will be waiting at the station ready to take your company ID and escort you off property. Obviously they know accidents do happen. To me this doesnt seem fair to the monorail CM's. It must depend on the severity of the "mistake." But what was once excusable, is now inexcusable to save their own @$$es. My question is, If I'm speeding in a monorail on the MK line, how long will it take for a manager to go from perkins to the nearest monorail station to terminate to the monorail pilot?

The problem with the manager being offsite, and the reason he hasn't been lynched yet is because he is "salaried" . basically it means he's "always on the clock" and they don't have a "lunch period". whenever they have free time, that is when they can break. That combined with the fact that it's been done for 35 previous years makes it ok, or so it seems.

 

[Bairstow]

No, no, no. When you file a lawsuit in Florida in a circuit court you have to state that you're seeking damages in excess of $15,000. There is no top end. Under $15,000 puts you in County court. She is seeking in excess of $15,000, I assure you!

The mother did not file the lawsuit. Suit was filed on behalf of the Estate of the deceased. Any individual with a claim under Florida's Wrongful Death statute has to bring their claim through the Estate.

The Estate is entitled to expenses associated with the death; i.e. funeral bills. A large part of the claim of the estate is the loss of net accumulations; the amount of money the deceased would have had left over at the end of his life, had he lived a normal life expectancy, reduced to present value. I forget if he was in college or had already graduated but one has to assume his potential to earn income over his lifetime was substantial.

Parents normally do not have a claim if the deceased was married. Only the spouse would. In this case the deceased was unmarried so parents are allowed to bring a claim via the estate. That's where the mother fits in. Have not heard mention of the father but his claim is there too if he is alive and was part of the deceased's life. If he was providing any financial support to a parent, that is part of the claim. When there is no spouse, each parent may recover for mental pain & suffering. And THAT is where the big money comes in.

As many have pointed out, no money can bring the deceased back. However, the only method we have of compensating people for such losses is monetary. That's just the way it is.

How does this comport with the Florida Wrongful Death Act?
http://www.floridamalpractice.com/stat768.16etseq.htm

 

[Tom]

What are you qualifications to make such a statement? I just so happen to work as a train dispatcher for a class one railroad. I might have just a little more knowledge on this subject than you. One does not need to be on site to be able to dispatch, equip my house with a radio and a train sheet and I would never have to leave home to do it. Most switches on the railroad can not be seen by the dispatcher, one has to rely on the train crews ensure they are lined correctly. Now I am not saying that Disnsy's operating plan does not have flaws, I do not know as I have never seen it.

Dispatching trains is one thing. Telling them it's safe to proceed through a switch and continue on, without stopping, all the way to the roundhouse without actually knowing that the switch had been thrown is another.

I don't think he had a "train sheet" or even a laptop connected to the WDW Monorail Control System at Perkins (but I don't know this for sure).

Granted, the guy who was supposed to throw the switch, and thought he did, but didn't really - he holds a TON of blame. But when it comes to authorizing a move that could result in life or death, your responsibility is to be 100% certain that everything is in place for the move to take place successfully.

Whoever ACTUALLY told Purple that he was clear to reverse through the switches and continue all the way to the garage is at (some) fault, because they had absolutely no proof that it really was safe.

I'm sure it's changed, but SOP should provide that the person making the final call for a train to make an unprotected (i.e. MAPO off) and blind (i.e. driving backwards) move should be sitting in front of a wall of monitors showing him all the switches in play, and a track layout showing where all trains currently are in the system.

I don't work in the railroad industry, but I also have common sense. Their SOP contained no common sense, or so it appears.

 

[Frau Farbissina]

In my opinion, the family is entitled to reimbursement for all of their soft and hard costs related to the death of their son, including legal, funeral, and other expenses that they would not have incurred had the event never happened.

However, when it comes to being paid money to compensate for a lost dependent, how do you really justify that? If you lose a parent or an income-earning spouse due to negligence, then perhaps a fat check would be in order to help offset that lost income and support.

But when you lose a child, you're not out any money (other than the costs associated with their death). Children don't (normally) earn income that supports their parents, so there really isn't any monetary damage done that needs to be made up by the defendant.

It's one thing to say that someone was harmed or damaged by the loss of a loved one, but to say that they're owed money (in excess of their unnecessary expenditures) is just plain irresponsible. Money doesn't heal a broken heart, and if it does, then that person has SERIOUS problems.

As I understand it, he was an only child and she was a widow. It's not unrealistic to think that he would support her later in life. Further, these suits aren't just designed to compensate for loss of future earnings but also the loss of companionship.

 

[Frau Farbissina]

Well that's interesting.
From what I've read it looks like Christine Wuennenberg is only asking for $15,000. That's barely going to cover her legal fees. The only way she can be awarded more is if the court finds Disney was reckless enough to warrant punitive damages.
Also, she wanted this to be a fairly quick trial before a judge, and it was Disney that requested a jury trial. That's going to be risky for them. I wonder what their strategy is.

I can't even imagine why they would want a jury trial in Orlando. While Disney fans love Disney and can't imagine not having a soft spot for the company, the truth is that many Floridians do not like Disney and wouldn't mind sticking it to the company. Throw in sympathy for the mother and the fact that Disney was clearly in the wrong and you're right: What the heck are they thinking?

 

[Frau Farbissina]

"Christine Wuennenberg is asking for $15,000 in damages for mental pain and suffering, lost support and services, funeral expenses and loss of net accumulation of estate."

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/22333712/detail.html

Is that the exact wording from the complaint or from the article?