Disney Being Sued by Visually Impaired Guests

[eliza61]

This is related how?

Side note: There are people from the ADA??

There are private citizens who have appointed themselves as some type of ada czars and make what they call citizen complaints.

Here in South Jersey we had/have a lady who goes around shopping malls and slashes tires of folks who park in the handicap slots without handicap tags or signage. Evidently she has a handicap son and she claims she's tired of non handicap folks parking in ADA slots.

She's been beaten up once or twice.

 

[SueM in MN]

Being sick of "sue happy people" is one thing. It may or may not apply in this case, so I think the fact that you're tired of them is an entirely separate thing.

I'd need a LOT more information on most of it to even begin to have an opinion. I was especially curious about these...It would be very difficult for Disney to give discounted admission for people who accompany the blind.

Since Disney cannot insist on people proving that they are blind (or can they?), they would pretty much have to give a discount to anyone who say, "I'm with him and he's blind," wouldn't they?

"If I put on a pair of sunglasses, my friend gets in free..." Wouldn't have too many people faking that!!

I just don't know enough about that case, though.

they could require proof if giving a discount because that is something of value. It is explained a bit more in some posts on the last page.

There are private citizens who have appointed themselves as some type of ada czars and make what they call citizen complaints.

Here in South Jersey we had/have a lady who goes around shopping malls and slashes tires of folks who park in the handicap slots without handicap tags or signage. Evidently she has a handicap son and she claims she's tired of non handicap folks parking in ADA slots.

She's been beaten up once or twice.

There are also websites set up to basically publicly shame people that the 'vigilantees' have noted parking without handicapped permits. They post pictures with license plates, car descriptions and location/time. They do the same thin with people they have seen parking with permits, but don't feel look 'disabled' enough.
I had a run in with one of those type people when I was parking in a handicapped spot to pick my DD up. She said basically, "how dare you abuse the handicapped parking spot when you are not disabled. The police will be waiting for you when you get out."
I said, "Fine. I am not disabled, but am picking up my DD who is. When the police see me put down the ramp on my van to get her wheelchair in, they will know why I parked here. And then, I can ask them about harassment."
She was not there and neither were the police when I got back with DD.

SueM, thank you for the informative posts!

You're welcome.
Not everything at WDW is perfect, and there is lots of room for improvement. But many with disabilities do feel that Disney is making a good faith effort to make things as accessible as possible. So, at least I feel, it makes more sense to try to work with them than to sue them.

 

[siugoalie78]

This is related how?

Side note: There are people from the ADA??

It's related because I think it's an interesting side note on how ridiculous the whole PC and ADA thing has gotten in some situations. Try to keep up!

I'm all for reasonable accommodations, but it seems to me like if that isn't possible, some of these folks want to take away from folks who are not disabled.

 

[nytimez]

It's related because I think it's an interesting side note on how ridiculous the whole PC and ADA thing has gotten in some situations. Try to keep up!

Oh, I can keep up just fine. I think you've mistaken this thread for the "any random gripe about the ADA" thread when, in fact, it's a thread about the potential merits (or lack thereof) of a lawsuit by a group of visually impaired people about the accommodations (or lack thereof) at Disney parks.

Try to keep up!

 

[siugoalie78]

deleted

 

[>Ash<]

Hi Guys,

before i start, im disabled myself and i know just how good disney are with disabled persons. if somone feels they arnt getting support just ask at guest relations and they will help you.

Disney always accomodate when asked, they may not provide the things he was looking for but did he ask for them? maybe their not on standard display as they may not have as many prints as regular maps but they possibly could have them at guest relations.

also they provide alot of guide dog drinking spots they are avaliable on request.

 

[disneyfanlincoln]

This thread has made me sad. One of the things I like best about Disney is that it's so disabled friendly, it's one place that most people can go to and enjoy. I have a knee condition that going to get worse and Disney kind of cheered me up as I knew they would continue to accommodate me if I gave to use a wheelchair etc. I think Disney do a great job and cast members will try to do anything to help when asked.

 

[kdawg8762]

No no no no no. You shoot yourself in the foot by mentioning the McDonald's case. McD's was almost completely at fault (and the judgment that the public got to see reflected that, giving a certain percentage of the jury's amount, and calling the rest of the percentage not their fault).

