Civil Suit Against Disney!!!

[julia & nicks mom]

Disney will argue that people ignored warning signs on the ride -

the woman who died recently had high blood pressure but rode anyway -

they can also say that once the second person died - riders quit riding and so they offered the less intensive version so that people with medical conditions had an alternative to ride!

I would not let my kids ride Misison Space - I didn't really enjoy it - and I would hate to find out on a ride at WDW that my child had an undetected medical condition - but I would let them on the new version -

 

[MJMcBride]

In the meantime, I think I read somewhere that if a claim like this is made and the defendant takes steps to reduce the alleged risk in the meantime (like changing the configuration of the ride), that fact isn't admissible in the case. The reasoning is that we don't want companies to not take action that might be in the public interest just because they're afraid to look guilty for the previous condition.

Thats the law where I'm from. This is generally a state to state issue but I believe most states follow "remedial actions" premise.

 

[rainy~daze]

I have to say if my child died, I would want to blame someone, anyone, everyone!!. I cannot imagine this family's devastation. Children are supposed to outlive their parents. But blame will not change the heartbreaking reality. Unfortunately. I think Disney will settle this, and as fast as possible, because it is a child, a very young child and it will not look good for them no matter what they do, so they will try to keep it out pf the public eye. Which isn't fair to Disney because it isn't their fault. And if it goes to trial, any jury as bad as they feel for that family, will not agree Disney is at fault. Not when the argument is Disney shouldn't let a 4 yr old on. Should Disney file countersuit citing this family, for allowing a 4 yr old on the ride, has cost them bad publicity, and a bunch of money to change the ride around? I am playing devil's advocate here, there are 2 sides to every story. My heart breaks more for this family than Disney's pockets. Based on principle they should not win, but they probably will get some money.

 

[MJMcBride]

Which isn't fair to Disney because it isn't their fault.

Again based on what exactly?

 

[Laurajean1014]

I think the suit will settle out of court. Don't know how much the plaintiff is asking, but no-one can put a value on the loss of a child.

 

[Laurajean1014]

What do you base this opinion on exactly? I'm not sure how we can determine whose fault if anyone's it is at this point.

The County and State Examiners concluded that it was not faulty equipment or misleading warnings/advisories. That is why it is being tried as a civil case. There was no evidence to fault Disney in a manslaughter/negligence case.

 

[mickeyfan2]

I heard this as well this morning. I live in PA so it was in our local paper today. What I was interested in was that the article said that "In May, Disney revised the ride to also offer a "lite" version that does not include centrifugal force." I was just there in May and was not aware of this "lite" version. I went on the ride in 2004 and just plain did not like it, I refused to go on this time. I would consider going on this lite version if they still have it on my next visit, has anyone done this yet?

Yes and I loved it. I would never ride the original. DH and I think it still goes in a circle (but slower according to DH) but the spin of the individual pods is not happening.

 

[MJMcBride]

I know they determined it wasn't faulty equipment and that he had a pre-existing condition but that doesn't mean there wasn't negligence.

 

[Schmeck]

I have to say if my child died, I would want to blame someone, anyone, everyone!!. I cannot imagine this family's devastation. Children are supposed to outlive their parents. But blame will not change the heartbreaking reality.

Perhaps the parents cannot handle that they are to blame - it was their decision to put their child on that ride. WDW doesn't force people onto attractions! Blaming WDW will not bring their child back either.

Doesn't M:S have a warning about how intense the ride is? Wouldn't you be a bit concerned if your child was only 4 yrs old?

 

[cleo]

MJMcBride, every investigation proved there was no negligence on Disney's part. I'm afraid more qualified people than you and I have already assessed the situation and proven no 'fault' on Disney's part, as the ride is safe, otherwise it would be 'killing' people left and right. The number of people who ride without incident is much more telling than the number who ride and have a problem. If you have ever dealt with attorneys you will know they are very willing to follow their client's demands for a lawsuit, as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, regardless of the actual outcome if it goes to trial.

I don't see fault on the parent's part, either. They did not know their child had a pre-existing condition, he met height requirements, he was, for all intents and purposes, qualified to ride an attraction that has been proven time and again to be safe for healthy individuals. This was, and is, a horrible situation caused by a then-unknown factor, which is now known.

 

[MJMcBride]

MJMcBride, every investigation proved there was no negligence on Disney's part. I'm afraid more qualified people than you and I have already assessed the situation and proven no 'fault' on Disney's part, as the ride is safe, otherwise it would be 'killing' people left and right. The number of people who ride without incident is much more telling than the number who ride and have a problem. If you have ever dealt with attorneys you will know they are very willing to follow their client's demands for a lawsuit, as they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, regardless of the actual outcome if it goes to trial.

I don't see fault on the parent's part, either. They did not know their child had a pre-existing condition, he met height requirements, he was, for all intents and purposes, qualified to ride an attraction that has been proven time and again to be safe for healthy individuals. This was, and is, a horrible situation caused by a then-unknown factor, which is now known.

Not only have I dealt with attorneys I am an attorney. I have been doing civil defense work for many years. As such I am familiar with negligence. I have spent my career so far trying to negligence didn't occur. My understanding is that goverment officials (who by the way get a lot of money from Disney) found the ride's equipment was not at fault and the warnings were adequate. Despite the fact that doesn't prove it so in a Court of Law, it also does not speak at all to any "design defects" with the ride itself. If the plaintiffs can prove thru expert testimony that the design itself was negligent then they could potentially have a case. I agree that if any claim in based on just "bad warnings" they will probably be out of luck. But without any other knowledge we simply can't make a judgement.

