Segways spark suit vs. Disney

[JimboJones123]

This whole thread make me feel "WHITE AND NERDY"!

 

[CBOMB]

as an attorney I have to correct you...assuming a court compelled Disney to allow the use of Segways by the disabled, Disney would not be absolved on liaibility simply because it was compeled to allow the activity by reason of a court order. Disney must still ensure the safety of all of its guests.

let me elaborate...are you familiar with OSHA? those are federal regulations that apply to workplace conditions. if a worker is injured as a result of a violation of OSHA rules, the employer will likely have liabiity. but the empoyer cannot escape responsibility for a worker's injuries by establishing that the employer complied with all OSHA regs.

Thanks for the clarification. So going by this premise Disney is going to be responsible for every guest's action no matter what safety guide lines are set down by Disney. No matter what the circumstance may be reguarding Disney's effort to comply with the ADA. So therefore they are responsible for any injury involving a wheelchair an ECV, a stroller, heelies, guest running, guest not paying attention to where they are going, guest spilling hot coffee on another guest, the list could get quite long.Is that correct?

vicarious liability -- you are responsible for the acts of another because of the relationship you have with that person. example -- here in NY we always sue the owner of the car as well as the driver, the owner is presumed to have vicarious liaibility for the driver because the owner entrusted the vehicle to the driver. the building owner who hires a contractor to do work on the property may be vicariously liable for the contractor's negligence when a third party is injured.

II'm not sure the owner of a theme park would have vicarious liability for the conduct of a business invitee. the owner's liabilty is more likely to be based on its own failure to provide a reasonably safe premises.

How would vicarious liability corporate or civil aply when the only relationship would be of a business nature, and Disney was merely reacting to a decree of the courts that they must comply with. I'm not a lawyer so I do needs some help trying to understand the concept of presumed liability on Disney's part. That is assuming Disney set down reasonable safety guidelines for the use of handicap transportation, and reasonably tried to enforce them.

It's not the making of changes to the device, but the sides agreeing on the changes. Also, how are you now going to differentiate the ones that are medical devices and conform to the new specs. from the ones that go much faster because you know that's going to be an issue, if the speed ends up being more restrictive.

There really is a simple solution to this problem, and existing problems with ECV's. Anyone requiring a ECV or Segway (if it is approved) will be required to have a handicap placard. Any person presenting such placard will be presented with a guideline for safe use in the parks. That would include speed right of way, and other possible safety issues. We are a nation of politicians,bureaucrats, and lawyers. What's a few more laws to go along with the millions we already have. After all Disney requires a handicap sticker if you want to park in a handicap parking space, they just don't take your word for it. I don't think anyone with a disability is offended that they have to display a handicap sticker to park in a designated area. I think that is a reasonable solution. If anyone out there with a disability finds this to be unreasonable please respond, because aI am curious, and I strongly support the ADA.

look at the risk of insighting a blog riot. if you are that disabled and have enough money to go to disney world rent a f--------- wheel chair

That was so TOTALLY uncalled for.

This whole thread make me feel "WHITE AND NERDY"!

Well...are you?

 

[Monty]

Is it just me or does anyone else see this as a big load. if you can stand up and lean with a Segway then you can walk. if not then you get a cart. you don't need a Segway that is NOT a handicap vehicle.

Well, given that in my case a Segway would be the perfect solution for one aspect of my particular disabilities, I'm going to say it's just you... :shrug:

I have a full-thickness skin graft on the heel of my right foot that is susceptible to severe blistering as a result of walking for long distances. I am perfectly capable of standing and leaning for as long as would be necessary. So just because you can't fathom a circumstance where the technology would be beneficial, doesn't mean much.

There are no cookie-cutter solutions that can be automatically applied uniformly to all disabled individuals. Imagining that there are is one of the primary reasons it took many years to establish legislation like the ADA, politicians can be as myopic as forum members...