McD's had coffee that was LONG KNOWN to be literally SCALDING hot, served in styrofoam cups that insulated the customer's hand from the heat so well they had no idea how hot the coffee was inside of it.

Coffee that is handed to you through a drive-thru should NOT be so hot that when spilled causes THIRD DEGREE burns and the need for skin grafts. Which is exactly what happened, in the GROIN area of this elderly woman.


She first contacted them to simply request her exact hospital costs. They said no, so it went on. The point of the court system is that a truly frivolous suit doesn't get through. Anything can be filed, but the ones that make it through *have merit*.

This lady won. She absolutely, positively, was injured quite severely by the fact that this coffee, which, last I checked, is for *drinking*, caused her to have skin grafts. McDs had had numerous complaints about the temperature they were holding their coffee at, it was NOT industry standard, and apart from spilling it, THEY were at fault.

And lastly, *no one knows* how much she got. We got to see the jury's idea and then what the judge said was their percentage and her percentage of fault. But the rest of it...the appeals and all that, were behind closed doors. We have no idea what she ultimately got.




From what I read in the article linked to this board the other day, this has been going on for a long time. The braille stuff in the parks (at least at Disneyland), from what I read, was added AFTER this started, as a reaction to their complaints. It's not something they always had. They were in talks, they were close to working it out, then the group decided it wasn't good enough for whatever reason, and now, only now, they are headed to trial.

But this isn't something new. The group and Disney have been dealing with it for awhile.

While you are correct that they kept their coffee hot, it was due to market research saying people wanted it hot. Jacking it up 10 degrees increased sales by 40% (can you tell i have a lot of knowledge, did a thesis on this case). That said, the woman did get 3rd degree burns on her groin, but it was shown even coffee brewed at home would do the same things if....you take the lid off and attempt to put creamer in it while on a major highway and your son holding the steering wheel from the passenger seat. Also, McDonald's did turn down her original settlement offer, but it wasn't just for medical, or at least you can assume so. She requested medical care reimbursement, McD's said no problem just give us receipts for the amounts, she said no. I would understand your point if the coffee melted through the cup at a table, but here is a woman who took hot liquid and made several stupid decisions. It seems your support of this woman indicates a belief that companies and governments should protect us from all dangers, even those we cause ourselves.

 

[michsig]

Some of the contents of that list are RIDICULOUS .. I agree with many of the above posters' comments .. especially about accommodating blind individuals for parades and shows..

 

[39CINDERELLA]

I am legally blind and so are my two children. We go to WDW every year. Yes, we have challenges, but we have learned to adjust. I will arrive early for parades (@ least 2 hr) to have front row seats. We do get the GAC card to help on certain rides like Buzz that has a moving floor in the dark that is stopped for us to load. We don't ask for special treatment. WE ASK FOR HELP.

Visually impaired persons can enjoy WDW as well as the "normal" sighted person.
I am referring to comments made by other posters about the normal sighted.
Blind people can see with their ears and other senses. In fact I think we see more than the normal person. To the posters that think blind people should not go to places like WDW because we cannot see.........well, I hope you NEVER lose your vision.
I believe Disney makes every effort to accommodate all.

 

[Bangerang]

My DM is VI and has a guide dog. On the whole Disney does better than most to accommodate those with sight problems but they can do better. I'm not sure what has changed since her last trip down (2005) but we had difficulty with things while there. Over at Epcot she was required to find a CM to escort her backstage when her guide dog needed to relieve himself. Imagine not being able to see and trying to find someone with a badge to escort you into a restricted area. She tried waiting by the entrance/exit and was mostly ignored. After a while, she gave up this tactic and took her dog to the end of the walkway leading backstage to let him do his business.

On my last trip I noticed that Disney is using more touchscreens for menu ordering at counter service locations. Touchscreens are a nightmare for those with VI. (Imagine using your touchscreen cell phone with your eyes closed.) You have to have help. My guess is the complaint about menus stems mostly from this.

I know Disney audio describes some attractions but there is no reason they can't audio describe shows and parades as well. Here at home, most if not all of the traveling Broadway shows have one or more performances audio described. At the time DM went none were described so we had to choose between letting her sit and guess what was going on or disrupting the people around us while we described the show to her.

