Civil Suit Against Disney!!!

[dbm20th]

Disney shouldn't have a ride in which exudes forces that could be a risk to ANY riders.

I'm not sure if I totally agree, but the point is well taken. The company will have to prove that it tested this completely and concluded that it was not a risk. That may be as hard as proving negligence

 

[Chuck S]

I completely agree, Rejobako. I have a lot of lawyers and attorneys in my family, and they all said the same exact thing. Disney shouldn't have a ride in which exudes forces that could be a risk to ANY riders.

Many coasters, especially inversion coasters, have similar G-Forces to MS. Again, almost ANY ride has the potential to exude forces that could pose a risk to ANY rider. Shutting down all rides that pull any G-Force and pose a potential risk to riders would essentially shut down every amusement park attraction, except for theater shows.

 

[dbm20th]

Many coasters, especially inversion coasters, have similar G-Forces to MS. Again, almost ANY ride has the potential to exude forces that could pose a risk to ANY rider. Shutting down all rides that pull any G-Force and pose a potential risk to riders would essentially shut down every amusement park attraction, except for theater shows.

This is a straw man argument at best, especially when you consider the extent to which you've pushed this. Also, it is only partly accurate. Yes, coasters can exude g-forces comparable to M:S, but the detail you leave out is that they don't exude them for anywhere near the amount of time that M:S does. An average coaster is going to pull high g's for a couple of seconds at the most. M:S does it for much, much longer. That's where the problem may be found.

 

[babieemelly]

Yes, but the way in which the G-Forces are exuded on Mission Space is different than on coasters. Also, the risks of rollercoasters are universally known. Mission Space is a very unique ride, in which not many people know anything about it. You need to take extra precautions in order to make sure that the safety of guests is the top priority.

 

[DancingBear]

Many coasters, especially inversion coasters, have similar G-Forces to MS. Again, almost ANY ride has the potential to exude forces that could pose a risk to ANY rider. Shutting down all rides that pull any G-Force and pose a potential risk to riders would essentially shut down every amusement park attraction, except for theater shows.

Nobody ever said shut down all rides that have increased G-forces. Theoretically, however, there may be cause to look into the effects of the levels of G forces, the time over which they are sustained, and how those forces are applied to the riders (for example, the difference between how these forces affect folks in an upright sitting position vs. a recumbent position).

Perhaps none of these things are problematic, or for some reason they are not relevant (for example, it may not be the direct physical affects of the ride which triggered the boy's problems, but the fear/excitement triggers that set off physical problems--or some combination thereof).

 

[MJMcBride]

M:S is a different ride than coasters. We all know that. I think we just have to wait and see what the allegations are gonna be.

 

[babieemelly]

Exactly. I hate how people are jumping to conclusions. Wait and see what happens. The people involved in the case know a lot more about what is going on than we do.

 

[Chuck S]

There are similar SUSTAINED G-forces in the Rotor rides, the rides that spin and hold you against the wall with centrifugal force as the floor drops out. They have been around since the 1940s.

 

[Another Voice]

There are similar SUSTAINED G-forces in the Rotor rides.

The key differences (and they are huge) - the old spinning buckets rides did not attract as wide a range of riders as Disney is doing with 'Mission: Space' (everyone from 4 years old to 61 years olds on up), there has not been the same history of medical calls and injuries with those "carny" rides as had been experienced with 'M:S', and most of those rides had an operator that could/should/would shut down the ride should something seem wrong. (I’d even have to challenge the forces used, I think ‘M:S’ still exceeds what you experience at a carnival).

A significant part of the case that impacts Disney has to do with their response. The boy became unconscious while ‘Mission: Space’ was in operation. There was no way for his mother to signal for the ride to stop (even on 'Dumbo' you can shout to the ride operator); there is no indication that the ride’s operators saw there was a serious problem during the attraction. A lot will hinge on whether the court and jury believes Disney’s safety monitoring was sufficient given the nature of the attraction.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

The key differences (and they are huge) - the old spinning buckets rides did not attract as wide a range of riders as Disney is doing with 'Mission: Space' (everyone from 4 years old to 61 years olds on up),

You can't sue Disney for being Disney and that is exactly what you are contending here. You can't treat Disney differently because they are Disney. If the lawsuit holds them to a "higher" standard because they are Disney, I don't think that will fly. The average person, young or old, tall or small (within reason) can ride a "rotor" type ride. Disney did not disguise the forces at play on M:S and in fact they advertise them pretty heavily in all of the pre-show warnings. There is no mystery about how the simulated effects are generated.

there has not been the same history of medical calls and injuries with those "carny" rides as had been experienced with 'M:S', and most of those rides had an operator that could/should/would shut down the ride should something seem wrong.