 

[mkt]

Is it just me or does anyone else see this as a big load. if you can stand up and lean with a Segway then you can walk. if not then you get a cart. you don't need a Segway that is NOT a handicap vehicle.

I wish it was just you, but unfortunately it's not.

 

[KingofHearts]

]

Not sure about him, but I am on Disney's side on this one. If they ban Heelys, then they should not allow Segwways. I could come up with some half baked clever reason that they MUST allow me to have Heelys. (Shocked it hasn't happened yet)

 

[mousermerf]

Sorry, if you can't walk, then you don't need to stand all day either. Get a cart. Think about how many people are run over from those carts and Heelys as it is. God help us if we had Segways all over the place.

Well, apparently there are some folks who cant walk but who can stand and lean to get around - not it'd ever fit in any ride vehicle known to man.

That aside, it goes back to how few people that cover. They estimate 4000-7000. Even giving them the 7000, that's a teeny-tiny segment of the population.

It is completely "unreasonable" to make accommodation for guests who represent such a tiny portion of the population when it would cost millions of dollars and risk the safety of others.

 

[Monty]

Sorry, if you can't walk, then you don't need to stand all day either. Get a cart. Think about how many people are run over from those carts and Heelys as it is. God help us if we had Segways all over the place.

I didn't say I can't walk, I said I'm susceptible to severe blistering when I do. But since it's only one of my disabilities, I also can't use either a wheelchair or an ECV, both of which require a level of manual dexterity that I simply don't have. But you jumped to your conclusion. My overall point is still that your assumption that there are already answers that are perfectly acceptable is not an accurate one. There will always be people who don't fit your narrow view of what is or isn't disability.

 

[mkt]

What is your obsession with this issue mkt?

The rights of the disabled, which under loose definition would qualify nearly everyone on this message board.

I've noticed you egging this conversation on - like you're trying to drag it out.

I replied where I took offense. If you have a problem with me, you know how to get a hold of me .

How often do you get to WDW and do you pack your Segway?

About as often as I post a new permit or return to a message board I was banned from, eh Rob?

Isn't that too large of an item to be a carry-on from Puerto Rico?

It is, but the roads and sidewalks in PR would kill a Segway before it would make it on the plane.

 

[mkt]

Well, apparently there are some folks who cant walk but who can stand and lean to get around - not it'd ever fit in any ride vehicle known to man.

An ECV doesn't fit in any ride vehicle known to man, but those are allowed (and available for hire from Disney and many other suppliers).

That aside, it goes back to how few people that cover. They estimate 4000-7000. Even giving them the 7000, that's a teeny-tiny segment of the population.

So why ban them? That number is tiny enough to be insignificant

It is completely "unreasonable" to make accommodation for guests who represent such a tiny portion of the population when it would cost millions of dollars and risk the safety of others.

No, it is not. What is unreasonable is to not offer an option to a segment of the population that needs it, no matter how small it may be.

 

[mkt]

Absolutely Robert, I am But in a jam, I'd get your back (figuratively)

To drive that point through, I spent over an hour on the phone with the DMV today trying to get the license plate 'CABRON' which roughly translated means that same word in Spanish.

 

[mousermerf]

Small, boring island, eh?

 

[mkt]

Small, boring island, eh?

Small, but not boring.

However, Scrubs is on tonight. I do not miss an episode of Scrubs.

Also, the dog just got out of surgery, so I'm taking care of him.

 

[Timmay]

So why ban them? That number is tiny enough to be insignificant

Really??? They have been banned?? Odd, I guess I missed that part...:shrug:

No, it is not. What is unreasonable is to not offer an option to a segment of the population that needs it, no matter how small it may be.

I'm sorry, I am obviously not reading the same article you are...you know, the one you posted. I can't seem to find the part where it says they "need" them. I don't feel too bad though, I bet you can't either.

