our seemingly quarterly sueing of Disney

llrain

llrain

Well-Known Member
Original Poster
another prob dumb tourist sueing disney for allowing them to rent a searay
boat....How dare disney rent them a boat...god i hate lawyers who take on these stupid money hungry kind of people

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/the-...-lawsuit-ferry-crash-20110630,0,6124801.story

A English woman injured when a small watercraft her husband rented at Walt Disney World collided with a ferry last year is suing the Central Florida resort, court records show.

The suit, filed in April, states that Walt Disney World Parks and Resorts was negligent when the resort allowed Michael Wormald to rent the watercraft at Cap'n Jack's Marina inDowntown Disney.
 
Z

zulemara

Well-Known Member
In the Parks
Yes
my beef is that the sentinel lists it as a collision with a ferryboat when it was actually the sasagula riverboat. That's a BIG difference in size and scope of the issue.

secondly, it's dumb, she's dumb, and at least half the people who rent those boats are dumb. Sadly it seems stupid people get rewarded these days. Common sense is no longer common.
 
WDWLOYAL1971

WDWLOYAL1971

Active Member
llrain said:
another prob dumb tourist sueing disney for allowing them to rent a searay
boat....How dare disney rent them a boat...god i hate lawyers who take on these stupid money hungry kind of people

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/the-...-lawsuit-ferry-crash-20110630,0,6124801.story

A English woman injured when a small watercraft her husband rented at Walt Disney World collided with a ferry last year is suing the Central Florida resort, court records show.

The suit, filed in April, states that Walt Disney World Parks and Resorts was negligent when the resort allowed Michael Wormald to rent the watercraft at Cap'n Jack's Marina inDowntown Disney.
Click to expand...

The lawyers should be sued for encouraging these law suits that are nothing more than the result of their clients own stupidity. :fork:
 
MichWolv

MichWolv

Born Modest. Wore Off.
Premium Member
Ok, let's start with:

This woman sounds like she was hurt pretty badly, so here's hoping she recovered quickly.

Now, we can move on to....how is this Disney's fault? Good grief, I think I should have sued the place in San Francisco that I rented a bicycle from 5 years ago, as I fell and sprained my ankle. Clearly, the bike people should have realized that I, a person with a Virginia driver's license, could not reasonably be expected to be able to handle riding a bike safely on San Francisco's very steep streets. :rolleyes:
 
Jane Doe

Jane Doe

Well-Known Member
JUST IN!

Ovine tourist claims to be the real reason for Skipton man's momentary distraction behind the wheel.

fun1.jpg
 
blm07

blm07

Active Member
This is the best part:
In her suit, Barbara Wormald claims that her husband was not given any instruction, had no experience piloting such a craft and should not have been allowed to rent and use it.
Click to expand...

McDonalds, this coffee is hot! You didn't tell me that!
 
sod4

sod4

New Member
blm07 said:
This is the best part:


McDonalds, this coffee is hot! You didn't tell me that!
Click to expand...

The thing is, though, that prior to this lawsuit there was no reasonable attempt to alert people to the fact that McDonalds at the time served their coffee very near the boiling point of water.

The woman in that case made little to no profit from the litigation and was merely attempting to pay her outstanding medical bills. After repairing damage resulting from 3rd degree burns on her upper legs, crotch, and lower torso, I would expect those bills to be every bit of the money she was awarded.

There may be some basis for this lawsuit if the cast members operating the rental service can be shown to have known that the renter was intoxicated (or had the intention of drinking) or that he had no knowledge of how to operate the vehicle in question (they should probably check to make sure that the renter is properly licensed in the operation of watercraft).

EDIT: changed 'money' to 'profit'
 
M

Mr.Diamond

New Member
sod4 said:
The thing is, though, that prior to this lawsuit there was no reasonable attempt to alert people to the fact that McDonalds at the time served their coffee very near the boiling point of water.

The woman in that case made little to no profit from the litigation and was merely attempting to pay her outstanding medical bills. After repairing damage resulting from 3rd degree burns on her upper legs, crotch, and lower torso, I would expect those bills to be every bit of the money she was awarded.