I think it's a fairly cheap shot to compare the safety of cheap carny rides to M:S. That's just a low-blow. Maybe the cheap carny rides haven't received the extensive media coverage that M:S has, but I'd be willing to stake money on the fact that more people were injured/killed on carny rides than M:S over the past few years.

(I’d even have to challenge the forces used, I think ‘M:S’ still exceeds what you experience at a carnival).

I can't believe that M:S exceeds the G-forces on "the Rotor" (which is what it used to be called at Cedar Point prior to them removing it). The old one at Cedar Point was just a circular room with rubber walls. You stood in there, back against the wall, no straps, no nothing and it spun you around until you were plastered to the wall; then the floor dropped for a few seconds and came back again. In M:S you are contained in bucket seats and strapped in. There's a lot to keep you in place. On a "rotor" type ride you are out there in the open. The only thing keeping you from falling are the G-forces coupled with the friction factor of the wall. Newtonian mechanics alone will tell you it probably requires more G's than M:S outputs to keep the average person plastered to a wall.

 

[Tink's Tormentor]

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

2 deaths, over 150 complaints of serious illness... countless other complaints about ill effects from the ride not deemed serious at all.. I think those numbers there show M:S is more dangerous than other rides... M:S receives the most complaints of illness over any other ride in Disney World...

Simple: Disney miscalculated this ride... They did not purposely build a death trap... This may be a landmark case... The way amusement parks research and develope their attractions just may change....

Do I like M:S? Nope... The ride is not good in my opinion.... I refuse to ever ride it again....

 

[DancingBear]

You can't sue Disney for being Disney and that is exactly what you are contending here. You can't treat Disney differently because they are Disney. If the lawsuit holds them to a "higher" standard because they are Disney, I don't think that will fly.

I disagree. It's not about Disney being Disney, but about who you are designing the attraction for. Certainly there are design choices that might not be negligent if your only riders were 5' tall and above adults, but might be negligent if you know small children are riding--on a simple level, restraints might not be appropriately designed for smaller folks.

 

[Another Voice]

You can't sue Disney for being Disney and that is exactly what you are contending here.

No, what I’m saying is that you can’t compare a carnival “Rotor” ride to ‘Mission:Space’. Far more people go to WDW than to a church carnival; a far boarder range of people, ages, and wellness go on Disney rides compared than a carnival. Disney has a reputation, and people trust that reputation. It causes them to ride attractions at Disney Parks that they would never consider riding elsewhere. That means more people are “at risk” in Disney parks than elsewhere.

That's just a low-blow. Maybe the cheap carny rides haven't received the extensive media coverage that M:S has, but I'd be willing to stake money on the fact that more people were injured/killed on carny rides than M:S over the past few years.

Perhaps, but I don’t care what carnivals do, I care what Disney does. Killing fewer people than a carny roadshow is not an acceptable standard. Disney needs to ensure the safety of its guests. Period.

The only thing keeping you from falling are the G-forces coupled with the friction factor of the wall.

It only takes 1G to keep you glued to the side of the barrel, just as it takes only 1G to keep you glued to the surface of the Earth. ‘Mission: Space’ used to sustain over 2G for prolonged periods. The effects of what that would do to a large segment of the population (small children, older adults) – a group that seldom was on the spinning barrel – was unknown at the time Disney opened ‘Mission: Space’. All they’ve been able to show after each death and serious injury is that the machines were working as designed.

 

[Chuck S]

The Rotor is not strictly a Carnival ride, there are a few in operation at Theme/Amusement parks including SF Magic Mountain. There is certainly a broad variety of riders at these stationary venues. It may take only 1 G-force to
"stick" you to the wall, but normal earth gravity does not prevent me from easily moving and lifting my legs and arms, as the Rotor rides do...there is more than 1G at work in a Rotor.

 

[Chuck S]

Here's what I found about the Graviton...

It has a max 4Gs, it reaches that force within 20 seconds, recommended ride length is 80 seconds. Which means even if it takes as long to slow down as it does to start, you maintain 4Gs for 40 seconds.

http://www.ride-extravaganza.com/rides/gravitron/


M:S does not maintain that effect for a full 40 seconds, but does use the effect several times throughout the show. nor do I think it reaches 4Gs. However, some people do ride the Graviton repeatedly back to back.

