Suit: Disney's Tower of Terror gave British teen heart attack, stroke

Glasgow

Glasgow

Well-Known Member
sublimesting said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well, in this case, the ride is not 100% safe to everyone. Yes, there are warnings and what not but the last thing you are expecting when you go on some expensive vacation is to be injured, whether you know your pre-existing conditions or not.

To me, whether Disney is liable or not is not the main issue. This why they would settle. By settling out of court they avoid a legal precedent and also get some good PR in the process. Let me put it this way .. If I owned a lemonade stand outside my house and someone choked on a piece of ice and got hurt because of that, even though it's not really my fault, I'd probably give them a free cup of lemonade.

What you are saying above has complete merit and I agree with you, especially in your business. However, Disney is in the people business and the happier you keep your guests and the more positive PR you get, the better.
 
GrannyJill2

GrannyJill2

New Member
Strokes can be brought on by anything or nothing at all. My dad dropped dead of a stroke while he was brushing his teeth. The same thing goes for heart stoppages and brain hemorrhaging. You never know when something like this is going to happen. I am very sorry for the family's misfortune, but they took the risk by getting on the ride. Disney is not at fault, IMHO.
 
goodtimes5286

goodtimes5286

New Member
Glasgow said:
Well, in this case, the ride is not 100% safe to everyone. Yes, there are warnings and what not but the last thing you are expecting when you go on some expensive vacation is to be injured, whether you know your pre-existing conditions or not.

To me, whether Disney is liable or not is not the main issue. This why they would settle. By settling out of court they avoid a legal precedent and also get some good PR in the process. Let me put it this way .. If I owned a lemonade stand outside my house and someone choked on a piece of ice and got hurt because of that, even though it's not really my fault, I'd probably give them a free cup of lemonade.

What you are saying above has complete merit and I agree with you, especially in your business. However, Disney is in the people business and the happier you keep your guests and the more positive PR you get, the better.
Click to expand...

The problem with Disney giving someone 15K (or atleast 15K), is it opens up a can of worms! If one person can do it, then EVERY greedy person (I'm not saying whether or not this person is greedy) is going to go after Disney. They need to fight this and they deserve to win. How much planning goes into these rides? How much testing? They even referbed the ride to make it safer! (which I HATE, I <3 the bar) How many people have ridden this ride before this lady and how many other people have had problems? It's obviously a PERSONAL problem and thus she should bear PERSONAL responsibility, Disney can't be held liable for every mo that walks in with a condition (whether they know it or not). You can get hurt ANYWHERE with a pre-existing condition, b/c they conviently felt the effects of whatever they had at Disney they want a hand out. Take care of your bussiness, don't always point the finger at someone else wgeb you have a problem, bottomline.

....just my two pennies....
 
E

Enigma

Account Suspended
Maybe they will replace Tower of Terror with a nice family attraction based on the Disney-Pixar production UP!. They would sell far more merchandise that way.
 
Glasgow

Glasgow

Well-Known Member
goodtimes5286 said:
The problem with Disney giving someone 15K (or atleast 15K), is it opens up a can of worms! If one person can do it, then EVERY greedy person (I'm not saying whether or not this person is greedy) is going to go after Disney. They need to fight this and they deserve to win. How much planning goes into these rides? How much testing? They even referbed the ride to make it safer! (which I HATE, I <3 the bar) How many people have ridden this ride before this lady and how many other people have had problems? It's obviously a PERSONAL problem and thus she should bear PERSONAL responsibility, Disney can't be held liable for every mo that walks in with a condition (whether they know it or not). You can get hurt ANYWHERE with a pre-existing condition, b/c they conviently felt the effects of whatever they had at Disney they want a hand out. Take care of your bussiness, don't always point the finger at someone else wgeb you have a problem, bottomline.

....just my two pennies....
Click to expand...


I understand your position -- don't misunderstand me. I don't think Disney is liable in any way. I think they'll settle though as an act of good will, lets call it. It's not like people are dying or getting hurt left and right on Disney attractions. But for the people that do get hurt, it shows Disney 'cares' about it's guests. By keeping the settlement out of court they avoid the legal precedent so they are not obligated to pay out everytime .. it's at their discretion.

Again, I only think paying the family is in their best interest from a PR standpoint, not as a legal obligation. :wave:
 
burninup4nick

burninup4nick

New Member
wow is she really accusing them of not posting safety info???

Tower of Terror has tons of signs talking about risks.

And if it happened in 2005 why are they suing now?
 
Gucci65

Gucci65

Well-Known Member
burninup4nick said:
wow is she really accusing them of not posting safety info???

Tower of Terror has tons of signs talking about risks.

And if it happened in 2005 why are they suing now?
Click to expand...

Maybe suing now because the Florida hospital the daughter was treated at is suing the patient for unpaid medical bills......... and yes, it could drag out for 4 years (I work with health insurance)
 
WDWFigment

WDWFigment

Well-Known Member
sknydave said:
They say in excess of $15k because it is the minimum amount for a case like this. Whether they were suing for 15,001 or 150 million, it would say "in excess of 15k."
Click to expand...

sknydave said:
How exactly are "at least $15,000" and "in excess of $15,000" so different?
Click to expand...

The reason they're different is because any good lawyer (or at least one seeking to avoid a potential malpractice suit) will insert boilerplate language in their prayer for relief at the end of the court document that says (something like): "...and for all other relief the Court deems just and proper." Here, they are likely seeking $15k, and all other just and proper relief. It really doesn't mean anything, it's just smart lawyering so your client doesn't later sue you, saying "why'd we only go for $15k, we could've gotten $20k or $20m!" It's a slam dunk for the lawyer, because technically, you didn't only ask for $15k, you asked for what the court felt just and proper, which could be $1 or $20,000,000.

goodtimes5286 said:
The problem with Disney giving someone 15K (or atleast 15K), is it opens up a can of worms! If one person can do it, then EVERY greedy person (I'm not saying whether or not this person is greedy) is going to go after Disney.
Click to expand...

This is why companies will often spend exponentially more on the suit than it would cost them to settle (the Catholic church once spent millions on a case involving a St. Bernard that it could have settled for $175-250). In other situations, companies will settle clearly frivolous claims (usually with do not disclose/confidentiality agreements) because it's more cost effective. It's all strategy. Every once in a while, you have to show you have some teeth, and litigate.
 
Kobe!!

Kobe!!

Well-Known Member
I know a guy who had a Palm Tree fall on him about a year ago at Epcot...

He has yet to take any legal action as well...

IMO, how does a palm tree fall and you not see it, or hear it, or just anything? :ROFLOL::shrug:
 
TwoTigersMom

TwoTigersMom

Well-Known Member
Ilovewishes said:
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?:eek:
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this law is nation wide or just a state law, but here in Alabama, a parent can not sign away a child's right to sue. A parent signing any permission form or waiver waives their right to sue but not the child's. So maybe, they signed something with Disney when this first happened and now that the child is an adult, she's decided to sue on her own :shrug:

Pumbas Nakasak said:
I nearly had a stroke on ToT once, but she slapped my face
Click to expand...

You are soooo bad! I love it! :lol:
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom