disnyfan89
Well-Known Member
Not that I want to open a can of worms but, if you were ridding in my car and suddenly had a heart attack, would I bear some sense of responsibility? Even if I was driving with in normal conditions?
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Suit: Disney's Tower of Terror gave British teen heart attack, stroke
- Thread starter donsullivan
- Start date
tractorm3
Active Member
I feel horribly for the family, but Disney is not to blame. I do feel like Disney is more open to attack from people since they carry such a large empire with that name. I am sure we can pick out hundreds of ridiculous times when people sue Disney for money because they see an oppertunity to exploit them. We should leave it up to the courts to decide and not pass judgement on the family.
If the aftermath prooves that this girl had some condition or previous thing that was aggravated by ToT then shame on her.
But we do have to wait for the aftermath until we start talking stuff.
Also we can also look at the possibility that through no fault of Disney this girl just had a bad episode. Some physical limit was met that her body could not handle for example We had a very decent track star back in high school and he was a very healthy male by any means but one day when he crossed the finish line his heart stopped and he passed just like that. His heart just stopped getting the signal to beat.
If the aftermath prooves that this girl had some condition or previous thing that was aggravated by ToT then shame on her.
But we do have to wait for the aftermath until we start talking stuff.
Also we can also look at the possibility that through no fault of Disney this girl just had a bad episode. Some physical limit was met that her body could not handle for example We had a very decent track star back in high school and he was a very healthy male by any means but one day when he crossed the finish line his heart stopped and he passed just like that. His heart just stopped getting the signal to beat.
disnyfan89
Well-Known Member
My main question is this: If the incident happened in 2005, why is the family sueing now? Why not then? What has changed from then to now?
MissM
Well-Known Member
"at least $15,000" means it could be a minimum of $15k or it could be more whereas "in excess of $15,000" means it HAS to be more than $15k. Slight difference perhaps, but a difference nevertheless.
flashinghelmet
Member
From the British media reporting, she is only after $15,000.
That is quite the norm here. We don't have the ridiculous ''there's a fly in my burger, i want $10,000,000' culture that you guys have.
And just for reference, she isn't a potato. I believe the damage is only minor.
That is quite the norm here. We don't have the ridiculous ''there's a fly in my burger, i want $10,000,000' culture that you guys have.
And just for reference, she isn't a potato. I believe the damage is only minor.
PhotoDave219
Well-Known Member
Last i had heard back in 2005 when the accident happened was that she was flown back to the UK to a hospital there after a lengthy stay in a hospital in central florida.
Glad to hear that she's not all "Terry Shivo"-ed but the medical reports i remember were that she was in some sort of vegetative state.
Glad to hear that she's not all "Terry Shivo"-ed but the medical reports i remember were that she was in some sort of vegetative state.
Ilovewishes
Member
For personal injury claims, you have three years in which to make a claim before it is barred. It could be that they have been in negotiations since 2005 but as the limitatin date is approaching, they have had to issue it at Court to "protect their interests". They could be close to settle, they could be a long way away. But that is probably why it has only just been issued now. Most PI solicitors (in the UK anyway) will leave litigation as a last resort and as a bargaining tool if there is a chance of settling.
Can you tell I used to work for a PI solicitor?
jakeman
Well-Known Member
I'm curious about this part. Does this mean that her complaint is under the assumption that ToT is a regular elevator?
I don't mean to be sarcastic, I'm just unfamiliar with this term.
palmage
Member
Maybe she was Oriental and didn't understand....:ROFLOL::ROFLOL:
sknydave
Active Member
lol.. ok
PhilharMagician
Well-Known Member
This woman is sueing because TOT is unsafe and causes medical issues. All while Disney is fighting another lawsuit from a woman that wants to stay on the TOT all day because it helps her with a medical condition. :brick:
:brick:
DisneyMusician2
Well-Known Member
If they are really only seeking $15K, Disney will probably settle it. They will probably pay more in lawyer fees than it would to simply to settle it out of court.
That being said, I don't see how Disney didn't inform them of the risks. That appears to be what the assertion of the suit is.
That being said, I don't see how Disney didn't inform them of the risks. That appears to be what the assertion of the suit is.
durangojim
Well-Known Member
Another case of a child with an undiagnosed condition with greedy parents looking for a quick buck. Sad for the child but not feeling much pity for the parents.