Most of the characters we met didn't have any trouble with DM's guide dog. A few even took the time to interact with him. One was clearly uncomfortable being around him. For someone with a VI, sometimes the only way to "see" what a character looks like is to get close enough to feel features and clothing. For my DM this helped bridge a gap when talking with her grandkids about characters in the Disney movies. If she were denied that opportunity both her and the kids would lose out.

 

[shannonstar]

I am legally blind and so are my two children. We go to WDW every year. Yes, we have challenges, but we have learned to adjust. I will arrive early for parades (@ least 2 hr) to have front row seats. We do get the GAC card to help on certain rides like Buzz that has a moving floor in the dark that is stopped for us to load. We don't ask for special treatment. WE ASK FOR HELP.

Visually impaired persons can enjoy WDW as well as the "normal" sighted person.
I am referring to comments made by other posters about the normal sighted.
Blind people can see with their ears and other senses. In fact I think we see more than the normal person. To the posters that think blind people should not go to places like WDW because we cannot see.........well, I hope you NEVER lose your vision.
I believe Disney makes every effort to accommodate all.

I would just like to personally thank you for this insight. I am not disabled and I pray to never be so, but if I ever am, I hope that I take your attitude about it.

For my thoughts:
I know Disney could be better at accommodating the Blind, but then again, so could most of the world at large. I think what's lacking at times is knowledge/training on the part of some of the CMs.
My only thing I think Disney really cannot improve upon is the character interaction in certain circumstances. For example: I cannot ask someone not to be afraid of dogs, so if a character (meaning the person in one) is, it's not really fair to ask them to interact with a dog, even a seeing eye one. I'm not sure the rights of one person should infringe upon the rights of another.

 

[jsilvers]

That said, the woman did get 3rd degree burns on her groin, but it was shown even coffee brewed at home would do the same things if....you take the lid off and attempt to put creamer in it while on a major highway and your son holding the steering wheel from the passenger seat.

Which is not what happened. The car was parked and the woman was in the passenger seat. Presumably, you're relying on one of many inaccurate accounts of the case.

 

[kdawg8762]

Which is not what happened. The car was parked and the woman was in the passenger seat. Presumably, you're relying on one of many inaccurate accounts of the case.

Odd you would say that, I have a JD, you? I did research on the case for a thesis....FYI, all the stuff google pulls up saying she was parked are by attorneys and advocates for attorneys (with a few anti business/corporation folks mixed in). She states she was parked, but it wasn't proven, what was proven was she did in fact drive at some point during or following the incident. Now, if you had just severly burned yourself, would you be driving when you had the option of calling an ambulance or letting your son/daughter/mother/friend who was in the car drive? But lets go with that, lets go with the plaintiff ambulance chasers "facts." They do not dispute that she opened the coffee, put it between her legs, and added creamer. They also do not dispute that if you brewed your own in your pot at home, the same thing would happen. What no one wants to admit is juries are human and they feel sorry for people, McDonalds has deep pockets, so lets get them because they can afford it. FYI, the final judgement she recieved was just shy of 6 million.

If you buy coffee, do something stupid, and spill it on yourself, how is this anyone's fault but your own? Most people assume fressh coffee is just shy of boiling. This is the same reason why we have warning labels on things that make you laugh if you have common sense (such as don't drink bleach and don't stick a curling iron in any orafice)

 

[kdawg8762]

Just so you know the breakdown, she netted roughly 4 million, of the total 6. Most people fail to count her attorney's fees, who made themselves very wealthy.

 

[brunette8706]

Odd you would say that, I have a JD, you? I did research on the case for a thesis....FYI, all the stuff google pulls up saying she was parked are by attorneys and advocates for attorneys (with a few anti business/corporation folks mixed in). She states she was parked, but it wasn't proven, what was proven was she did in fact drive at some point during or following the incident. Now, if you had just severly burned yourself, would you be driving when you had the option of calling an ambulance or letting your son/daughter/mother/friend who was in the car drive? But lets go with that, lets go with the plaintiff ambulance chasers "facts." They do not dispute that she opened the coffee, put it between her legs, and added creamer. They also do not dispute that if you brewed your own in your pot at home, the same thing would happen. What no one wants to admit is juries are human and they feel sorry for people, McDonalds has deep pockets, so lets get them because they can afford it. FYI, the final judgement she recieved was just shy of 6 million.

