New DAS System at Walt Disney World 2024

[NotTheOne]

That’s not all it would take, and thankfully our legal system is not based on "feels."

When I said "riskier" I meant in terms of giving the plaintiff something (however weak) to serve as a basis for a lawsuit. There are so many barriers to someone actually winning that kind of lawsuit that it would be difficult to list them all.

First, people have medical emergencies all the time so tying one to lack of a free line-skip system would be nearly impossible. Also, an accommodation - by definition - is not reasonable if it requires a business to fundamentally alter the way it operates no matter how necessary for the person requesting it. So no business is going to be told to alter its capacity.

There may or may not be a lawsuit, though, and I do agree that the arguments would be interesting.

I agree, the arguments would be interesting, but if people actually sue over this, and Disney wins, I wish Disney would go after all costs from the plaintiffs.

 

[Tigger&Pooh]

They could dim the lights in queue’s and quiet them down too and then they’d have legal ground to stand on that they’ve accommodated everyone.

Except then they've created less-safe/less-accessible queues for individuals with vision disabilities...

 

[Chi84]

First, I don't see any way that any company facing this kind of lawsuit would have a jury trial, because they understand that too many people use emotion rather than the law when making a decision. Second, there is nothing in the ADA that even implies that a business model or might have to change in order to accommodate all disabilities. In fact, it does the opposite, saying that impact to operations can negate the requirement to provide an accommodation.

It wouldn’t be the company demanding a jury trial.

Actually I’d have to check to see what Title III provides for as far as trials and remedies.

 

[jennab55]

Except then they've created less-safe/less-accessible queues for individuals with vision disabilities...

Yes! They cannot please everyone. Going one way with cause problems for another group of people.

 

[Splash4eva]

I know i have been someone who has been on record saying whats the big deal DAS users can do something in the interim while waiting ie riding something with a shorter wait. If Disney really want to curb even more abuse no longer allow people that “perk” and go 1 step further when someone or anyone in your party has dining reservations do the same thing. Again this is exactly how a normal guest would have to go about their day.

 

[jaklgreen]

First, I don't see any way that any company facing this kind of lawsuit would have a jury trial, because they understand that too many people use emotion rather than the law when making a decision. Second, there is nothing in the ADA that even implies that a business model or might have to change in order to accommodate all disabilities. In fact, it does the opposite, saying that impact to operations can negate the requirement to provide an accommodation.

I agree that it wouldn't go to jury trial. I was just saying that there are arguments out there against Disney's new form of accommodations. I am not saying one way or another how it should go, just that I am sure that some lawyer will pick up a case eventually.

 

[jaklgreen]

That’s not all it would take, and thankfully our legal system is not based on "feels."

When I said "riskier" I meant in terms of giving the plaintiff something (however weak) to serve as a basis for a lawsuit. There are so many barriers to someone actually winning that kind of lawsuit that it would be difficult to list them all.

First, people have medical emergencies all the time so tying one to lack of a free line-skip system would be nearly impossible. Also, an accommodation - by definition - is not reasonable if it requires a business to fundamentally alter the way it operates no matter how necessary for the person requesting it. So no business is going to be told to alter its capacity.

There may or may not be a lawsuit, though, and I do agree that the arguments would be interesting.

Trials are decided all the time on how people feel. If things where always clear cut, we wouldn't need trials to decide. I am not arguing with you on your points, I was just pointing out that there can be arguments made against this new system.

 

[Splash4eva]

I agree that it wouldn't go to jury trial. I was just saying that there are arguments out there against Disney's new form of accommodations. I am not saying one way or another how it should go, just that I am sure that some lawyer will pick up a case eventually.

Other that the fact it may not be “easy” to exit the queue. What legit argument is there? If Disney clarified the process and CM’s are more knowledgable in theory its not an issue at all.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

I agree, the arguments would be interesting, but if people actually sue over this, and Disney wins, I wish Disney would go after all costs from the plaintiffs.

On what grounds?

 

[jennab55]

On what grounds?

Doesn’t that happen all the time? If the defendant wins they request the plaintiff to pay for legal costs since they were the ones to bring the case forward and lost, essentially costing the defendant money they otherwise wouldn’t have had to pay.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Doesn’t that happen all the time? If the defendant wins they request the plaintiff to pay for legal costs since they were the ones to bring the case forward and lost, essentially costing the defendant money they otherwise wouldn’t have had to pay.

No. Under the US system of jurisprudence, the standard is that each side pays for their own attorneys fees, whether they win or lose. In order to make another party pay for your attorneys fees you will generally need 1) a specific law that states the prevailing party will be entitled to their attorneys fees, or 2) a contract provision in the agreement between the parties that states the prevailing party will pay for the other parties attorneys fees.

