Segways spark suit vs. Disney

[unkadug]

^
Bravo

 

[BiggerTigger]

Not all people feel the same way. The people who are suing say their dignity is being taken away by being made to sit lower than the normal person, whereas being eye level on a Segway preserves it. :shrug:

No offense, but does height dictate dignity? If that was the case then a person that stands only 4 feet high is undignified. What is the proper height of dignity anyways? 5 feet 11 inches. Is there a scale between 5 feet 5 inches and 6 feet 2 inches?

Ok, I am making a joke, however, the underlining issue has more to do with not being able to use what the plaintiffs' deem necessary for them.

*Edit - Clearly, I was late on responding to this quote as others did the same thing, but I like how I made a funny.

 

[KeeKee]

Being disabled doesn't "rob one of one's dignity", but being perceived by others as being "lesser" by reason of one's disability can. And nothing personal, but it's a whole bunch different "knowing" Reeve's story and living his, or any other disabled person's life.

I've been disabled for 16 years. I am a self-confident, independent and happy man, but I don't go a day in public without people reacting to my disability. When society can accept me as I am and recognize that I am as capable and indeed in many instances more capable than my fellows despite not having fingers, then perhaps my dignity will survive intact.

If the plaintiffs in the lawsuit honestly believe the general perception of their disability will be less condescending or pitying by moving using Segways, then they have every right to pursue their claim. The courts will decide, based on the legal merits of their case, whether the ADA's protections extend to the use of Segways or not. While I understand the humiliation inherent in riding in a wheelchair [I've been there and will likely end up there permanently sooner than most] and having to look at others' backsides in lines, having people talk to you like you like you're a toddler, having people stand right beside you and try to cause you neck cramps because they're too close to look at, I don't agree that being permitted to ride a Segway is a reasonable accommodation and I hope Disney wins. But it is for the courts to decide, not any of us.

Don't make the assumption that I don't know what it is to be singled out based on a physical disability or injury. There is a natural curiosity about things or people that are "different," and there is nothing we can do about that aspect of human nature. After a disfiguring facial injury some 33 years ago, I had to accept the fact that people didn't mean to hurt me, but were simply curious. I was stopped in public and asked about what happened on numerous occassions. This did not offend me; it was sometimes a nuisance, however, but until the scar had healed and after 5 years of plastic surgery where the scarring was no longer obvious, I had to live with it. It never crossed my mind to shun people who were interested or seek "equality" through the court system.

 

[tigsmom]

No offense, but does height dictate dignity? If that was the case then a person that stands only 4 feet high is undignified. What is the proper height of dignity anyways? 5 feet 11 inches. Is there a scale between 5 feet 5 inches and 6 feet 2 inches?

Ok, I am making a joke, however, the underlining issue has more to do with not being able to use what the plaintiffs' deem necessary for them.

*Edit - Clearly, I was late on responding to this quote as others did the same thing, but I like how I made a funny.

No offense taken as I'm not the one making the argument. :lol:
I'm in agreement with everyone else here.

 

[DABIGCHEEZ]

New hot item going on sale soon at all WDW shops....... Disney Dignity Walking Stilts!!!! $20/pr :lol:

 

[songbird]

I keep thinking - if the court forces Disney to allow them does that mean they're not responsible for accidents?

No, you're not absolved of liability even if ordered by a court to allow it. which means Disney would have to take extra precautions to prevent accideents if compelled to allow segways at the parks.

 

[songbird]

Which is the basic rule of the plaintiff bar. Not necessarily worried about making sure the responsible party is held liable, but go after the deepest pockets involved.

some jurisdictions are moving away from the "joint and several liability" mode, so that each defendant is only repsonsible for the % of fault allocated to that defendnat. so you eithe rbirng in the other tortfeasors as third party defendants or you try the case agains the "empty chair".

