Segways spark suit vs. Disney

[ClemsonTigger]

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.

Songbird, thanks for sharing your insight!
I don't necessarily like it (but don't shoot the messenger)
Your comments provide a needed insight into this discussion.

 

[awalkinthepark]

You know the woman who doesn't want her kids see her use a wheelchair is pathetic....my stepson would love to see his mother in a wheelchair today...instead he doesn't get to see her at all..she passed away unexpectedly. The wheelchair is the least of the worries her kids should have regarding her illness.

Perspective please people!

Now if they are somehow successful and manage to get Segways accepted as a mobility device....wouldn't Segways eventually develop the same stigma as a wheelchair? All it takes is time people....back in the 70's we used the word retarded..now we use developmentally challenged....pssssttt.... I know that developmentally challenged means the same as retarded.

No matter if I see you in a wheelchair or on a segway I am going to determine there might be something wrong with you and I am still going to feel sorry for you and hold the door open for you and let you go ahead of me cause I am that kind of person...the person who makes fun of you for being different doesn't care how you label yourself...they are just mean...and not worth your time. For the record I hold doors open for the elderly too...where's that fountain of youth?!?!?

What's is reasonable? For example: A woman can't sit down without pain but she won tickets to Disney but can't afford a Segway...is it reasonable that he husband modify a hand truck/two wheeler with a board and strap his wife on with some bungy cords in order to enjoy the park? I think the 'redneck' version of a Segway is a lot safer than the 5k version.

What this lawsuit boils down to is 'classism' the have and the havenots...the Segway is a very expensive toy that has lots of issues. Dr Suess wrote a book about Sneetches....I think we should all read that for a refresher....because not everyone can have stars upon thars.......

 

[songbird]

Songbird, thanks for sharing your insight!
I don't necessarily like it (but don't shoot the messenger)
Your comments provide a needed insight into this discussion.

I'd liek to add another thought.

if you're vicariously liable for someone else's conduct, you may be entitled to be indemnfied by them.

if it's your own conduct, you won't be indemnified. but if your conduct and their conduct combine to cause the accident, you'd be entitled to contribution from them.

to give a hypothetical:

WDW is compelled to allow the plaintiff to use his Segway. Segway driver is in the park and maybe he's travelling fast. he hits osmeone. WDW didn't do anything to cause or contribute to the accident. WDW gets sued, but can seek indemnity from the Segway driver.

now change the scenario. while Mr. Segway is driving too fast, a cast member is moving strollers outside an attraction, and moves one stroller right into the path of mr. Segway. he hits the stroller. the stroller then hits a woman who was walking nearby, causing her to fall and break her arm. if she sues WDW and claims they failed to maintain a safe premises, WDW could sue Mr. Segway for contribution, and fault would be apportioned between the two tortfeasors.


I've simplified the hypothetical, of course, and there are variations on this depending on which state the accident happened in, but that's a tort law basic.

 

[jmvd20]

These hypotheticals are getting interesting! I still think we left some things out though...

I think she should also sue the manufacturer of the stroller that Mr. Segway hit. It goes without saying that the CM and his/her parents are also responsble for the accident. I am also thinking that the contractor who installed the pavement should be responsible as well because had they installed more effective non-skid measures in the pavement it may have never happened in the first place, or they could have made it softer so she was only left with a bruise instead of a boken arm.

Finally (this one is getting a little bit iffy though) I would also sue the descendents of Sir Isaac Newton, after all if it weren't for that blasted gravity her arm would not have been broken due to the fall. I know there a number of other parties that could be liable but I wanted to keep this realistic...

 

[mkt]

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.

As someone not an attorney who is being advised on how to respond by an attorney sitting behind me (seriously), there is presently no evidence to support your hypothesis that a Segway puts others in danger. The hypothetical danger you presuppose would occur is minimal provided the Segway users at the parks knowledgable with their Segways. This is assuming they provide their own Segways instead of Disney offering them for rental to anyone, regardless of qualification (like they presently do with their Electric Convenience Vehicles).

And as someone who is still not an attorney (and although my ' LSAT results tell me I should go to law school), I think that your argument is flawed in that Disney allows Electric Convenience Vehicle (ECV) usage in its parks. In fact, by offering them for rental, they encourage their usage. An ECV is a device that serves a similar purpose to a segway (mobility assistance for disabled persons and those not fully mobile), yet requires a considerably larger footprint than one.

And not directed at You, Esq. But couldn't the dictionary definition of an Electric Convenience Vehicle also be applied to a Segway as it is:

A- Electric
B- provides Convenience (or in the case of some, a necessity)
C- is a type of Vehicle?

I mean, as long as we're discussing this civilly, let’s address these points. Have a magical day.

 

[shoppingnut]

As someone not an attorney who is being advised on how to respond by an attorney sitting behind me (seriously), there is presently no evidence to support your hypothesis that a Segway puts others in danger.

And as someone who is still not an attorney (and although my ' LSAT results tell me I should go to law school), I think that your argument is flawed in that Disney allows Electric Convenience Vehicle (ECV) usage in its parks. In fact, by offering them for rental, they encourage their usage. An ECV is a device that serves a similar purpose to a segway (mobility assistance for disabled persons and those not fully mobile), yet requires a considerably larger footprint than one.

