Civil Suit Against Disney!!!

[Tink's Tormentor]

The only guarantees in life are taxes and death.. other than that, you are right.. nothing is guaranteed and tomorrow isn't promised...

With that said, I think these amusement parks should be held to some sort of liability if people CONSTANTLY get sick on their rides.. People who ARE in good health.. Which happens to be the case here in M:S... True, the two people who have passed away had pre-existing health conditions.. But what about the other people who are healthy and still need serious medical attention after this ride?? Something may be not right with the ride... Let the evidence come out, let the courts decide... I still think Disney will settle out of court to keep their research and testing into this ride under wraps....

 

[DancingBear]

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.

That's a gross overstatement. If there are legitimate instances of negligence (as in the Big Thunder accident at Disneyland), the responsible parties should be held accountable. That doesn't mean WDW is going to close. Ford was held liable for knowingly building a Pinto with a misplaced gas tank prone to exploding, but Ford is still around. McDonalds seems to be doing fine, thanks, despite the hot coffee case. Domino's had to drop its guaranteed fast delivery policy, but I can still get their pizza delivered.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

You just took an easy and cheap shot at lawyers and judges.

And I'd do it again in a heartbeat.

 

[kaytieeldr]

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.

Disney didn't kill anybody. Pre-existing medical conditions - of which Disney could not reasonably have any knowledge - combined with decisions made by the Guest (recent) or the Guest's parent (original) to ignore NUMEROUS warnings about the attraction is what killed each of them.

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.

True, the absolute number of guests going through A carnival can't compare to Epcot on a given day; but the number of guests visiting ALL carnivals that same day would come much closer to, if not exceed, Epcot's attendance that same day. Similarly, not every Guest will ride Mission: Space and not every guest will ride the Gravitron. As for the ability to stop the ride? As far as I know, if the (many) monitoring CMs at M:S see a problem, they will stop that ride vehicle. Similarly, I'd think if someone IN that vehicle yelled "stop!", they'd be able to do it. I can't see a Gravitron-type ride being that controllable - you can't just push a button and instantly the floor pops back into place and the ride stops.

If we can't accept that Disney has different demographics than carnivals, and we don't believe that M:S is any more intense physically and visually than the other rides mentioned, then that means the deaths are essentially coincidental.

Okay, fine. Disney does have different demographics from all the carnivals around the country/world, and M:S is physically and visually more intense than the Gravitron-type rides. The deaths are STILL essentially coincidental.

Another interesting thing about that case that no one seems to remebers is that the person had 2nd and 3rd degree burns as well as permanent scarring. You should not get that from hot coffee.

Of course, one shouldn't be driving around in a vehicle with a cup of coffee between one's knees, either...

Disney asks the guests to keep their head on the back of their seat and looking forward at the screen at all times... thus aligning their inner ear with the spinning motion.. This takes away the feeling of spinning while on the ride. However, if you lean forward and turn your head side to side you break up this alignment and your body becomes disoriented about what is going on causing you to get dizzy and and possibly sick.

Which sounds like the teacher in Charlie Brown to a group full of cheerleaders are Pop Warner darlings, and even less to someone who speaks Swahili. If these instructions are needed to reduce a risk, that's negligence.

I don't recall - do the ride warnings actually go through that ENTIRE explanation? I thought they pretty much just instructed Guests WHAT to/not to do, not that they explained the physiology.

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?

Possibly... but more than one person has counted (no, I don't know where I've seen the results, either here or on AOL forums or both) and there are a total of ELEVEN warnings between the entrance to the queue (outside the M: S building) and the actual ride vehicle.

With that said, I think these amusement parks should be held to some sort of liability if people CONSTANTLY get sick on their rides.. People who ARE in good health.. Which happens to be the case here in M:S... True, the two people who have passed away had pre-existing health conditions.. But what about the other people who are healthy and still need serious medical attention after this ride??

What proof is there that those people were healthy at the time they rode Mission: Space? Even motion sickness is a physical condition; isn't that one of the groups that's warned against riding this attraction?

 

[Tink's Tormentor]

I don't recall - do the ride warnings actually go through that ENTIRE explanation? I thought they pretty much just instructed Guests WHAT to/not to do, not that they explained the physiology.

