Disneyland sued for negligence in Jungle Cruise crash

[ImTooExcitedToSleep]

Um....it's on a track!!

OC Weekly

Disneyland sells its popular Jungle Cruise boat ride this way:

"Board a trusty tramp steamer for a 7-minute guided tour of jungles from around the world, brimming with exotic animals and lush tropical foliage. Keep an eye out for potential perils -- and stunning beauty -- as your daring skipper navigates untamed waters with a skilled hand, a brave heart and a clever joke."

We all know the hype rarely meets reality, but in Feb. 2010, a Southern California couple claims the ride really was perilous and the skipper wasn't just daring but recklessly speedy before the boat crashed.

Those allegations are contained in a Feb. 3 lawsuit filed in Orange County Superior Court by Jeffrey and Maria Lee, who claim they were seriously injured in the accident.

"[The couple] noticed the ride operator was driving the boat very fast," the lawsuit states. "As the Jungle Cruise ride approached the Hippopotamus area of the ride, the boat crashed straight into the island and trees."

The crash threw the couple from their seats, they claim.

​In the seven-page lawsuit, Anthony F. Wiezorek, the couple's Long Beach private attorney, described the crash as "substantial" and the "negligent" cause of injuries that required medical attention.

The file does not list specific injuries or medical expenses, however.

Disneyland officials, bombarded every year with dozens and dozens of personal injury lawsuits, haven't yet filed a formal response to these latest allegations.

Superior Court Judge Kirk Nakamura will handle the case.

The Jungle Cruise ride premiered in July 1955, as one of Walt Disney's first theme park attractions.

--R. Scott Moxley / OC Weekly

 

[sierranevada]

Googled the "accident" and this is what was reported somewhere else

http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_c...go-horribly-wrong-at-a-disney-theme-park.aspx

The way this reads, it was really not that big of a deal! Someone wants $$$$

 

[Argento]

Always remember folks, you can file a lawsuit for anything. Just because a lawsuit is filed doesn't mean anything actually happened.

 

[ImTooExcitedToSleep]

Googled the "accident" and this is what was reported somewhere else

http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_c...go-horribly-wrong-at-a-disney-theme-park.aspx

The way this reads, it was really not that big of a deal! Someone wants $$$$

Thanks. I trust Jim Hill way more than the OC Register.

 

[jetskigrl]

It sounds like that is a pretty common area for the boat to jump the track. The second article posted was exactly the same as what happened to us. We jumped the track and hit the rock as we were making the turn. Then we floated around the hippo pool until they cleared the ride and sent boats on either side of us to pull us back over to the track. Then someone got on and used the same method to attach it back to the track.
Hum...I need to go back and check the date on it that one. Maybe that was the same time, LOL.

 

[abbie13_15]

At first I was thinking what time of the year is it now? Is it April Fools Day when that World Of Color fake lawsuit came out...hahaha really people. Had to read it myself to make sure it wa a true lawsuit claim.

 

[Pinocchio #1 Fan]

That article came from the OC Weekly, not the OC Register. What's the difference? Well, the OC Weekly is the kind of publication which features ads for many things not appropriate for a family publication like the OC Register. They have a very anti-Disney agenda, and regularly feature things llike a drawing of Mickey Mouse sporting a Hitler mustache and wearing a Nazi uniform. They will use any opportunity they can to make Disney look bad, regardless if there is any factual evidence to support the claim. Living in Orange County, I know this, but people in other parts of the country may not. They are owned by the Village Voice family of periodicals.

 

[ImTooExcitedToSleep]

My apologies. I'll correct my description in the original post...but I still trust Jim Hill more.

 

[Pinocchio #1 Fan]

I wasn't trying to be a jerk, I just like the Register, and didn't want anyone to think they published stuff like that.

 

[disfaninca]

Hopefully Disney won't settle and witnesses come forward and tell their experiences about how it wasn't bad at all. I hope these people get nothing and have to pay out of their own pockets for attorney and court fees.

 

[heatherleigh]

Hopefully Disney won't settle and witnesses come forward and tell their experiences about how it wasn't bad at all. I hope these people get nothing and have to pay out of their own pockets for attorney and court fees.

 

[croppincolburn]

Speeding? That would mean, what, 5 mph?

 

[Tarijeno]

Given the already preposterous claims made in the suit, I'm surprised they weren't attacked by the living, breathing animals that populate the attraction.

 

[Honeybee1983]

Given the already preposterous claims made in the suit, I'm surprised they weren't attacked by the living, breathing animals that populate the attraction.

YES!!

 

[3Minnies1Mickey]

Hmmmm, if they had a decent lawyer they'd have figured out there was already an article about the incident that completely discounts everything they said happened (ie. "they were thrown from their seat" vs. "no one was thrown from their seat").

 

[calsig31]

While I also believe the lawsuit to be without merit, we only know a small portion of the story. First the OC Weekly article doesn't give that much information. It only lists the position of the plaintiffs and does not mention anything about Disney's counter argument to what might have occurred. Without Disney's side of the story, how do we know that what the plaintiffs claim is not true?

Also, the Jim Hill article has a few holes in it that would not make it a slam dunk source to refute the plaintiffs claim which are illustrated when I address the below quotes.

Googled the "accident" and this is what was reported somewhere else

http://jimhillmedia.com/editor_in_c...go-horribly-wrong-at-a-disney-theme-park.aspx

The way this reads, it was really not that big of a deal! Someone wants $$$$

Hmmmm, if they had a decent lawyer they'd have figured out there was already an article about the incident that completely discounts everything they said happened (ie. "they were thrown from their seat" vs. "no one was thrown from their seat").