 

[dbm20th]

Here's what I found about the Graviton...

It has a max 4Gs, it reaches that force within 20 seconds, recommended ride length is 80 seconds. Which means even if it takes as long to slow down as it does to start, you maintain 4Gs for 40 seconds.

M:S does not maintain that effect for a full 40 seconds, but does use the effect several times throughout the show. nor do I think it reaches 4Gs. However, some people do ride the Graviton repeatedly back to back.

This seems to be exactly what AV is talking about, but I don't want the point to be lost. The Gravitron is a carnival/boardwalk style ride. My 60 year old mother would never go on such a thing, and my brother would never put his 4 year old on such a thing. But if Disney built it, they would have no reservations at all. I don't know if that changes the legal playing field, but the point is a correct one.

Also, I believe the g's pulled by M:S lasts for close to 40 seconds, though I could be mistaken

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

No, what I’m saying is that you can’t compare a carnival “Rotor” ride to ‘Mission:Space’. Far more people go to WDW than to a church carnival; a far boarder range of people, ages, and wellness go on Disney rides compared than a carnival.

Check out this carnival ride.

AV - as always you have a lot of good points. I just think you're flat out wrong on this one.

 

[Chuck S]

That photo looks like a fairly wide range of riders for the "carnival ride."

 

[raidermatt]

Claiming that we know Disney was not legally negligent in this case is simply a ridiculous point. We can be of the opinion that Disney was not at fault, because that involves subjectivity. But its also irrelevant to everyone but ourselves.

But onto the speculation...

Yes, the audiences for WDW and the local carnivals have some overlap. But they are still not identical. Further, anyone with a borderline constitution can see exactly what the Gravitron is all about, unlike with M:S. That doesn't necessarily make Disney negligent with regard to anything, but you can't dismiss the arguement on the grounds that they are the same ride for the same audience because they are not.

Further, when you look at the impacts ride has, all aspects have to be considered, not just the number of G's it pulls and for how long. The visual stimuli are going to have a tangible physical impact on the rider, and that is another key difference between M:S and a Gravitron. Again, that doesn't prove anybody is at fault, but it does mean the Gravitron can't be used as a reason to exonerate Disney.


Personally, I have no idea how the case will turn out. I can see it going either way. I do think that most likely Disney will settle.

What disturbs me is the way Disney was caught off-guard by the number of cases of nausea and other issues M:S caused. While certainly that does not prove legal negligence on their part with respect to the boy's death, I don't see how one cannot at least have questions about their testing with regard to this attraction.

This hasn't been mentioned lately, but the idea that it was proven that the boy was just as likely to die anywhere else as on M:S is simply not true. The boy had an undiagnosed heart condition, one that is largely asymptomatic. Meaning you may have taken your child for regular checkups to the top pediatricians in this country and still not know he has it. Unfortunately, the first indication that someone has this condition is often cardiac arrest. The arrest can be brought on by stress.

So yes, it is possible this boy would have died the next time he tried to run, or rode Big Thunder. However, it is possible that the stress induced by the physical and visual aspects of M:S was the only stress he was going to experience that was great enough to induce the arrest. Many children with the condition never go into cardiac arrest, and the risk is greatly reduced by the time they become adults.

Now, again, even if itwas the case that M:S was the only thing that was going to cause the boy to go into cardiac arrest, it wouldn't prove negligence on Disney's part. But at the same time, the coroner's report and the government inspection do not prove the death was coincidental either.

It all means that any definitive conclusions drawn at this point are based on incomplete information. There are reasons to believe that either side could prevail.

 

[Another Voice]

I just think you're flat out wrong on this one.

You pull out a picture from a time when cars didn't have seat belts, when smoking was considered a heathly way of losing weight, when lard was part of a good diet, and the color of your skin indicated your intelligence - and that proves 'Mission: Space' is safe?

Good god.

Drop the silliness. Take a real look at the demographics of guests at carnival and thrill parks - then compare them against Disney's numbers. Then take a look at the absolute number of guests going through each park. It's simple math and simple statistics - Disney places more guests "at risk" than carny rides do.

P.S. - I don't see a four year old in the picture. Nor do I see a sixty year old. Nor do I see people undergoing 2+ Gs. Nor do I see an enclosed cabin. Nor do I see that the guests are unable to signal someone to stop the ride. In fact, the mere fact the picture even exists shows that it would have easier to spot an unconcisous child in this attraction than on 'Mission: Space' - so you've actually PROVEN this barrel ride is a safer ride than Disney's latest.

Thank you.