Disney Being Sued by Visually Impaired Guests

[indimom]

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.

I agree. My daughter has a serious eye disease. She will never be completely blind, only legally blind (if her disease progresses). Her disease does not affect peripheral vision, but she could lose the ablity to see what is directly in front of her and would lose all detail vision. The vision required to read, drive, or see her own face in a mirror.
My daughter is also a coaster fanatic. If God forbid, the worst should happen, I don't think that would impact her love of theme parks or a good coaster. Just how she would access them.
And, I certainly think she would want to take her own children to Disney World some day. What mother wouldn't want to experience their children's joy at meeting Mickey, even if they can't see it? Just my two cents.
Some of these comment are pretty "short-sighted" if you ask me.

 

[jsilvers]

Odd you would say that, I have a JD, you?

In fact I do (but there was no reason to mention it, since the facts of the "McCoffee" case speak for themselves just fine).

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.

If you researched the case, you know that many of the documents are accessible online (although many are behind paywalls). These include the jury instructions (1994 WL 16856095 on Westlaw) - and as I'm sure you know, facts are decided by the jury. But the instructions show that the jury in the Liebeck case was not specifically asked to decide whether she was parked or not. So your assertion as to what was "proven" appears to be a misrepresentation, unless you have something crackerjack to offer in support of your claim and to contradict Liebeck's attorneys (i.e., can you show us a transcript of her admitting otherwise on cross-examination?).

Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true​

--http://www.kellylawfirm.org/McDonalds.html.

 

[goofyernmost]

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.

I might have missed it but I don't remember people, including myself saying that blind people shouldn't go to Disney. Many like myself were just wondering out loud, what kind or how good an experience it was. For a once sighted person, I'm sure the sounds, music and activity would conjure up mental images that would rival or even surpass what a sighted individual can see. I know my reference was in relationship to the numbers of people that this is an example of. If you have never seen and have no point of reference, it seems like it must be pretty dull.

I agree that whatever can be available, should it be...braille, recorded descriptions, assistance on and off or in and out of attractions and I would be mighty surprised if that didn't already exist. But to ask for things like reduced admission for a companion, that in this case would get more out of the experience then the V I person, it just seems unreasonable to expect or think that it should happen.

I speak somewhat from experience as I escorted at least three trips of "challenged" individuals both mental and physical. Although it was a lot of work for me, I managed to enjoy the attractions pretty much the same as I have when not an escort. Since I was part of the fun, it never occurred to me that my admission should be any less then anyone else that was a guest. Although it has been years since I have gone through the ADA requirements, I believe it's original goal was for all to be treated equally within the confines of their particular situation. Not everyone can enjoy anything equally due to many factors, like fears or unavoidable physical barricades, or many other things.

Like I stated earlier, depending on the degree of blindness, each case is different. Which ones are they representing or are all blanketed under the same heading? Completely blind individuals, for example do not have a need nor would it help their vision if they were at the parades edge. The sounds and excitement would reach them at a less perfect location. Partially blind certainly could benefit from a closer location. However, and this is a big however, ADA restricts Disney from asking the degree of their disability so then how do that know how to accommodate them. Answer...they don't unless the individual informs them and then they can see if they can find a workable solution. They cannot, however, have a working solution set up for every single possible variation the might present itself, obviously displayed, just in case it appears. With the millions of possible degrees of sight impairment they would have to basically fly by the seat of their pants and try and deal with things as they come up.

 

[Dolby1000]

All of this put under the heading of IMHO.

The ADA, although well intentioned, contains a vital flaw, one that keeps popping my more and more often. The flaw is that the ADA takes the approach that freedom means everything is for everybody, and that is not what the framers of the constitution intended.
I would love to be a PGA Golfer, but the good Lord gave no ability to play golf. According to a strict interpretation of the ADA (whch lawyers do), the PGA is not in compliance with the ADA act because I have a sports disability, in that I'm no good at them, and that I can't compete against Tiger, Phil and others.
Of course, that is ridiculous. But, looking at the lawsuit (what has been published), almost makes me want to think that the bringers of the lawsuit want Disney to solve their blindness. That is crux of it. Now, I would never, ever wish blindness or any disability on anyone. But, the fact of life is that disabilities exist and people have them. My DW has diabetes, but I'm not suiing Disney to make them stop selling sugary high carb foods. We just make other choices and deal with the issue ourselves (oh, look, personal responsbility, sure wish more people would take this approach but that is likely another topic for a different board).
So, this may be America, where you should be able to "pursue happiness", but actually experiencing happiness and having everything ever done available to all the people, is just not part of the deal.

I also totally agree that with the class in this suit being so broad (all people aflicated with sight disorders), that no one, other than the law firm, will see a penny. And, that is the deepest shame of the whole affair.

Dolby1000

 

[kdawg8762]

In fact I do (but there was no reason to mention it, since the facts of the "McCoffee" case speak for themselves just fine).