By his own account, the author states that he was sitting in the front of the boat and there were people behind him. By the time he collected himself and turned around to look at the other passengers, they may have already been back in their seats. Therefore, he would not be able to say with any certainty that the plaintiffs were thrown from their seat or that the accident was "really not that big of a deal" and the people just want money as sierranevada claims, nor does it "completely discount everything [the plaintiffs] said happened" as 3Minnies1Mickey proposes.

Hopefully Disney won't settle and witnesses come forward and tell their experiences about how it wasn't bad at all. I hope these people get nothing and have to pay out of their own pockets for attorney and court fees.

Again, just because it was not bad for some does not mean it wasn't bad for the plaintiffs. What Disney needs is eye-witness accounts that the plaintiffs were never thrown from their seats. They also need expert medical testimony that the plaintiffs could not have suffered the types of injuries they claim in the accident.

Speeding? That would mean, what, 5 mph?

Whether or not the rate of speed was abnormally fast or not is purely subjective. What may have seemed fast to the plaintiffs may not have seemed fast to someone who has been on the ride a hundred times. The only way to know for sure is to take some statistics of the average speed for those boats and compare them to the speed that this particular boat was traveling.

So, as illustrated above, the Jim Hill article does not completely counter the story. There are valid arguments to be made on both sides. It seems that people on these boards are very quick to jump to Disney's side whenever someone sues the company. I wonder if people also said it was no big deal when the guy took the fatal cleat to the head in the Columbia incident or the girl got squished on America Sings.

Again, it is my initial feeling that the Disney will prevail in this suit should it go to trial and not be settled with "hush money". I just wanted to point out that things aren't as cut and dry as people are claiming.

 

[toocherie]

Again, it is my initial feeling that the Disney will prevail in this suit should it go to trial and not be settled with "hush money". I just wanted to point out that things aren't as cut and dry as people are claiming.

Just FYI--Disney is well-known in the legal community for fighting against any lawsuit that it feels is without merit. Not to be a Disney cheerleader, but I think the only time they pay out settlement money is when in fact someone deserves it.

 

[heatherleigh]

"I just wanted to point out that things aren't as cut and dry as people are claiming. " This is insulting. I think, for the most part, the people on this board have the intelligence to make judgments or form opinions on stories in the news. Just because our opinions may not be in sync with your own, does not mean we are not taking the whole picture into consideration.

That's great you are playing devil's advocate, however, making facetious references to accidents like the Columbia is not conducive to your argument.

 

[disfaninca]

calsig31, have you ever been on the Jungle Cruise boats? People are not sitting in rows behind each other. There are seats along the edge of the boats and seats on the inside facing the outside of the boats. So even if you sit in the front of the boat, you don't have to do much turning around to see everyone else on the boat.
Jim Hill never mentioned anything about people being behind him, he also never said anything about "collecting himself before he turned around". Here are his exact words. So that you are no longer confused:

"There was a scraping sound beneath the bow and the boat lurched to a stop. The sudden stop bent people forward, but no one was thrown out of their seat. The boat drifted backward off the rocks and the boat settled back into the river".

"Everything was stable at this point so we all had a moment to collect ourselves. Skipper Chris apologized and pointed out the obvious: we weren’t going anywhere for a bit. He joked “I guess this time the hippo’s won!” Most of us quickly realized that, rather than a disaster, we were all going to leave Disneyland with a great story to tell our families and friends".

And remember, he also said the boat was half empty, so if someone was thrown from their seats, people would have noticed. Especially if someone was hurt. And he specifically said no one was thrown from their seats.

 

[calsig31]

"I just wanted to point out that things aren't as cut and dry as people are claiming. " This is insulting.

Seriously, how is that insulting? Did you read the posts that I quoted? They immediately condemned the plaintiffs as having a frivolous suit and made the issue seem cut and dry. I pointed out that it isn't, as any good attorney would. I find it just as insulting that you didn't bother to read the other posts that I was responding to.

calsig31, have you ever been on the Jungle Cruise boats? People are not sitting in rows behind each other. There are seats along the edge of the boats and seats on the inside facing the outside of the boats.

As a premium Annual Passholder for the past 12 years I have ridden it countless times. Have you ever been on it? It makes me wonder because if you have, you would have noticed that even though people are sitting around the outside of the boat, they are usually still rotated so they are facing forward to look at the skipper and the upcoming scenery rather than at the person across the boat from them.

Jim Hill never mentioned anything about people being behind him, he also never said anything about "collecting himself before he turned around". Here are his exact words. So that you are no longer confused:

Here is the law of inertia so that you are no longer confused. Objects (or people) in motion tend to remain in motion in the direction that they are traveling. Therefore, since the boat was traveling forward, it is safe to say that the author was turned toward the front of the boat when the boat lurched to a sudden stop since he said that he was bent forward. This means that he did not immediately have a view of what went on in the back of the boat. He would have had to sit up and right himself before looking around. If he was not turned to face the front of the boat, he would have stated that he was either thrown to the right or left, as due to the laws of inertia it would be impossible to be thrown forward from a position facing the side of the boat when it stopped. He would have had no view at all whether or not someone fell out of their seat behind him.

Also in situations like this, adrenaline kicks in, so the plaintiffs could have fallen out of their seats and not realized they were injured until later which would explain why they were able to be back in their seats so quickly.

And remember, he also said the boat was half empty, so if someone was thrown from their seats, people would have noticed. Especially if someone was hurt. And he specifically said no one was thrown from their seats.

Maybe yes, maybe no. All we know for sure is that the author didn't see it. That doesn't mean that it didn't happen or that someone else didn't see it.