 

[mkt]

Really??? They have been banned?? Odd, I guess I missed that part...:shrug:

1. to prohibit, forbid, or bar [1]
1- "ban." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 15 Nov. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ban>.

Given that usage of privately owned (ie- not company owned) segways is not allowed, by default, they are banned.

I'm sorry, I am obviously not reading the same article you are...you know, the one you posted. I can't seem to find the part where it says they "need" them. I don't feel too bad though, I bet you can't either.

At this point, we're not discussing the article. We're discussing whether or not Segways are needed. Furthermore, reliance, which is admitted in the article, is a type of necessity, therefore a type of need.

However, if you want to point out flaws in my argument that aren't there, feel free.

 

[Monty]

I'm sorry, I am obviously not reading the same article you are...you know, the one you posted. I can't seem to find the part where it says they "need" them. I don't feel too bad though, I bet you can't either.

Um...

Three disabled people who say they rely on two-wheeled Segways to move about sued Walt Disney World in federal court Friday, seeking to force the resort into letting disabled visitors like themselves ride the motorized, upright scooters in Disney theme parks.

Very first sentence. If you are going to argue that relying on and needing are different, semantics is not your forte.

 

[CBOMB]

Well, apparently there are some folks who cant walk but who can stand and lean to get around - not it'd ever fit in any ride vehicle known to man.

That aside, it goes back to how few people that cover. They estimate 4000-7000. Even giving them the 7000, that's a teeny-tiny segment of the population.

It is completely "unreasonable" to make accommodation for guests who represent such a tiny portion of the population when it would cost millions of dollars and risk the safety of others.

When we ignore the few we lose our humanity. I really have to believe some of you just don't understand how a disable person determines dignity, and self sufficiency. Anything within reason that helps the disable to fit in better with an able body world is fine with me.

 

[Timmay]

Um...

Very first sentence. If you are going to argue that relying on and needing are different, semantics is not your forte.

Please stop...you know as well as I do they don't "need" the Segway for transportation. They obviously need some type of transportation...say, a wheelchair or EVC or a Segway...but they don't need a particular one. They WANT to use the Segway. You know it, I know it.

MKT, sorry. I thought you were implying the people had been banned, as in they couldn't come to the parks without their Segway...I thought you were making a point you clearly were not...my mistake.
But rest assured, I will continue to point out the false premise (they rely on transportation assistance, they have a Segway, therefore they need the Segway) in your argument...because as I said above, while they do need to have some type of transportation assistance, you nor anyone else has yet to point out they "need" the Segway as opposed to another type of transportation.

See, this bit here in the article is your big clue to that;

They are among an estimated 4,000 to 7,000 similarly disabled people who have turned to the self-balancing, electric Segways as mobility tools, according to the suit.

"Turned to" indicates they have used something else before.

 

[mkt]

MKT, sorry. I thought you were implying the people had been banned, as in they couldn't come to the parks without their Segway...I thought you were making a point you clearly were not...my mistake.

No problem

But rest assured, I will continue to point out the false premise (they rely on transportation assistance, they have a Segway, therefore they need the Segway) in your argument...because as I said above, while they do need to have some type of transportation assistance, you nor anyone else has yet to point out they "need" the Segway as opposed to another type of transportation.

And I will continue to defend their right to choose a Segway as their choice for assisted mobility.

 

[MickeyTigg]

which is why they're being sued, to obligate them to do as such.

Problem is Rob....Disney isn't the one determining that...they're using Federal guidelines and the company's recommendation. If that's the case...sue Medicare and the FDA, not Disney.

 

[mkt]

Problem is Rob....Disney isn't the one determining that...they're using Federal guidelines and the company's recommendation. If that's the case...sue Medicare and the FDA, not Disney.

Perhaps this case will set the precedent for other cases? Perhaps the judge will order them to allow Segways? Perhaps this will give Disney enough bad PR that they will voluntarily to allow Segways in the park in order to save face?

Who knows.