No.. I was explaining why Disney tells you to keep your head back.

Possibly... but more than one person has counted (no, I don't know where I've seen the results, either here or on AOL forums or both) and there are a total of ELEVEN warnings between the entrance to the queue (outside the M: S building) and the actual ride vehicle.

I believe there are 17.. Maybe I am wrong.

What proof is there that those people were healthy at the time they rode Mission: Space? Even motion sickness is a physical condition; isn't that one of the groups that's warned against riding this attraction?

Yes... Motion sickness is one of the groups that is warned against riding MS.. But, explain how come people who can fly, take boat rides, spin on the tea cups, ride coasters.. do not suffer motion sickness.. but they ride MS and puke????? Don't say this doesn't happen.. I know people who this has happened to... and they are not prone to motion sickness....

 

[MJMcBride]

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.

I think you've seen too many episodes LA Law and Boston Legal. Juries are not as stupid and gullible as everyone seems to think.

 

[DancingBear]

Of course, one shouldn't be driving around in a vehicle with a cup of coffee between one's knees, either...

She wasn't driving, and the car wasn't moving.

Possibly... but more than one person has counted (no, I don't know where I've seen the results, either here or on AOL forums or both) and there are a total of ELEVEN warnings between the entrance to the queue (outside the M: S building) and the actual ride vehicle.

First, the point of my post was that once you acknowledge that Disney has a duty to warn, it's not enough just to say "Disney gave warnings"...you have to look at the effectiveness of those warnings (which might include how and when they are presented, language issues, etc.). Second, the number of warnings would certainly be a factor, but not the deciding factor in and of itself. Suppose all ELEVEN warnings were in small type on index card-sized signs posted on the floorboards.

 

[MJMcBride]

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.

OJ is free for a variety of reasons. Racial tensions, a higher standard of proof in criminal cases, and because Mark Furman and the prosecutors compltetly botched the case. That has nothing to do with this.

For some reason, people think that juries are compromised of a bunch of mindless dopes. That is simply not so.

 

[YoHo]

OJ is free for a variety of reasons. Racial tensions, a higher standard of proof in criminal cases, and because Mark Furman and the prosecutors compltetly botched the case. That has nothing to do with this.

For some reason, people think that juries are compromised of a bunch of mindless dopes. That is simply not so.

Based on the general intelligence of the American populace, myself included, I find it impossible to believe a jury ISN't comprised of a bunch of mindless dopes. I mean seriously, are the jurors culled only from mensa members? Or Aliens or something? Cause I'm here to tell you, people is dumb.

 

[Uncleromulus]

MJMcBride:
Don't want to take this thread too far "off topic" , but will tell you that I've never watched even ONE episode of those two shows!! I was, however, in the Md. State (and later, the Federal) criminal Justice system (as a Probation Officer) for over 37 years. I've seen exactly how juries-and jury selection-work. Which is why I avoid watching all police and court-based TV shows like the plague!!

Here's just one story--I had a friend of mine who was a pretty successful criminal defense attny (Public defender and later in a large private practice) who had decided to "retire". . We had lunch together just before he left. I mentioned that he had been quite successful in getting "not guilty" verdicts over the years, and here's what he said:
"Well, yes I have. You know, there are a lot of people out there who are gullible, naive, or inherently sympathetic. My job was to get them on the jury. Once I did that, the rest was easy".
And the reason for those tactics of course, was the fact that his clients were almost always, in fact, guilty!! His REAL job was to somehow get them "off". The "Razzle-Dazzle"!!!

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

For some reason, people think that juries are compromised of a bunch of mindless dopes. That is simply not so.

And trust me, I'm not a lawyer, but I have served my fair amount of time in the jury pool. I live in the same county (Wayne Co.) that the City of Detroit is in (as far away as you can get and still be in the same county). The Wayne Co. jury system is a one-day, one-trial obligation system. You serve one day (whether you're called or not) and don't have to go back for a full year or on one-trial and don't have to go back for 2 (or is it 3?) years. I get called annually (lotsa crime in Detroit), go down there, get questioned by defense lawyers and always let go. I am absolutely amazed at the lack of intelligence and common sense of "my peers" during jury selection. No defense attorney wants a white male in his mid-30's with any form of higher education in a jury pool. I can actually use my brain for deductive reasoning. You're typically left with a bunch of people with rocks in their brains deliberating the fate of people...