An attorney can have much to lose in a case like this. For one, he may need to pay for any experts he retains which can be quite costly.

As for killing people left and right, that is simply not so. There is something thats taught early in law school. As you may or may not know, in the law, you must establish negligence, proximate cause and damage. A particular negligence may not cause damage. The injury might only occur in a small percentage of people (such as those with undetected heart conditions). But that does not matter. The negligence could be occuring on a daily basis but not harm anyone. Then along comes someone particularly susceptible and gets hurt or killed. Just because it was a long shot does not excuse the negligence.

Having said all this, I don't necessarily believe Disney was negligent or had a design defect. I'm just nothing that has been learned so far disproves it in my eyes.

 

[Sonno]

If Disney settles it is less likely to be splashed all over the news than if they fight. They get this sort of thing every single day of the week (though this one and others like it are much more 'public') and it is often much better for them in terms of business (finances) if they settle than it is to fight, regardless of their not actually being at fault. People know this (attorneys in particular know this) and that's why they sue, even though they know it is not Disney's fault. Somehow the lure of cash makes people think they're due something and their loss doubles the appeal of 'getting something in return'.

I don't think it has anything to do with guilt; I think it has everything to do with grief and a desire to be 'paid back' for a terrible loss.

You know, I read something once that was quite the opposite. I read Disney fights each and every suit brought against them. Unlike other companies like McDonald's who just settle and pick the lesser of the two evils. It serves as a deterent from just what you've outlined above. Maybe things have changed with them. I really don't know.

 

[Uncleromulus]

Well-if I'm on any jury in this case, it'll be VERY VERY VERY tough to convince me that Disney was "negligent".

 

[DancingBear]

MJMcBride, every investigation proved there was no negligence on Disney's part. I'm afraid more qualified people than you and I have already assessed the situation and proven no 'fault' on Disney's part...

As MJM has pointed out, that's simply not true. The government authorities involved are only there to enforce the safety and operation standards of particular statutes. They don't look for example into arguments such as the plaintiff here appears to be asserting, that it was inherently negligent for Disney to create a ride which subjected its occupants to forces the effects of which on park guests are not fully understood.

 

[Chuck S]

As MJM has pointed out, that's simply not true. The government authorities involved are only there to enforce the safety and operation standards of particular statutes. They don't look for example into arguments such as the plaintiff here appears to be asserting, that it was inherently negligent for Disney to create a ride which subjected its occupants to forces the effects of which on park guests are not fully understood.

Except the same thing could be said about ANY ride in ANY amusement/theme park in the world. No one can possibly understand how any ride will affect any particular individual.

 

[rejobako]

Except the same thing could be said about ANY ride in ANY amusement/theme park in the world. No one can possibly understand how any ride will affect any particular individual.

No, but it is possible to collect evidence regarding measurable stresses that a ride will assert on everyone, and there is a point at which those stresses will be deemed to be unreasonable to subject to the general public on an amusement park ride, no matter how many warning labels you post. Understand, Disney invites the public to get on the ride. They use the ride to entice people to the park, they feature it in their advertising campaigns, and when you're standing in front of the entrance it looks like fun. Disney cannot absolve itself of responsibility by simply stating: "well, we warned them."

I understand the plaintiffs' son in this case had an undetected heart problem. Lots of people have undetected heart problems. One of the issues in this case is likely to be: is Mission Space too dangerous for the general public because it asserts forces on the body which unreasonably raises the risk of death due to undiagnosed physical conditions? I agree that the standard of proof here should be a high one -- Disney should not be held responsible simply for not prohibiting a seemingly healthy child to ride. But if the ride itself unreasonably raises the risk of injury or death for some segment of people, then there is an issue here, and I think that's what the plaintiff's are hoping.

I loathe frivolous lawsuits. In this case, however, we simply don't have the information to point the finger at the parents and suggest they or their lawyers are unreasonably targeting Disney.

 

[rejobako]

Well-if I'm on any jury in this case, it'll be VERY VERY VERY tough to convince me that Disney was "negligent".

Then you're not qualified to be a juror in the case. You're supposed to go into the case with no preconceptions, and to assess the evidence presented, not what you want to be true.

 

[jennypenny]

I think everyone here is assuming that MS is as dangerous, not more so, than other rides that carry the same warnings. I assume that also--and that disney has determined this to be the case. But what if MS is, say, twice as dangerous as other rides carrying the same warnings? or more so? We are trusting that disney has determined exactly what the risks are, but maybe they haven't??

I realize the death was from an unknown heart condition, but if MS is more likely than other rides to injure someone with unknown conditions, I think that needs to come out.

After a couple of deaths I think I'd like to see disney forced to show some evidence that MS is no more likely to cause injury than other thrill rides with similar warnings.

Jenny

 

[babieemelly]

Don't jump to conclusions, no one knows for sure what happend.

 

[dbm20th]

Except the same thing could be said about ANY ride in ANY amusement/theme park in the world. No one can possibly understand how any ride will affect any particular individual.

I would call that more than a slight exaggeration, wouldn't you? Do you think that testing the affects of pony ride are the same as testing the affects of M:S?

Isn't there some question as to the testing methods Disney used here? Didn't they tame it down before it even opened?