Civil Suit Against Disney!!!

[DancingBear]

The only people who will win are some lawyers, who, win or lose, will walk away with a fatter wallet than before.

Perhaps that's true of Disney's lawyers. The plaintiff's lawyer is likely working on contingency.

 

[DancingBear]

It's simple newtonian mechanics. This guy may be a bright lawyer, but he obviously never took a physics class.

Of course, the issue is whether they knew the effects of those forces on human beings, not whether they could calculate them.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Perhaps that's true of Disney's lawyers. The plaintiff's lawyer is likely working on contingency.

Very likely, but why risk taking the case on then? A moral obligation on the part of the lawyer? No way. Try greed and dollar signs.

I'm sorry - but tragedies happen all the time. And this is a tragedy for this family. It seems that whenever deep pockets are involved a lawsuit incurs. If this kid passed out and died at the church carney on a rotor operated by a toothless joe and the findings from the investigation were the same, I highly doubt a lawsuit would be filed. The most money anyone could expect out of that scenario comes from the insurance policies the church and carney hold. In this case it's Disney. A Billion dollar company. That's enough bait for anyone.....

Of course, the issue is whether they knew the effects of those forces on human beings, not whether they could calculate them.

We went over this adnauseum earlier with the gravitron and rotor. Plenty of history there to show how the forces affect humans. The ride is safe for healthy people. The question is to what extent is Disney's obligation to determine the health of the riders? I say none. They are obligated to warn riders about this ride and what it does. They do that faithfully. If people don't pay attention or understand - is that Disney's fault? Maybe we should only let english speaking people with good skills at paying attention and a high enough IQ to process the data into Disney....

 

[DancingBear]

Very likely, but why risk taking the case on then? A moral obligation on the part of the lawyer? No way. Try greed and dollar signs.

The point was you said win or lose the lawyers will get rich. I'm just pointing out that a plaintiff's attorney working on contingency won't make any money (and in fact may lose money fronting expenses for the suit) if they lose.

I'm sorry - but tragedies happen all the time. And this is a tragedy for this family. It seems that whenever deep pockets are involved a lawsuit incurs. If this kid passed out and died at the church carney on a rotor operated by a toothless joe and the findings from the investigation were the same, I highly doubt a lawsuit would be filed. The most money anyone could expect out of that scenario comes from the insurance policies the church and carney hold. In this case it's Disney. A Billion dollar company. That's enough bait for anyone.....

First, an insurance claim is plenty of incentive on its own. Second, while it's true that somebody with no assets who is negligent won't get sued, what does that prove? Third, not only do tragedies happen all the time, but so does negligence by deep pocket corporations.

We went over this adnauseum earlier with the gravitron and rotor. Plenty of history there to show how the forces affect humans.

I'm sorry, I must have missed all of that medical research that was cited. I only heard anecdotal stuff saying M:S must not be any different than the Gravitron.

They are obligated to warn riders about this ride and what it does. They do that faithfully. If people don't pay attention or understand - is that Disney's fault? Maybe we should only let english speaking people with good skills at paying attention and a high enough IQ to process the data into Disney....

Once you acknowledge that Disney has an obligation to warn, then you have to look at the effectiveness of the warnings. Certainly if they only had index-card signs with fine-print warnings, that wouldn't be sufficient, right?

 

[Tink's Tormentor]

You don't need to be an expert to understand Newtonian mechanics. Any high school senior doing well in physics can understand F=MA, and angular velocity, the force of gravity, what forces are associated with spinning rides, etc. Even my simple mind understands it and I only have a Masters Degree in Engineering from Michigan....

I never had to take physics in HS.. SO what is your point??? I mean seriously, someone whostudied physics would understand, but not s0omeone who didn't have to study physics... And let us not forget, he is a LAWYER. I studied law in college and physics was not a mandatory part of my course study... Let's see if he has an expect which I am sure he does....

Influence them to do what? Warnings are meant to warn, not to influence people.

Warnings are meant to warn people of potential hazzards and influence them to think about riding and being safe....

What conclusions have I drawn about this family? None. Only that this poor family has suffered enough and my opinion is that some lawyer or outside influence talked them into this under the guise of "making sure the rest of the Daudi's out there are safe from the big 'ole, evil Disney corporation that sacrifices its guests for the almighty buck". ...And all the while that ambulance chasing lawyer will be making deposits in the bank every week, 2 weeks or month (or however the lawyers standard agreement reads).

So, it is a bad thing to make sure no one else loses a 4 year old son?

Everyone out there wants to crucify Disney for building M:S.... Claiming they have no idea of what they built. I contend that it is what it is - both the ride and this horrible situation. I will continue to disagree with most on this thread. I enjoy this place, so if I offend anyone, I do apologize. I have my opinions and you have yours.

I am not crucifig Disney for building such a wreck of an attraction... I am crucifing those insensitve members out there who bash this poor family... I enjoy Disney World too. I just refuse to ride that waste of 100 million bucks...

 

[DC7800]

The question is to what extent is Disney's obligation to determine the health of the riders? I say none. They are obligated to warn riders about this ride and what it does. They do that faithfully. If people don't pay attention or understand - is that Disney's fault?