I think YoHo and Uncleromulus prettymuch sum up how I feel and what I think. The story Uncleromulus tells is dead-on with what I've seen.

 

[kaytieeldr]

First, the point of my post was that once you acknowledge that Disney has a duty to warn, it's not enough just to say "Disney gave warnings"...you have to look at the effectiveness of those warnings (which might include how and when they are presented, language issues, etc.). Second, the number of warnings would certainly be a factor, but not the deciding factor in and of itself. Suppose all ELEVEN warnings were in small type on index card-sized signs posted on the floorboards.

IF. Okay, fine - the warnings on the park maps - available in about eight different languages - may be considered index-card sized. But I don't recall the signs AT the attraction being anywhere in the vicinity of "small"; plus, there are video/audio warnings.

 

[DancingBear]

IF. Okay, fine - the warnings on the park maps - available in about eight different languages - may be considered index-card sized. But I don't recall the signs AT the attraction being anywhere in the vicinity of "small"; plus, there are video/audio warnings.

You keep arguing conclusions; I'm just talking about what issues might be considered by the court if this went to trial.

 

[dennis99ss]

Dancing Bear, you have learned that people on this board are smarter than the rest of us. They absolutely know what the facts are, absolutely know what the answer or conclusion is, and, they absolutely know Disney did nothing wrong. When are you going to get it through your thick head that there is no question here. Put simply, Disney did nothing wrong. How do we know that without finding out what the etsts or engineering studies, or internal memos, or medical tests, etc. say, because, we simply know that this was entirely not a Disney problem! Plus, they absolutely know that the jury system is a sham, has no bearing on the real world, and should be thrown out, because, as you know, the jury system is simply a dog and pony show, with the trophy going to the best dog and pony show actor. Of course, who ever thought about looking at the evidence, of which, nobody here has

 

[raidermatt]

Everyone out there wants to crucify Disney for building M:S.... Claiming they have no idea of what they built.

Well, no. With a notable exception or two, there are two camps:

1- There are legitimate reasons for wanting to see the real evidence and find out exactly what Disney did through the design, testing and implementation phases, as well as whether they took reasonable action to help the boy.

2- Disney didn't do anything wrong, they were not negligent.


I will be the first to admit that there are some issues with our justice system. However, I still prefer that system over making rulings based on what fans of the defendent believe when those fans haven't even seen the evidence.

While its true that personal responsibility is on the decline in this country, it is also true that corporate accountability is not all it could be either. We've seen numerous instances of people blaming others for their own stupidity, yet we've also seen numerous cases of corporations being "less than diligent" in their pursuit of safety or legality, especially when it costs money to do so.

I personally am not convicting Disney of anything in my mind. I am, however, most certainly not ready to exonerate them either. The evidence we have would not adequately support either conclusion.

I also think Disney is going to try to settle this case, and the plaintiffs will most likely accept some type of settlement, which will still leave us wanting for evidence and answers. Even if Disney is not legally guilty of negligence, they are not going to want to go through the process of explaining in public why its not their fault that people occasionally die on this ride, and why its not reasonable for Disney to do more to help those that do become seriously ill on the ride. Not very good PR no matter how the case might have eventually turned out.

 

[mjstaceyuofm]

Very well said raidermatt!

Sometimes I see a fire and just like to stoke it up a bit.

Yes I have my opinions, but your post sums up all the points and counterpoints from the last few pages of this thread very well.

 

[bigcrit]

I don't know all the details about the accident or the childs health. I won't however totally exonnerate Disney on this one. Lets see the truth before we condemn anyone......

 

[MJMcBride]

I personally am not convicting Disney of anything in my mind. I am, however, most certainly not ready to exonerate them either. The evidence we have would not adequately support either conclusion.

Bingo! Frankly, I cannot understand how anyone can at this point make an informed conclusion one way or another, since there is really no information.