And not directed at You, Esq. But couldn't the dictionary definition of an Electric Convenience Vehicle also be applied to a Segway as it is:

A- Electric
B- provides Convenience (or in the case of some, a necessity)
C- is a type of Vehicle?

I mean, as long as we're discussing this civilly, let’s address these points. Have a magical day.

You've missed one thing, it's not an approved medical device.

 

[mkt]

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 part of the reason I am an advocate of tort reform.

One should not become a millionaire because they can argue well on behalf of those unfortunate enough to have a bad circumstance befall them.

 

[mkt]

You've missed one thing, it's not an approved medical device.

In the previous thread, I pointed that out.

However, the lawsuit could force the ADA (DoJ and FDA) to classify it as such.

Just because it is not defined as such, does not mean it is not.

 

[Hakunamatata]

And part of the reason I am an advocate of tort reform.

One should not become a millionaire because they can argue well on behalf of those unfortunate enough to have a bad circumstance befall them.

Ok, this is getting a little scary. You and I have agreed on two things in one year....:ROFLOL:

 

[tigsmom]

In the previous thread, I pointed that out.

However, the lawsuit could force the ADA (DoJ and FDA) to classify it as such.

Just because it is not defined as such, does not mean it is not.

Many things like medications, tools & machines are used for other purposes than what they were originally intended for, but that does not make them safe for those new uses.

Honestly, I think we can all discuss this here until we are blue in the face, but its going to come down to the judge that hears the case and what he/she decides. :shrug:

 

[mkt]

Ok, this is getting a little scary. You and I have agreed on two things in one year....:ROFLOL:

You may be conservative texan, I may be liberal american expat...

...but we both support common sense.

 

[Hakunamatata]

You may be conservative texan, I may be liberal american expat...

...but we both support common sense.

True! And we both like the Adventurers Club...

 

[mkt]

Many things like medications, tools & machines are used for other purposes than what they were originally intended for, but that does not make them safe for those new uses.

You are 110% correct with that statement. The basic argument is whether or not these are safe in the parks. Personally I feel they are safe, as this does not deviate from its intended usage.

Honestly, I think we can all discuss this here until we are blue in the face, but its going to come down to the judge that hears the case and what he/she decides. :shrug:

Too blue? Too literal? :lol:

 

[mkt]

True! And we both like the Adventurers Club...

yes!

 

[shoppingnut]

In the previous thread, I pointed that out.

However, the lawsuit could force the ADA (DoJ and FDA) to classify it as such.

Just because it is not defined as such, does not mean it is not.

Yes, it could end up being classified as such, but probably not after many studies are performed regarding their safety. Then there is the long process of agreeing on what speed is safe and the device then requiring to be changed to meet that safety. So what will probably happen if the device is approved, it won't be the same over the counter version you can currently purchase.

 

[shoppingnut]

Too blue? Too literal? :lol:

A lovely shade of blue. :ROFLOL:

 

[mkt]

Yes, it could end up being classified as such, but probably not after many studies are performed regarding their safety. Then there is the long process of agreeing on what speed is safe and the device then requiring to be changed to meet that safety. So what will probably happen if the device is approved, it won't be the same over the counter version you can currently purchase.

Personally, I don't think the changes would be too difficult. Since the segway relies on computers for so much, new software could be all that's needed to control the speed.

 

[shoppingnut]

Personally, I don't think the changes would be too difficult. Since the segway relies on computers for so much, new software could be all that's needed to control the speed.

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.

 

[mkt]

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.

The same way you differentiate a service animal from a pet.

Take the owners word.

Or add some sort of physical distinction, as easy as day-glo reflective stripes at appropriate areas.

 

[songbird]

As someone not an attorney who is being advised on how to respond by an attorney sitting behind me (seriously), there is presently no evidence to support your hypothesis that a Segway puts others in danger. The hypothetical danger you presuppose would occur is minimal provided the Segway users at the parks knowledgable with their Segways. This is assuming they provide their own Segways instead of Disney offering them for rental to anyone, regardless of qualification (like they presently do with their Electric Convenience Vehicles).

And as someone who is still not an attorney (and although my ' LSAT results tell me I should go to law school), I think that your argument is flawed in that Disney allows Electric Convenience Vehicle (ECV) usage in its parks. In fact, by offering them for rental, they encourage their usage. An ECV is a device that serves a similar purpose to a segway (mobility assistance for disabled persons and those not fully mobile), yet requires a considerably larger footprint than one.

And not directed at You, Esq. But couldn't the dictionary definition of an Electric Convenience Vehicle also be applied to a Segway as it is:

A- Electric
B- provides Convenience (or in the case of some, a necessity)
C- is a type of Vehicle?

I mean, as long as we're discussing this civilly, let’s address these points. Have a magical day.

if your LSAT's are tha t good, you should go to law school -- you do make an impressive argument. you should go work for the plaintiff's bar, you've nailed all the arguments justifying plaintiffs' suit. (or did the attorney sitting beside you help you out?)

it's Disney's contention that the devices are dangerous. it's the majority opinion of those on this board, and on other Disney boards I frequent, that disney's contention is correct. our opinion, however, doesn't count -- what counts is evidence and/or the the scientifically-based opinions fo the experts which will be hired by each side.


segways are not medical devices. and I think the plaintiffs have an uphill battle to get a court to recognize a Segway as a medical device for ADA purposes.