You cannot depend on warning signs to keep people out of trouble - they can be too easily ignored or the importance misunderstood. Sometimes adults, even with known (minor) health problems, will get on a ride "for their children" when they otherwise shouldn't. Even rides as tame as Kilimanjaro Safaris and Spaceship Earth have some type of warning now, for little apparent reason (ride may be jarring and vehicle rotates, respectively). So, if the "warning" on such a tame attraction turns out to be nothing, can't a guest then reasonably assume the Mission Space warning is all hype and can also be disregarded?

While you certainly need to warn someone with a heart condition before boarding Space Mountain, for instance, probably most people - even with such a (presumably minor) condition - who are healthy enough to walk around the parks all day would not usually be harmed by a trip on the coaster. That certainly does not mean they should ride, because it would be dangerous to some of these individuals - hence the warning - just that most people likely would be fine even if they (foolishly) ignored the warnings. No doubt this happens everyday.

But something different appears to be happening on Mission Space. People in good health - without any condition which should exclude their participation - are sometimes getting sick. Obviously, the warning signs for this attraction must be taken seriously - but are they? Since this is a Disney attraction, it can't be that extreme, right? They have to have those "legal" warnings and all, but since its in Epcot its really safe for everyone from toddlers to great-grandmothers - right?

Not in this case. Which brings up a very important question: Even if the attraction were found safe for persons in better than average health, out of consideration to the numbers of children and seniors (and us chickens who also won't ride the thing) which tour the WDW parks daily, should you really feature an attraction which is potentially harmful - and therefore off limits - to such a large segment of your guests?

 

[MJMcBride]

The issue in the suit will be that Disney did or should have seen the child in distress, but was unable to stop the ride even though it would have been reasonable to provide a way for that to happen. Stopping a speeding roller coaster train is one thing, having the ability to stop a simple spinning ride is another.


That made my week.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here (that feels much better ). Unless you've seen the Complaint, I feel the issue could just as likely be "design defect" like I said before. Or both. Or something we haven't thought of. But not necessarily negligent monitoring.

 

[MJMcBride]

The point was you said win or lose the lawyers will get rich. I'm just pointing out that a plaintiff's attorney working on contingency won't make any money (and in fact may lose money fronting expenses for the suit) if they lose.

As was previously pointed out, this is very true. Plaintiff's lawyers (which I am not by the way) often have to front expenses (experts can be very expensive) particularly when their clients don't have money. They almost always only get a "fee" upon reaching a settlement or obtaining a verdict.

 

[pugdog]

But in the quote you offer, it is plainly stated that their issue is with the medical response from Disney's team. You don't sue the paramedics personally. That's madness.

Working in healthcare I know that for a fact most people sue the orginazation and the people that were involved. I have been named in 2 cases personally along with the hospital in cases. Both had no merit and were dropped but everyone does get dragged in. Madness or not that is what happens.

 

[disneyGates]

We were there in May and we road both versions. The more intense seemed even more than before the ride had an option. The less intense was still intense and you can definately feel the force. A nice medium between the two would be great.

 

[MJMcBride]

Working in healthcare I know that for a fact most people sue the orginazation and the people that were involved. I have been named in 2 cases personally along with the hospital in cases. Both had no merit and were dropped but everyone does get dragged in. Madness or not that is what happens.

This is unfortunately true to a certain degree.

 

[Tink's Tormentor]

You cannot depend on warning signs to keep people out of trouble - they can be too easily ignored or the importance misunderstood. Sometimes adults, even with known (minor) health problems, will get on a ride "for their children" when they otherwise shouldn't. Even rides as tame as Kilimanjaro Safaris and Spaceship Earth have some type of warning now, for little apparent reason (ride may be jarring and vehicle rotates, respectively). So, if the "warning" on such a tame attraction turns out to be nothing, can't a guest then reasonably assume the Mission Space warning is all hype and can also be disregarded?

While you certainly need to warn someone with a heart condition before boarding Space Mountain, for instance, probably most people - even with such a (presumably minor) condition - who are healthy enough to walk around the parks all day would not usually be harmed by a trip on the coaster. That certainly does not mean they should ride, because it would be dangerous to some of these individuals - hence the warning - just that most people likely would be fine even if they (foolishly) ignored the warnings. No doubt this happens everyday.

But something different appears to be happening on Mission Space. People in good health - without any condition which should exclude their participation - are sometimes getting sick. Obviously, the warning signs for this attraction must be taken seriously - but are they? Since this is a Disney attraction, it can't be that extreme, right? They have to have those "legal" warnings and all, but since its in Epcot its really safe for everyone from toddlers to great-grandmothers - right?

Not in this case. Which brings up a very important question: Even if the attraction were found safe for persons in better than average health, out of consideration to the numbers of children and seniors (and us chickens who also won't ride the thing) which tour the WDW parks daily, should you really feature an attraction which is potentially harmful - and therefore off limits - to such a large segment of your guests?

Your post was awesome... I hate MS... I will never ride it again, like i won't ride Dumbo... Just not my cup of tea (no pun intedned).... But not every ride is for everybody..

