WDW Guest Argues Tower of Terror Warnings Misled Him....

[captainkidd]

He is either simply a money grubbing pig or he is completely incapable of comprehending basic warnings and looking after himself and perhaps should be put in a home where someone much more capable can be concerned with his welfare since he is obviously unable to.

Bingo.

 

[G00fyDad]

If you watch the footage of the lawyer and judges his argument is that he had no idea that there was any type of acceleration, drop, free fall or any type of "thrill ride" movement at all. He thought the words "drop" and "fall" were euphamisms and that the ride had nothing to do with any unusual motion.

What an idiot. Fine, he walked right past every warning sign available to him and failed to use common sense for thrill rides. But, while walking down the street to the ride did he not notice the doors opening on the ride and people screaming as they plummeted down??

And 23 days later he has a stroke and it's Disney's fault?? Oh, crap, I just stumped my toe. It's Disney's fault for making my equilibrium off after my last trip. I'm suing!

 

[jlevis]

I do not feel he should have to pay court fees. I think he should have to wear a sandwhich board in front of tot that states this is what happens when you try to sue disney for being stupid. Then they should chain him to its a small world for 48 hours. After that in the family guy idea he should have to be in the next tim allen christmas schedule.

So how is Disney being stupid?

 

[TaoBoxer]

Ridiculous. This guy & his attorneys should receive the death penalty for failing to execute personable accountability.

 

[bgraham34]

You just can't fix stupid.

 

[C.FERNIE]

As my wife pointed out... "it is the TOWER OF TERROR", that must give you an idea that the ride is not a walk in the park, and as she said you can hear the screaming as you get closer to it, is that not enough warning for you? lol yet alone the signs! If and i mean IF it did cause a stroke, as my dad pointed out (who is a doctor) said "If he was feeling unwell he should not have gone on, and, I would think, it would of happened at the moment not days after, he is just trying to get money". The idea of getting money out of anything is out of hand across the world! No wave here silly person! :fork:

 

[fosse76]

This guest addressed the CM "as he was boarding the service elevator," which means that the CM was "in character" at the time (having an audience of guests boarding the elevator) and likely to respond to any guest questions or remarks while in character. It would be like asking Princess Belle if she reads books on the Kindle (she'll probably say "what's that?" because her character is generally not acquainted with "modern" times/technology).

Not every guest will understand that. However, there is plenty of warning. If the signs don't grab your attention, the SCREAMING will!!!! And the response from the CM was in fact NOT an answer to his question, and no doubt if he had pressed the CM further, he could have gotten the response he needed. So in this instance, it is a failure on this guest's part to adequately educate himself with all the information provided by Disney.

It's liability reasons like these that Disney tends to go above and beyond the minimum standard of care in warning guests and providing adequate safety measures.

I don't know if I'd go that far, but the information is available to anyone who asks. There is an inherent risk in theme park attractions, but I think Disney's warnings are merely adequate.

 

[I_heart_Tigger]

There is an inherent risk in theme park attractions, but I think Disney's warnings are merely adequate.

The thing I learned from watching the video from the original news story posted is that apparently "adequate" is enough. The judges said over and over that the warnings only had to be understood by a "reasonable person" enetering the ride. Imagine how many "unreasonable" people enter it every day.

 

[Disneydreamer23]

Why are some people so pathetic

 

[Tom Morrow]

This guy is still at it? I hope they give him nothing and should even counter-sue for slander.

 

[G00fyDad]

So how is Disney being stupid?

I think they worded that wrong. They probably meant "this is what happens when you're being stupid and try to sue Disney".

 

[Sanzarelli]

 

[FRC Team 180]

:lol:
This must be from the department of redundancy department.


:ROFLOL:
Yes it is from the department of redundancy department where the department of redundancy is. :lookaroun

:sohappy:

 

[trr1]

Check it out:

http://www.disunplugged.com/2012/04/23/wdw-guest-argues-tower-of-terror-warnings-misled-him/


WDW Guest Argues Tower of Terror Warnings Misled Him
Posted on Monday, 23rd April 2012 by Jack Burgin

Named by Theme Park Insider as the 2008 Top Attraction in the Nation, the Twilight Zone Tower of Terror, perhaps because of the television show for which it is named, has seen its share of unusual lawsuits.When he was 68 years old, Marvin Cohen rode the Tower of Terror and, sadly, had a stroke 23 days later. Believing the Tower or Terror caused the stroke, Cohen hired attorneys who sued Walt Disney World in state court and in a 2010 jury trial, Cohen’s attorneys tried to prove that the Tower of Terror was itself dangerous. The jury, however, decided it wasn’t handing WDW a big win.

Cohen’s lawyers have now asked the Florida Court of Appeals to let them retry the lawsuit against Walt Disney World. Cohen argues that the trial court forced him to prove that the ride was dangerous and wrongly prohibited him from asking the jury decide whether Walt Disney World was negligent in operating or in warning him about the Tower of Tower.

On April 17, 2012, a panel of three appeals court judges met with Cohen’s attorneys and the attorneys for WDW to let the attorneys argue why the appeal should be granted (or denied, as WDW urged). Appeals after a jury verdict have a low success rate. For example, Cohen can’t succeed by arguing the jury made a mistake. He doesn’t try. Instead, he argues the trial judge erred in refusing to let the jury decide whether the warnings about the Tower of Terror were adequate and whether Cohen was misled about the ride by a cast member.