 

[songbird]

Not necessarily. In this case, it might be beneficial to go after a judgment-proof defendant that you know would interplead Disney for indemnification (simple terms: defendant says they aren't liable for damages because it's actually Disney's fault they didn't...(insert argument for some way Disney was actually negligent here)) because you're more likely to win a suit against that defendant than against Disney (who is less liable to you). It depends on a lot of different variables, but if you have a viable case, what would most likely happen is Disney would settle out of court with a gag order to avoid bad press, costs of litigation, and the plaintiff being awarded attorney fees.

figment, are you a member of the bar?

i'm thinking I'm recognizing a fellow barrister....

 

[songbird]

As I understand it, they are capable of using wheelchairs or scooters if necessary, but feel it is more convenient and less demeaning to use Segways. Whether I agree with their stance or whether it indeed is a reasonable request or not is irrelevant, emergent technologies will always result in this sort of claim until jurisprudence is established.

the law is an evolving thing, always one step behind technology. if this case proceeds to a decision or verdict, it will establish precedent.

 

[songbird]

Getting seatbelts and airbags added to cars took legislation. That's what getting a Segway recognized as a medical device will take. Sadly most people aren't progressive enough to see the potential of the Segway, and most have not been in the position that the plaintiffs are in... which means there are lots of people running their mouths with little data and facts backing them up, only their opinions.

And what are opinions like?

the key to the legislation is that the accomodation is "reasonable" by an objective standard. I see the potential in the segway, but I also see the risks. a Segway is not an airbag or a seatbelt, it is a device that makes life easier for one individual by placing other individuals at risk. and frankly, the risk to others outweighs the benefit to the Segway user. I don't see the accomodation as "reasonable" under the law.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

the law is an evolving thing, always one step behind technology. if this case proceeds to a decision or verdict, it will establish precedent.

I would suggest that it's more like the law is devolving....
only being half kidding.

What I remember from the law courses I took (electives), the guidance for tort is "what would a reasonable person be expected to do". I just can't say I see that in too much of current litigation.

 

[songbird]

I really don't think they can be held liable if they are forced by law to admit people with a disability to use their Segway. I just don't see if you are following the rule of law that you are responsible for a persons action. As it stands now scooters are being rented out to people by WDW for a sizeable profit. If WDW decides to start renting segways I could see them assuming some liability then.

I would guess if they were unable to walk or sit in a wheelchair or ride a scotter, they just didn't go to WDW. However my guess would be most of these people used wheelchairs before. Now with the advancement of technology segways are available, and I think they feel more comfortable with this form of mobility. It's a decision the courts will have to render.

You make excellent points. I think it is just a matter of time before segways for the disabled are more common, and protected under the ADA. These folks may or may not not win this round, but I assure you their battle will be picked up by others. There are hundreds of ways to approach this, and I think the final decision will have to be rendered by the Supream Court. People with disabilities are not an easy group to set aside anymore.
Now that's just my opinion, and yes I do have one of those other things to go along with it.

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.

 

[Hakunamatata]

as an attorney I have to correct you...

Nah, you dont "have" to.

 

[songbird]

I would suggest that it's more like the law is devolving....
only being half kidding.

What I remember from the law courses I took (electives), the guidance for tort is "what would a reasonable person be expected to do". I just can't say I see that in too much of current litigation.

yes, basic tort principle is the "reasonable man" standard, an objective, not subjective standard.

 

[songbird]

Nah, you dont "have" to.

yeah, i do. I wouldn't want the rest of the board to receive misinformation.

 

[Hakunamatata]

yeah, i do. I wouldn't want the rest of the board to receive misinformation.

Valiant endeavor.

 

[songbird]

whther or not the request to use seqways is "reasonable' and whether the court should grant the request -- that's a matter of opinion.

but the consequences of the resultant court order -- that's a matter of fact, and law.

 

[Piebald]

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.

Vicarious liability?

 

[songbird]

Vicarious liability?

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.

 

[unkadug]

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.

And THAT is what is wrong with our judicial system. Pass the buck.
(IMO)