Segway Lawsuit Against Disney Thrown out of Court

[GoofyDadKB]

So if I were to start a tirade using nothing but the 'N' word, would it be safe for me to say that I said nothing offensive, but rather those offended by it chose to get offended?

Yes. A word by itself has no power over you or your feelings. You have to provide it the power to hurt. It's just like the phrase children say; Sticks and stones.....

I'm a believe in tort reform, which judging by the content of the post, the poster believes in as well (albeit put in a much more crude fashion), but I also believe that an ocassional lawsuit is warranted, especially if it's the only way that a party will listen.

I agree also. But I also believe in this case it was some people who were put together by a lawyer who thought they could make a load of money. The only people that get rich on a class action lawsuit are the lawyers.

Does that come on a coffee mug or a pillow?

Thank you for proving my point by attacking the messenger instead of the message.

 

[The Mom]

So ARE segways allowed at most other public places? Malls, groceries, etc? :shrug:

I will admit to not living in the biggest city in the world, but I have never ever seen anybody using one for every day. Only ever seen them at WDW, in fact :lol:

As with a lot of technology, current laws do not cover this. Also, they (Segways) are new enough to be very expensive for the average person, and are not yet an approved medical assistance device, so they aren't covered by insurance.

I'm just saying that I've lived longer than the average poster, and have seen more than my fair share of changes. The arguments being used are similar (but not exactly the same) as those used against service animals, for example.

People complained that they were dirty, could bite people, could carry disease, etc so shouldn't be allowed into public places, esp restaurants and grocery stores. Then, after enough lawsuits, only seeing eye dogs were allowed, as, at the time, they were the only "trained" service animals. This prompted more lawsuits, until we have today's laws.

The same can be said for Segways, or any other device that enables the disabled to function more "normally." The laws and guidelines should start being written BEFORE they are classified (if it really does happen) so that people have to be trained and certified in their use, just as with service animals. If I were to lose my eyesite tomorrow, I couldn't just put a harness on my dog and walk into a restaurant, or even get a trained dog and do it. I would have to learn how to use him/her safely.

I also have a problem with just anybody being able to hop in ANY motorized vehicle (including an ecv) and drive off without proving at least a rudimentary competence using it. That's where the current law has failed; ECVs were grandfathered in with wheelchairs, rather than having separate guidelines for their use. When I brought my mother to WDW, I did NOT allow her to use one (she wanted to), because she did not use one at home. (She used a walker) I used common sense, and pushed her in a wheelchair. Did it limit her experience and tire me out? Sure, but it spared many other guests cuts, bruises, and scrapes.

 

[tigsmom]

I disagree. It is possible to require a certification of medical need. States do so with respect to handicapped parking permits. It isn't foolproof, but it certainly cuts down on the lying and the fraud.

I was referring to WDW, DL, etc.

They do not, at this time, require you to show a special needs permit so they cannot deny use to people who are willing to pay to rent one, whether they need it or not.

 

[MouseMadness]

As with a lot of technology, current laws do not cover this. Also, they (Segways) are new enough to be very expensive for the average person, and are not yet an approved medical assistance device, so they aren't covered by insurance.

I'm just saying that I've lived longer than the average poster, and have seen more than my fair share of changes. The arguments being used are similar (but not exactly the same) as those used against service animals, for example.

Gotcha.

At the moment I don't have strong feelings one way or another about them being used at WDW... but this lawsuit just felt "funny" to me... and as it turns out, it should have. Sounds like these people didn't really care much to go to WDW. They will probably claim it was for the greater good, but I'm not sure I can buy that at this point. Now should the day come when they are allowed there, I don't see myself caring unless me or my family gets flattened by one. Then I will be slightly miffed. While I can't wrap my head around people being able to stand for many hours at a time instead of sitting in an ECV or wheelchair many hours at a time, I honestly don't care. The number of goofballs on two functioning feet will still far outnumber them and annoy me more, I'm sure :lol:

 

[aleckendyl]

Only you can give someone the ability to offend you.

100% correct.
I have always felt that those who use the word "offended" are weak people.
Certainly i have had mean things said to me but does it offend me? NOPE. You just goota be strong and let folks have thier opinions. Being offended is not in my vocabulary.
I also want to add that i have strong feelings concerning this issue.
Im sure some of you wont like my position and some will. Isnt that what makes America great though?