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

I am not crucifig Disney for building such a wreck of an attraction... I am crucifing those insensitve members out there who bash this poor family...

I have not seen a whole lot of people out there crucifying this family. Maybe it's just my perspective on things, as I feel there has not been any badmouthing of this family in this thread nor do I feel like I have bashed this family. I just feel this is an unfortunate accident. I sympathize with them, but I don't feel a lawsuit will help anyone out there in this particular instance.

Fact: 2 people have died riding M:S
Fact: Both people had medical conditions/ailments wherein Disney warn against riding M:S
Fact: People get sick riding M:S at a much greater pace than other Disney attractions
Fact: No healthy person has died on M:S

Which brings up a very important question: Even if the attraction were found safe for persons in better than average health, out of consideration to the numbers of children and seniors (and us chickens who also won't ride the thing) which tour the WDW parks daily, should you really feature an attraction which is potentially harmful - and therefore off limits - to such a large segment of your guests?

Apparently Disney has made that decision. They choose to showcase this attraction. Disney feels it is safe and feels they have done what is necessary to keep the public out of harms way.

Maybe the courts will say otherwise. But that's how anything is solved or rectified in this litigious day and age we live in - by some judges and lawyers who feel they know better than the rest of us common folk out there.

I enjoy Disney World too. I just refuse to ride that waste of 100 million bucks...

As do many others. It's not my favorite by any stretch of the imagination. I'd hardly put it in my top 30 WDW attractions. I would've loved to see a top-flight E-ticket dark ride there in the spirit of Horizons put there instead. But it's there, it is what it is and Disney has to sleep in the bed it made with this attraction.

 

[MJMcBride]

Maybe the courts will say otherwise. But that's how anything is solved or rectified in this litigious day and age we live in - by some judges and lawyers who feel they know better than the rest of us common folk out there.

Of course, its the jury not the judges and lawyers who ultimately decide the case.

 

[Tink's Tormentor]

As do many others. It's not my favorite by any stretch of the imagination. I'd hardly put it in my top 30 WDW attractions. I would've loved to see a top-flight E-ticket dark ride there in the spirit of Horizons put there instead. But it's there, it is what it is and Disney has to sleep in the bed it made with this attraction.

Bring in a dark ride on the history of space exploration, NASA, and end it with a trip to the moon....

 

[Uncleromulus]

Mjmcbride:
True that juries do decide cases.
And often fall prey to the "Razzle-Dazzle". And after getting "Stunned and Staggered" and watching a three-ring circus!!
Whomever wrote the lyrics for "Chicago" sure knew how things work--

Be interesting to see (if this ever makes it to court) how it all plays out.

 

[DancingBear]

Maybe the courts will say otherwise. But that's how anything is solved or rectified in this litigious day and age we live in - by some judges and lawyers who feel they know better than the rest of us common folk out there.

Yeah, it's terrible that these sorts of issues are considered in courts by juries presented with evidence, rather than by the common sense of us folks on the internets. Things were much better when the big corporations were just allowed to take care of us.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Of course, its the jury not the judges and lawyers who ultimately decide the case.

Of course... And that's why O.J. is free....

Nice thought MJ, but we don't live in that altruistic of a society do we... I know you're smart and not naive. You're a lawyer. You've seen jury pools. A trial by peers (but only if they're manipulatable by the lawers). You know what I meant by that statement.

 

[DancingBear]

O.J. was also found responsible in civil court. You just took an easy and cheap shot at lawyers and judges. What system would you prefer?

 

[noblemickey]

It is tragic that someone has died on a particular attraction. Any death, especially one of your loved ones is very hard to take. Unregulated or not, Disney has an excellent record in Florida. Take into consideration the number of guests who go to WDW annually and it puts tragedys like these in perspective. Life is full of risks in almost anything we do. The question is would you want to have the opportunity to enjoy a WDW or would you rather not have the opportunity because of your own assessment of the risk or that WDW closes because of the many law suits which are filed annually. We live in a very liticious society, where the courts are filled with suits which a number of years ago didn't get to court because people talked out there problems and reached an agreement between themselves not through the courts. The U.S.A has approximately 2/3 the attorney's in the world with something like 5% of the world's population. What does that tell you? Disney has lawyer's on staff to handle the enevitable law suits which are filed against it. I'm not saying that the loss of a life is likely to be settled out of court but there are many, many suits which should not have been brought if people were not saying to themselves, hey this is Disney, deep pockets, lets go after them. In a perfect world no one would be injured or killed on an attraction but Disney can't stop someone from doing something stupid which causes them to get hurt. Disney goes out of its way to post signs so that people who have certain ailments will reconsider riding an attraction. However, if someone goes on anyway or doesn't know of their medical problem then how is Disney or anyone else supposed to do anything to help prevent it? Common sense and logic went out the window years ago and now no one is responsible for their own actions! It must be Disney or some other person or company that has deep pockets that a lawyer will advise his/her client and salivate over to sue to correct the alleged wrong that Disney, etc. must have commited when the tragedy occurred. We should all pray for the person who has died and remember there are no guarantees in life!