If you researched the case, you know that many of the documents are accessible online (although many are behind paywalls). These include the jury instructions (1994 WL 16856095 on Westlaw) - and as I'm sure you know, facts are decided by the jury. But the instructions show that the jury in the Liebeck case was not specifically asked to decide whether she was parked or not. So your assertion as to what was "proven" appears to be a misrepresentation, unless you have something crackerjack to offer in support of your claim and to contradict Liebeck's attorneys (i.e., can you show us a transcript of her admitting otherwise on cross-examination?).

Critics of civil justice, who have pounced on this case, often charge that Liebeck was driving the car or that the vehicle was in motion when she spilled the coffee; neither is true​

--http://www.kellylawfirm.org/McDonalds.html.

Hence the reason why you only have to win a judge over. The car moving is a vital part of this case (you have a JD and cannot get behind a paywall, odd). Once the ambulance chaser gets a judge to rule that out, then its a slam dunk, because, lets both be honest, juries are easily swayed when its a helpless lady vs a big corporation. They throw out right and wrong and simply figure "Corporation X can afford it and i feel bad for her." You want to know one of the reasons why Disney is more expensive, products are more expensive, insurance is more expensive...look no further than trial lawyers.

Common sense states, if you buy a hot beverage and the cup doesn't simply fall apart and the employee handing it to you executes a clean exchange, then you are at fault.

Now, back to WDW since we are boring the sin out of people, but feel free to pm me if you want to debate further. I understand disabled folks want to experience Disney, but you will experience it differently, possibly better and possibly worse than others. I hate to say it this way, but that comes with a disability.

That said, this is class action, which means actual disabled people truly affected will see next to nothing, the only ones who will be compensated will be the attornies.

 

[scrapquitler]

I can't comprehend this....

Why would a blind person need special parking garage accomodations?
Presumably the blind person is not driving, and the sighted driver can manage to park. What kind of accesibility would a blind person require in a parking garage? There's already handicap parking spots there, I'm sure.

 

[nytimez]

I can't comprehend this....

Why would a blind person need special parking garage accomodations?
Presumably the blind person is not driving, and the sighted driver can manage to park. What kind of accesibility would a blind person require in a parking garage? There's already handicap parking spots there, I'm sure.

I can't speak to the specifics of this case, but in general a parking lot friendly to the visually impaired would have that bumpy stuff in the ground. Among other things, I'm sure, but that's what comes immediately to mind here.

 

[jsilvers]

Hence the reason why you only have to win a judge over. The car moving is a vital part of this case (you have a JD and cannot get behind a paywall, odd). Once the ambulance chaser gets a judge to rule that out, then its a slam dunk, because, lets both be honest, juries are easily swayed when its a helpless lady vs a big corporation. They throw out right and wrong and simply figure "Corporation X can afford it and i feel bad for her."

I asked if you could provide backup for your claim that Liebeck was not in the passenger seat of a parked car at the time of the "McCoffee" incident.

In response, you haven't pointed to anything from the court record, third-party analysis, etc. You've just thrown around a lot of slurs at her counsel and lawyers in general (i.e., "ambulance chaser").

I therefore take it that the answer to my question is "no", counselor.

 

[jsilvers]

Presumably the blind person is not driving, and the sighted driver can manage to park. What kind of accesibility would a blind person require in a parking garage? There's already handicap parking spots there, I'm sure.

The garage-related claims appear to concern how a guest with vision-related disabilities can navigate once out of the car. For example, the complaint cites section 4.29.5 of the ADA accessibility guidelines, which states:

Detectable Warnings at Hazardous Vehicular Areas. If a walk crosses or adjoins a vehicular way, and the walking surfaces are not separated by curbs, railings, or other elements between the pedestrian areas and vehicular areas, the boundary between the areas shall be defined by a continuous detectable warning which is 36 in (915 mm) wide....​

Not being familiar with the Disneyland garage, I have no idea if this is a real issue or not.

 

[umichigan10]

I asked if you could provide backup for your claim that Liebeck was not in the passenger seat of a parked car at the time of the "McCoffee" incident.

In response, you haven't pointed to anything from the court record, third-party analysis, etc. You've just thrown around a lot of slurs at her counsel and lawyers in general (i.e., "ambulance chaser").

I therefore take it that the answer to my question is "no", counselor.

I find this whole convo fascinating because I just did a mock trial on this case a few days ago (I was on the defense and lost). Anyway I think a key thing left out here is she could've presumably handed the cup to her nephew or whoever was with her to help her put the stuff in her coffee. This is assuming the car was parked which I'm inclined to believe even though I tend to side with McDonalds on this.

 

[Shir Kahn]

I can understand the suit for the most-part but instead of getting money, the suit should be solely looking to have Disney rectify the inadequacies, which it appears they are doing. There is no need for a monetary payout.

 

[brunette8706]

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.

*
Hi NYTIMES!!

Yeah, I'm not a expert on this case. You hear so many stories of what happened and what didn't happen. The plaintiff and her family member I believe were the only ones in the vehicle at the time, so those two know the truth. But, I still would not put hot 140 degrees hot beverage between my knees while in a car. It just seems like it was negligent for her to do this. But, like I said, I am not an expert.

Good to see you! Hope you are doing GREAT!

Brunette

 

[MickeysBFF]

Thank You! I can't tell you how happy I am to see that someone else responded with the FACTS of the case, on the very same page those bogus assertions were made. It still floors me, that 15 years after the case now, it is still incorrectly being cited as an example of a "frivolous" lawsuit.

I had the multi-quote button hit on MickeysBFF's post, and was on my way to make a post very much like yours, when I scrolled down just a bit and saw that I didn't have to!

*And* later pages of the thread show that you weren't the only one! Woo-hoo! Hooray for the truth!

OK once again I apologize for the crappy example and I agree I wasn't a good example can we please move on (not trying to be mean but I already said I made a mistake)

 

[kdawg8762]

I asked if you could provide backup for your claim that Liebeck was not in the passenger seat of a parked car at the time of the "McCoffee" incident.

In response, you haven't pointed to anything from the court record, third-party analysis, etc. You've just thrown around a lot of slurs at her counsel and lawyers in general (i.e., "ambulance chaser").

I therefore take it that the answer to my question is "no", counselor.

And you can't prove that she was not in the driver's seat, all that came out in court was SHE ADMITTED TO DRIVING AFTER THE INCIDENT. So either she was there when she was burned, or, she got burned...said, son, let me drive...and switched seats afterwards. Now what seems more plausible? I did a thesis, you can't get behind a simple pay wall, i rest my case. Once again, move this to pm as I am sure more would like to talk disney over mcd's.

 

[MickeysBFF]

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 that's exactly what I was thinking when I posted. Because of that case now we have labels on our HOT coffee that say caution contents may be hot. I mean seriously. I put that as my example because she HAD to be doing something for coffee to spill on her groin. and she then blamed mcdonald's for hot coffee
FLAME AWAY!!!!!

 

[MolonLabe]

This type of stuff in inevitable.

Any time you empower the government to say what a private property owner can and cannot do, you ultimately come down this path.

Private property rights in America are a joke today.

The ADA is a joke when it comes to private property. You guys heard about people in wheel chairs suing the mexican place because, while they could reach the counters to pay and get their food, they couldn't actually SEE the food being prepared like those who were standing.

The federal government is completely out of control. They have ZERO say in how a private property owner in Florida decides to accommodate (or not) anyone.

In todays day and age, consumers will vote with the money and are (or have no excuse not to be) well educated on a company and how they treat people and accommodate everyone.

I can't believe someone (or in this case group of people) have the nerve to even suggest Disney doesn't go out of it's way to accommodate everyone.

I'm personally Appalled!

 

[nytimez]

Because of that case now we have labels on our HOT coffee that say caution contents may be hot.

Not going to "flame away" but that's not actually true. Take that as a friendly correction, if you will. The warnings were there before this case and I believe there was a warning on the cup in this case.

Our resident bickering lawyers (is that redundant?) will correct me on that, I'm sure, if I'm wrong.

 

[jsilvers]

And you can't prove that she was not in the driver's seat, all that came out in court was SHE ADMITTED TO DRIVING AFTER THE INCIDENT.

Once again, I ask you to identify your source (transcript of court proceedings, third-party article, etc.). Restating your claim in ALL CAPS does not give it any more authority. Backing it up with documents would, counselor.

So either she was there when she was burned, or, she got burned...said, son, let me drive...and switched seats afterwards. Now what seems more plausible?

You previously said it was "proven" that she was in the driver's seat. Now you say that it was "more plausible". Which is it, counselor?

I did a thesis, you can't get behind a simple pay wall,

I certainly can, and will if you provide a citation to back up your claims - which shouldn't be hard if you wrote a thesis. But I'm not going to do your research for you, counselor.

In addition, you ignore the fact that I did look-up the jury instructions from the Liebeck case (including their citation), and pointed out that there was no jury finding to support your claim that it was "proven was she did in fact drive at some point during or following the incident."

i rest my case. Once again, move this to pm as I am sure more would like to talk disney over mcd's.

You're free to depart, counselor, but since you made a public claim here about the Liebeck case (in connection with the discussion in this thread), I repeat my request that you produce your support for it here.

 

[MickeysBFF]

Not going to "flame away" but that's not actually true. Take that as a friendly correction, if you will. The warnings were there before this case and I believe there was a warning on the cup in this case.

Our resident bickering lawyers (is that redundant?) will correct me on that, I'm sure, if I'm wrong.

Oh thank you for that! But that surely wouldn't have helped that womens case with the warning on the side

 

[MickeysBFF]

Regarding to the McD's discussion, I personally feel that we should end the argument and get back to talking Disney. I have my opinion and you have yours but one thing we have in common is we all love Disney so drop the weapons and let's get back on topic. Love you all