Many health/labor/consumer protection based laws will allow for a party who brings a case under those statutes to collect their attorney fees, but most do not have a corresponding clause that says the business that successfully defends against such a suit will get their fees from the consumer/plaintiff bringing the claim. While many states to have laws that say if a claim is brought and is deemed legally frivolous and without basis, that a court could award the party that defended against it there fees, but that is an extremely high burden to prove.

 

[jennab55]

No. Under the US system of jurisprudence, the standard is that each side pays for their own attorneys fees, whether they win or lose. In order to make another party pay for your attorneys fees you will generally need 1) a specific law that states the prevailing party will be entitled to their attorneys fees, or 2) a contract provision in the agreement between the parties that states the prevailing party will pay for the other parties attorneys fees.

Many health/labor/consumer protection based laws will allow for a party who brings a case under those statutes to collect their attorney fees, but most do not have a corresponding clause that says the business that successfully defends against such a suit will get their fees from the consumer/plaintiff bringing the claim. While many states to have laws that say if a claim is brought and is deemed legally frivolous and without basis, that a court could award the party that defended against it there fees, but that is an extremely high burden to prove.

Good to know! I was thinking if someone brings a suit and then loses, how is that fair to the defendant who had to spend all the money to defend themselves.

 

[JMcMahonEsq]

Good to know! I was thinking if someone brings a suit and then loses, how is that fair to the defendant who had to spend all the money to defend themselves.

There is certainly an argument for that approach, and other legal systems follow it.

In the US, the idea has generally been that if you always had to pay for someone else's attorneys fees if you lost, it could have a chilling effect on consumers who might be afraid to bring legitimate claims against big companies knowing that if they lost, they would be financially ruined.

 

[jennab55]

There is certainly an argument for that approach, and other legal systems follow it.

In the US, the idea has generally been that if you always had to pay for someone else's attorneys fees if you lost, it could have a chilling effect on consumers who might be afraid to bring legitimate claims against big companies knowing that if they lost, they would be financially ruined.

So in the case with Disney, they would need to argue it was “frivolous”, which I’m assuming they could never prove? Sucks for them I guess to have to pay every time someone brings forward a lawsuit. While some lawsuits are actually valid, we all know there are others that really aren’t but people know that Disney has deep pockets and are hoping for a payout.

 

[jaklgreen]

Other that the fact it may not be “easy” to exit the queue. What legit argument is there? If Disney clarified the process and CM’s are more knowledgable in theory its not an issue at all.

I am sure that there can be a number of medical situations that can occur and can be argued. I think that the world is changing and we are working on no longer telling those with medical issues to "just stay home". The lawsuit against Six Flags is just the start.

 

[jaklgreen]

So in the case with Disney, they would need to argue it was “frivolous”, which I’m assuming they could never prove? Sucks for them I guess to have to pay every time someone brings forward a lawsuit. While some lawsuits are actually valid, we all know there are others that really aren’t but people know that Disney has deep pockets and are hoping for a payout.

I am sure that their lawyers are on retainer. They pay them annually regardless of how many lawsuits they have to deal with.

 

[TrainsOfDisney]

Sucks for them I guess to have to pay every time someone brings forward a lawsuit.

Feeling bad for a billion dollar company that has to operate like a billion dollar company?

 

[Splash4eva]

I am sure that there can be a number of medical situations that can occur and can be argued. I think that the world is changing and we are working on no longer telling those with medical issues to "just stay home". The lawsuit against Six Flags is just the start.

We cant expect a company to fundamentally change their entire business for a what if… like i said. If they would provide an easier way in and out and be a little clearer they should be fine. Its miraculous how all these what if issues practically never happen on rides or in LL que’s etc

 

[jennab55]

Feeling bad for a billion dollar company that has to operate like a billion dollar company?

I feel that way about anyone. If someone brought a lawsuit against you, in which you believed you were right and you won, would you be happy to have had to pay all those legal fees?

But I can see the point someone else made about consumers not filing lawsuits for fear of having to lose everything if they lost the suit.

 

[jennab55]

We cant expect a company to fundamentally change their entire business for a what if… like i said. If they would provide an easier way in and out and be a little clearer they should be fine. Its miraculous how all these what if issues practically never happen on rides or in LL que’s etc

Out of curiosity, what do you think should be done to make it easier for people to exit the queue when needed? Obviously redoing all the queues to make them larger would cost tons of money and take tons of time, so what is your suggestion?