Cohen appeal turns on his testimony that he didn’t understand that the Tower of Terror involved sudden drops. He also testified at trial that he was misled by a cast member about the ride when, as he was boarding the “service elevator”, he asked a cast member about the ride and was told, “we have a very unusual elevator.” Cohen asked what was unusual about it, but the cast member simply replied, “you’ll see.”



At the argument, at least two judges appeared quite skeptical about Cohen’s failure to warn argument, with the presiding judge reading reading Disney’s warning (“The Tower of Terror features high speed drops into the dark mysterious realm of the Twilight Zone”) and asking Cohen’s lawyer why it was not adequate. (A photo of the warning is available at this disboards.com post.) The attorney tried to explain that Cohen thought the warning on the sign was “euphemistic” and unclear but the judges were still skeptical. And when Cohen argued the cast member misled him, the Judges pointed out that the cast member, by saying “you’ll see,” did not mislead Cohen, but rather simply failed to answer his question.

It seemed to me that the weakest point in Cohen’s argument occurred when the judges asked, would it have been misleading if the cast member had simply repeated the warning given at the entrance to the ride. The judges wanted Cohen’s legal position but Cohen’s lawyer gave a factual answer saying that if the cast member had repeated the warning, Cohen would have taken the “chicken” exit. This factual answer failed on two fronts, it ignored the fact that Cohen had not heeded the written warning but worse, it didn’t help the judge understand how a ruling would affect future lawsuits. It also didn’t help that Cohen’s attorney also said the cast member should have repeated the description in the Tower of Tower on the Hollywood Studios’ map which said that guests “drop 13 stories.” This reminded the judges that his client hadn’t bothered to read the map, either.

Cohen, sadly, paid a steep price for not heeding Disney’s warnings (if you believe his stroke was caused by the attraction, something the jury didn’t decide). Of course, many people fail to heed warnings. But at it essence, Cohen’s case is about more than being unprepared for a trip to Walt Disney World. Even with sites like disboards.com, many guests go to WDW for the first time without any advance planning. But I find it hard to understand how a person who is as thrill ride averse as Cohen claimed to be would make no effort to understand even basic ride functions.

But while I’m skeptical, and it seems two of the judges were as well, it would be a mistake to think that this means Disney will win the appeal. I’ll admit to being biased, don’t have a Florida law license and don’t know much if anything about theme park negligence cases (anywhere). The judges did not issue any ruling at the end of the argument and it could be months before they issue a written decision.

If you want to see the video of the oral argument, it is available at this link from the Florida Court of Appeals (you must have Windows Media Player installed to view the video). An audi0 file (13Mb mp3) is available for download at this link.

so if i eat at a fast food restaurant and have a stroke 23 day later i can sue them ? I could see if it happened on the ride but not 23 days later. and what were the other rides that he rode while there? RNR,Space mountain,

 

[Timekeeper]

so if i eat at a fast food restaurant and have a stroke 23 day later i can sue them ? I could see if it happened on the ride but not 23 days later. and what were the other rides that he rode while there? RNR,Space mountain,

Good point as to the other potential variables. For example, maybe there was a cheerleading convention in town... :lookaroun

 

[unkadug]

I think they worded that wrong. They probably meant "this is what happens when you're being stupid and try to sue Disney".

You should really turn on your private messages...there are things we need to discuss. It's all good!:wave:

 

[AEfx]

The current available literature in the medical community suggests that if a person experiences a sudden drop of 1-story (typically about 10 feet) and subsequently suffers a stroke, the stroke may reasonably be attributed to the 1-story drop experienced if the stroke occurs within 48 hours (2 days). This means that if a person experiences a sudden drop from a height of 13-stories, any stroke suffered within 26 days may be reasonably attributed to the 13-story drop, given the 2-day-per-story allowance.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the ToT drop is not actually 13 stories high, and so he was just beyond the time allowance for any medical professional to reasonably attribute his stroke to the (more like 9-story) drop.

:hammer:

Horse-pooh.

Either way.

The amount of days being exponentially tied directly to the height of the drop in that fashion would be like saying that if an item is 25% off, and you buy four, you then get 100% off (25*4) because you bought four of them.

Regardless, while I feel bad for the guy, you have to be pretty stupid to not know what ToT is just by looking. You can see the people going up and down, the screaming - it's called being aware of your surroundings.

 

[John]

Disney has a huge roster of lawyers on retainer. The thought that they just "settle" these cases is incorrect. Disney fights these types of lawsuits with all the resources money can buy. Very very difficult to sue Disney for any frivilous reason. They will fight over the last nickel....why? They dont want to look like an "easy mark" for these kinds of people. Scam artist come from all over the world to try and get "Disney Money".

 

[John]

P.S. As park guest we should be concerned with what portion and how much of our park admission goes to paying lawyers to fight such lawsuits? He should absolutely have to pay not only court cost, but also Disney's lawyer fees. If people were held responsible for these fees you would see a lot less of these types of cases.

 

[Tom Morrow]

^ Good points. It also makes me wonder how many court cases there are that we don't hear about.