 

[Timmay]

IMO, Segway usage by the disabled will increase, and they will eventually be classified in the same way as ECVs, wheelchairs, service animals, etc., and will be covered by the ADA.

That is a very distinct possibility. If they are approved, I think it will be some time down the road.

I can understand why WDW might be hesitant to allow them AT THIS POINT, but I also do not consider these to be frivolous lawsuits.

These, or this particular one? Because there is little doubt this particular suit is nothing but frivolous. The three plaintiffs never had any intention of sitting foot on Disney property in the future. These folks were not champions for the cause...they were in it for a quick buck.

When the lawsuit is finally brought by people that want a change (true change...not the kind in their pocket, either), then there will be more to listen to.

As it is today, there are suitable alternatives to using a Segway for the disabled. There may be some documentation out there that shows a benefit for some people using it, but I haven’t seen or heard of any.

 

[hooters dude]

As with a lot of technology, current laws do not cover this. Also, they (Segways) are new enough to be very expensive for the average person, and are not yet an approved medical assistance device, so they aren't covered by insurance.

I'm just saying that I've lived longer than the average poster, and have seen more than my fair share of changes. The arguments being used are similar (but not exactly the same) as those used against service animals, for example.

People complained that they were dirty, could bite people, could carry disease, etc so shouldn't be allowed into public places, esp restaurants and grocery stores. Then, after enough lawsuits, only seeing eye dogs were allowed, as, at the time, they were the only "trained" service animals. This prompted more lawsuits, until we have today's laws.

The same can be said for Segways, or any other device that enables the disabled to function more "normally." The laws and guidelines should start being written BEFORE they are classified (if it really does happen) so that people have to be trained and certified in their use, just as with service animals. If I were to lose my eyesite tomorrow, I couldn't just put a harness on my dog and walk into a restaurant, or even get a trained dog and do it. I would have to learn how to use him/her safely.

I also have a problem with just anybody being able to hop in ANY motorized vehicle (including an ecv) and drive off without proving at least a rudimentary competence using it. That's where the current law has failed; ECVs were grandfathered in with wheelchairs, rather than having separate guidelines for their use. When I brought my mother to WDW, I did NOT allow her to use one (she wanted to), because she did not use one at home. (She used a walker) I used common sense, and pushed her in a wheelchair. Did it limit her experience and tire me out? Sure, but it spared many other guests cuts, bruises, and scrapes.

Very good post!

I seem to remember originally the issue was they felt 'degraded' using a wheelchair or ECV? They weren't denying Disney had a way to access the parks, just that they didn't like that method and preferred segways!

I'm disabled but prefer to walk and suffer minor discomfort than to use a wheelchair (doesn't mean others should, just my choice) but maybe one day I will need a wheelchair. If I do, yes I would feel like I stood out a bit, however surely I would stand out using a segway :shrug:

I'm sure if Disney felt it safe to have segways used in the parks they would allow it, I can't see them saying no to spite disabled people who feel less degraded using segways.

:wave:

 

[ClemsonTigger]

I think you're wrong. Segways will never become an approved medical device.

I agree with that.

BTW, how did you know there would be flaming in this thread when you posted it? :lookaroun :lol:

 

[MichWolv]

So ARE segways allowed at most other public places? Malls, groceries, etc? :shrug:

I will admit to not living in the biggest city in the world, but I have never ever seen anybody using one for every day. Only ever seen them at WDW, in fact :lol:

I know that in Washington DC, they are allowed on the subways, and I have seen people with them in malls before.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

As with a lot of technology, current laws do not cover this. Also, they (Segways) are new enough to be very expensive for the average person, and are not yet an approved medical assistance device, so they aren't covered by insurance.

I'm just saying that I've lived longer than the average poster, and have seen more than my fair share of changes. The arguments being used are similar (but not exactly the same) as those used against service animals, for example.

People complained that they were dirty, could bite people, could carry disease, etc so shouldn't be allowed into public places, esp restaurants and grocery stores. Then, after enough lawsuits, only seeing eye dogs were allowed, as, at the time, they were the only "trained" service animals. This prompted more lawsuits, until we have today's laws.

The same can be said for Segways, or any other device that enables the disabled to function more "normally." The laws and guidelines should start being written BEFORE they are classified (if it really does happen) so that people have to be trained and certified in their use, just as with service animals. If I were to lose my eyesite tomorrow, I couldn't just put a harness on my dog and walk into a restaurant, or even get a trained dog and do it. I would have to learn how to use him/her safely.

I also have a problem with just anybody being able to hop in ANY motorized vehicle (including an ecv) and drive off without proving at least a rudimentary competence using it. That's where the current law has failed; ECVs were grandfathered in with wheelchairs, rather than having separate guidelines for their use. When I brought my mother to WDW, I did NOT allow her to use one (she wanted to), because she did not use one at home. (She used a walker) I used common sense, and pushed her in a wheelchair. Did it limit her experience and tire me out? Sure, but it spared many other guests cuts, bruises, and scrapes.

Back to approval of the Segway as a medical device,
the Kamen variant of it that is meant for medical use:

The IBOT4000 has had a difficult road in being approved...and because of that insurance companies won't/don't have to pay for it. The J&J company that sells it has a special department just to try and get some aid in it's purchase.

http://www.ibotnow.com/

If this can't make it, the standard Segway has much less of a chance.

 

[sknydave]

These, or this particular one? Because there is little doubt this particular suit is nothing but frivolous. The three plaintiffs never had any intention of sitting foot on Disney property in the future. These folks were not champions for the cause...they were in it for a quick buck.

The only thing I see stated in the article is they are suing to allow segways in WDW. Maybe I'm missing something.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

The only thing I see stated in the article is they are suing to allow segways in WDW. Maybe I'm missing something.

Two things;

1) The dismissal of this lawsuit was

"because none of them demonstrated any intention to visit the resort in the near future."

and

2) The original transcript stated that these folks did not want to use conventional chairs and assist equipment by choice. In my mind it kind of like saying that if I am unable to walk, I should have the choice to ride my horse in the parks (as was discussed in the first iteration of this thread, when the suit was filed)

 

[DisneyMusician2]

I think that with no way to regulate speed, Segways shouldn't be allowed. If Disney wishes to provide their own Segways with regulated speed for park use, then by all means, it could work.

Even ECV's can be dangerous if operated at high speeds, and I can't tell you how many people have gotten bumped by overzealous users in the parks.

 

[sknydave]

Two things;

1) The dismissal of this lawsuit was

and

2) The original transcript stated that these folks did not want to use conventional chairs and assist equipment by choice. In my mind it kind of like saying that if I am unable to walk, I should have the choice to ride my horse in the parks (as was discussed in the first iteration of this thread, when the suit was filed)

I still don't see what this has to do with making money off Disney.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

I still don't see what this has to do with making money off Disney.

You are correct. There was no mention of damages sought in the initial filing, only permission to use.

 

[Montyboy]

And only they have the ability to make a hateful comment

I have to agree with everyone's favorite government conspiracy theorist on this one.

I would use the rest of this post to offend alecksadyck, but I figure it's better to show some class (or at least civility.)

 

[tigsmom]

I have to agree with everyone's favorite government conspiracy theorist on this one.

I would use the rest of this post to offend alecksadyck, but I figure it's better to show some class (or at least civility.)

the road less traveled. :lol:

 

[Sam02]

I typically don't post in threads like these, but this time I feel the need to speak up for those people who "look" like they don't need a wheelchair or ECV. My husband is diagnosed with Fibromyalgia. Any physical exertion or even standing for long periods of time incapacitate him. For this very reason he will be using an ECV when we make our trip to WDW. If any of you were to look at him you would "see" a healthy man cheating the system, you would not see any outward physical disability. He is prepared to sacrifice a little dignity and angry stares to be able to spend more time in the parks with his family. Without the use of the ECV he would probably have 2-3 hours a day before he would need to head back to the hotel.

So next time you see someone in a ECV who you think is healthy please wait to judge them. Unless or until they get up and run around or let someone else ride it, etc., don't think they are trying to cheat the system. Just because you can't see their disability doesn't mean they don't have one.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

good choice

 

[Timmay]

The only thing I see stated in the article is they are suing to allow segways in WDW. Maybe I'm missing something.

No, you are right. This case itself does not seek monetary relief. But the plaintiffs asked the federal judge to certify their case as a class action suit, potentially representing other disabled persons. Class action suits usually seek monetary relief.

Now, class action suits can offer non monetary relief, but since these three plaintiffs had no intention of ever going back to Disney World, what exactly could they hope to gain from non monetary relief.

I could be wrong, but again, I just don't think these three are "champions" for the Segway/disabled users cause.