If you buy coffee, do something stupid, and spill it on yourself, how is this anyone's fault but your own? Most people assume fressh coffee is just shy of boiling. This is the same reason why we have warning labels on things that make you laugh if you have common sense (such as don't drink bleach and don't stick a curling iron in any orafice)

*
Hi! Interesting topic! Thanks for posting this. I too heard she put the coffee between her legs while the car was in motion. Not sure why she was awarded 4 million dollars for negligence that she was her own fault. Some people lose limbs during accidents at work etc, and are not awarded 4 million dollars. Oh, but wait, this is McDonalds, a multi-BILLION dollar corporation so why not sue? Just like the above plaintiffs suing Disney for various things that are not "reasonabale" I disagree with quite a few of their complaints. As seen on this thread, there are various low vision and blind people that have responded. And, I do agree with their stance. I also really appreciate their input on this thread, thank you!

Good post.

 

[W.E.D.]

Gotta love that the knee-jerk reaction 'round here is always "DEFEND DISNEY!" even among people who admit they don't have all the facts.

What?!?! How dare you!!

 

[nytimez]

*
Hi! Interesting topic! Thanks for posting this. I too heard she put the coffee between her legs while the car was in motion. Not sure why she was awarded 4 million dollars for negligence that she was her own fault. Some people lose limbs during accidents at work etc, and are not awarded 4 million dollars. Oh, but wait, this is McDonalds, a multi-BILLION dollar corporation so why not sue? Just like the above plaintiffs suing Disney for various things that are not "reasonabale" I disagree with quite a few of their complaints. As seen on this thread, there are various low vision and blind people that have responded. And, I do agree with their stance. I also really appreciate their input on this thread, thank you!

Good post.

Was the ultimate dollar amount excessive? It might seem so. But there are a lot of factors that come into play in these cases.

I hate relying on Wikipedia, but what's on there now matches my (hazy) memory of the case: McD's offered $800 to cover more than $10,000 in medical bills (with more bills expected in the future). When the woman ultimately retained a lawyer, he asked for $90K. McD's refused. As the case escalated, a mediator urged McDonald's to settle for $225K. McDonald's refused.

Again, that doesn't mean the final dollar amount wasn't excessive. It may well have been and everyone has a different opinion on that. But that doesn't mean the case was without merit either... or that McDonald's didn't play a big role in its own eventual fate here.

 

[W.E.D.]

Like a lot of laws, the ADA addressed a very real and serious problem. However, it goes way to far in what businesses are required to do. In many cases it requires businesses to allow disabled guests to do things that the rest of the public is not allowed to do.

In general Disney bends over backwards to accomodate the disabled, so I highly doubt that they are neglecting the blind. Some of the things listed are BS.

That said, pretty much any suit based on the ADA has a decent chance of winning. What's more, since it's a class action suit, the lawyers aren't concerned with merely fixing the problems, they want the case to go to court since that's how they make the most money. The victims, if there even are any REAL victims, will never see a significant amount of money.

Bottom line is that knowing how Disney handles things like this, I am sure that any legitimate concerns can be worked out. But the suit is about getting paid, not fixing problems.

THIS! I'm willing to bet (don't burn me for a heretic) that Disney could do some things to better the situation of blind folks that visit the parks, and more than a few of them could have legitimate complaints. However, the suit is all about some firm in Tampa getting a massive pay-out. After fees, etc., etc., the people who need the help will see virtually nothing.

 

[W.E.D.]

My question for everyone is this: If you were blind, would you give up your WDW addiction? Would you really stop going like your expecting others to because its a luxury, not a need?

I wouldn't. No way would I give up my trips. The rides offer experiences beyond sight. Just wandering the parks you are overwhelmed with scents and music. Heck, some of the movies even add touch. I've been so many times I could probably walk the parks blind-folded already. The place is truly magical, and not just for those of us with all our senses.

I think its callous to say "Oh, your blind. So sorry. No Disney for you."

Before you start burning me, please see my previous post where I agree this suit is about making money for lawyers, not helping people. But there are people out there who need help, and they should be allowed to experience that wonderful place just like the rest of us.