Glasgow
Well-Known Member
Not saying the suit is right or wrong, but lets look at the situation. You have to provide for your family and lets say you are low on money due to unforeseen medical expenses. What do you do? Being the provider, you try and recoup the medical costs by suing disney, thus providing a better life for your family in the process.
I'm not saying Disney is at fault, but it is probably in their best interest to settle as this incident did occur on property. It's good PR for the company. All I'm saying is look at both sides of the story. If it's just someone going after money, then that is sad. But at some point, you do what you have to do.
I'm not saying Disney is at fault, but it is probably in their best interest to settle as this incident did occur on property. It's good PR for the company. All I'm saying is look at both sides of the story. If it's just someone going after money, then that is sad. But at some point, you do what you have to do.
DisneyFreak1228
New Member
I was a coordinator at Fantasmic the day this happened. The girl had ridden several times that morning. She'd practically opened the ride that day. If I remember correctly, I believe the ride count I was told was 16 in that one morning. So how it is Tower's multiple warning signs and "proper restraints" disappeared between rides 15 and 16? She had an underlying condition, plain and simple.
And furthermore, why are they suing nearly 4 years later? I mean, if I truly believed a ride caused something like this to happen to my daughter...not the fact that there was some pre-existing condition...I'd file a lawsuit a lot sooner than almost 4 years later. Something's not right here. That's just IMHO, anyway.
And furthermore, why are they suing nearly 4 years later? I mean, if I truly believed a ride caused something like this to happen to my daughter...not the fact that there was some pre-existing condition...I'd file a lawsuit a lot sooner than almost 4 years later. Something's not right here. That's just IMHO, anyway.
Pumbas Nakasak
Heading for the great escape.
I nearly had a stroke on ToT once, but she slapped my face
jakeman
Well-Known Member
I would somewhat agree. If the amount is reasonable (covers reasonable cost associated with the incident, I would think it would be good PR for the company to just take care of it.
On the other hand, paying out could be seen as indirectly admitting guilt on Disney's behalf.
This is another case of us not knowing enough of the details to make a judgement.
On the surface, there doesn't seem to be much merit in the lawsuit.
That's absolutely uncalled for. You don't know what the motivations are. The fact that they are suing merely for $15,000 shows they are not being greedy (if they were, it would be $15 million). The language "at least" indicates, for me, that that is the statutory minimum to file in that court, and leaves it open for the court to award more if it feels compelled to do so (if it said purely suing for damages of $15,000 then that is all they can collect...even if punitive damages were warranted).
The issue of liability, even with warnings, is whether or not Disney (or any theme park operator) can be responsible for injuries by the normal operation of the ride. I'm not aware of any state or laws that so indicate, since these rides are designed to be intense. Unlike skydiving, where there is a high risk of injury or death merely by the nature of the activity, riding a rollercoaster that operates normally should not cause any injuries. I'm assuming they are claiming Disney operated the attraction as a common carrier to add the liabilty...since a normal elevator wouldn't cause harm in its normal operation. I really can't see how their claim will stand, since the Tower of Terror is NOT an actual elevator.
And the filing of the suit can be any number of reasons...if filed before the statute of limitations the family can continue to negotiate with Disney...something they would lose once the statute of limitations is reached. The small amount they could be suing can indicate that they are buying time.
Gucci65
Well-Known Member
I was thinking the same thing.................that this not enough money for someone who is looking to get rich quick.
That amount is so small, if she was whisked away to a hospital in Florida, 15k would just about cover the ambulance ride, the ER service, CT Scan and blookwork and maybe one hour in ICU.
sublimesting
Well-Known Member
How does Disney bear any responsibility? Why does SOMEONE ALWAYS have to bear responsibility besides the person an incident happened to. That's like saying if you fall off my roof while robbing my home I bear responsibility (which people have done and won). Disney is an amuesement park. They have a ride that drops you. Even if it's your first ride, it's still your fault. You're going to be dropped, get on at your own risk. I'd really like to see the medical report that would note that ride as a cause.
The entire suit is ridiculous. For one they give AMPLE warning. For another the person rode the ride alot and knew what to expect. It operates perfectly as millions have ridden it and suffered NO effect. I work in QA and this is the stuff that drives me berserk. Something is validated and works 100 million times. Then there is an anomoly and someone has to be to blame, the process has to be overhauled. That ride is 100% safe.