EDIT: changed 'money' to 'profit'
Click to expand...

Doesn't matter about the temp. She would have gotten 3rd degree burns from anyone's coffee. Everyone that serves hot coffee has been sued for 3rd degree burns (Starbucks, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, etc).

By the way, they settled for around $600K. Here bills were less than 20K.
 
trr1

trr1

Well-Known Member
does any one have a copy of the form for rental of the Sea Raycers. I wonder what it says? is there a clause or waiver on it?
 
mergatroid

mergatroid

Well-Known Member
If she's British I apologise on behalf of all Brits :eek:

I go on them every visit and all you do is throttle forward and steer left and right. Training? it's not piloting the space shuttle for crying out loud, I'm amazed these people manage to actually dress themselves in the mornings :hammer:
 
M

mrbghd

Member
Mr.Diamond said:
Doesn't matter about the temp. She would have gotten 3rd degree burns from anyone's coffee. Everyone that serves hot coffee has been sued for 3rd degree burns (Starbucks, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, etc).

By the way, they settled for around $600K. Here bills were less than 20K.
Click to expand...

The crux of her lawsuit was not about the temp of the coffee. The suit was about a defect in the way in which the coffee was served. McD's had been warned by the manufacturer of the equipment that it produced coffee too hot to be safe to give to customers. McD's, once aware of this, became liable for the damages that the defective product caused. This is what the lawsuit was about. I am unaware of these types of suits against those you mention. I would be interested to read up on them if you have any cites.

As far as this lawsuit goes, I will reserve judgment until I see the filings. Based on the story as I remember it, it seems like a case of dumbitis on their part. The potential problem I see is if Disney does not give any instruction on how to safely operate the boats. (I haven't rented one in several years and I don't remember if they do.)
 
W

wizards8507

Active Member
blm07 said:
McDonalds, this coffee is hot! You didn't tell me that!
Click to expand...

sod4 said:
The thing is, though, that prior to this lawsuit there was no reasonable attempt to alert people to the fact that McDonalds at the time served their coffee very near the boiling point of water.
Click to expand...

Mr.Diamond said:
Doesn't matter about the temp. She would have gotten 3rd degree burns from anyone's coffee. Everyone that serves hot coffee has been sued for 3rd degree burns (Starbucks, Burger King, Dunkin Donuts, etc).
Click to expand...

This is a bit off topic, but people always get this wrong when the McDonald's coffee case comes up. McDonald's has (and has always had) very strict rules about how hot their coffee is supposed to be kept. If a patron had spilled that coffee on him- or herself, the case would not have been successful. The reason why the case was successful is because the particular McDonald's was keeping their coffee well above the standard temperature set by the Company.
 
Master Yoda

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
D

doppelv

New Member
sod4 said:
or that he had no knowledge of how to operate the vehicle in question (they should probably check to make sure that the renter is properly licensed in the operation of watercraft).
Click to expand...

From the Florida Fish and Wildlife Dept...
"Boating Safety Education ID Card
Anyone born on or after January 1, 1988 who operates a vessel powered by 10 horsepower or more must pass an approved boater safety course and have in his/her possession photographic identification and a boating safety education identification card issued by the FWC or temporary certificate issued by an authorized vendor."

Given the age the person in question is, chances are, they didn't need to have a license to operate the watercraft in question.

As to whether they were intoxicated, the article doesn't give enough information, and I can tell you as a CM, its sometimes very hard to tell who is intoxicated and who is not. There is no such thing as a sample drunk. I'll be interested to hear more details in this case, but I don't think the "they should have known better than to let me" defense won't hold up in court. There is still such a thing as personal responsibility, and given Disney's legal department's influence on recreational forms, I'm sure these folks agreed that their own actions qualify as their own responsibility.

To me, this seems like such a stupid case. This really doesn't seem to be a direct comparison to the McD's case (which I concede is actually pretty legit). This would instead be as if the customer at McD's took the coffee knowing it was hot, threw it around their car, with some landing on/burning them, and then sued McD's because they should have known that the customer couldn't be trusted around coffee.
 

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

Back
Top Bottom