Man falls 20ft in Tower of Terror line

[JH87]

Here's a joke that's going around:

"Do you suppose when he fell, he then came back up, then fell again, and came back up...kinda like the ride?"

 

[biohaz_man]

Actually the POLICE are saying that this was a case of underage drinking. And since it was also reported that he and his friends had been there all day (accident occured at 10:30pm)....well, I suppose they could have snuck in alcohol, but the bag check should have found that right?

Lucky for the Disney employee who served the 20yo alcohol, the "social host" law signed by Gov Schwarzenegger didn't take effect until the day after the "accident" because that law holds the adult who served the alcohol responsible for the his injuries. Of course, Disney will end up being liable for his stupidity anyway.

And...my opinion doesn't change...I still don't think they should be serving alcohol in the parks (restaurants sure because you can control who is drinking it and whether they've already had too much). Walt was always opposed to it, wish they'd respected that. IF they could enforce a policy where those who are showing signs of having had too much wouldn't be served I'd have a lot less problem with it....but of course that would mean saying no to a guest. I'm not opposed to drinking...and do a bit of it myself, but responsibly, something many people seem incapable of unfortunately.

Oddly enough, I just started law school this week and we've spent all week specifically discussing third party liability in the context of alcoholic beverage consumption in California all week. The law you are referring to is AB 2486 which modified a section of California Civil code (1714, specifically) to read that a HOMEOWNER is liable for injuries to a MINOR or a THIRD PARTY if he/she serves alcohol to the MINOR at his/her RESIDENCE. Previously, social hosts were indemnified against liability by Business & Professions Code section 25602 and only liable if the minor was "obviously intoxicated" at the time of "selling" the alcohol to him/her under section 25602.1.

The trouble is, DL is not a "social host" within the definition of the new law. What does pertain is the criminal act of selling liquor to a minor in the State of California. That being said, I'm sure a lawsuit is already being drawn up against DL for all kinds of negligence and this young man may have earned himself a nice settlement despite his reckless behavior.

BTW, restaurants who serve alcohol to someone who is "obviously intoxicated" resulting in injury to a third party are also NOT civilly liable under California law, they can serve and serve and serve to the point of utter inebriation and can get off scot free if that person hurts someone.

 

[caimakale]

Oddly enough, I just started law school this week and we've spent all week specifically discussing third party liability in the context of alcoholic beverage consumption in California all week. The law you are referring to is AB 2486 which modified a section of California Civil code (1714, specifically) to read that a HOMEOWNER is liable for injuries to a MINOR or a THIRD PARTY if he/she serves alcohol to the MINOR at his/her RESIDENCE. Previously, social hosts were indemnified against liability by Business & Professions Code section 25602 and only liable if the minor was "obviously intoxicated" at the time of "selling" the alcohol to him/her under section 25602.1.

The trouble is, DL is not a "social host" within the definition of the new law. What does pertain is the criminal act of selling liquor to a minor in the State of California. That being said, I'm sure a lawsuit is already being drawn up against DL for all kinds of negligence and this young man may have earned himself a nice settlement despite his reckless behavior.

BTW, restaurants who serve alcohol to someone who is "obviously intoxicated" resulting in injury to a third party are also NOT civilly liable under California law, they can serve and serve and serve to the point of utter inebriation and can get off scot free if that person hurts someone.

I don't see how Disney can get sued.

Per Disney and the Anaheim Police:

"The guest was standing in line with friends on a second-floor platform when he climbed over a barrier to the area below and lost his balance and fell approximately 25 feet," said Disney spokeswoman Suzi Brown in a statement.

Anaheim Sgt. Rick Martinez said that just moments before the fall the man commented on how it would be funny if someone fell.

"Alcohol was not a factor in the accident," Martinez said.

If it did go to court, the judge should ask..."Was it funny?" and then dismiss the case.

 

[Leshaface]

Oddly enough, I just started law school this week and we've spent all week specifically discussing third party liability in the context of alcoholic beverage consumption in California all week. The law you are referring to is AB 2486 which modified a section of California Civil code (1714, specifically) to read that a HOMEOWNER is liable for injuries to a MINOR or a THIRD PARTY if he/she serves alcohol to the MINOR at his/her RESIDENCE. Previously, social hosts were indemnified against liability by Business & Professions Code section 25602 and only liable if the minor was "obviously intoxicated" at the time of "selling" the alcohol to him/her under section 25602.1.

The trouble is, DL is not a "social host" within the definition of the new law. What does pertain is the criminal act of selling liquor to a minor in the State of California. That being said, I'm sure a lawsuit is already being drawn up against DL for all kinds of negligence and this young man may have earned himself a nice settlement despite his reckless behavior.

BTW, restaurants who serve alcohol to someone who is "obviously intoxicated" resulting in injury to a third party are also NOT civilly liable under California law, they can serve and serve and serve to the point of utter inebriation and can get off scot free if that person hurts someone.

Very interesting!

Thanks!

 

[Disney Dreams]

There is a comedian, Ron White, who has a joke with a punchline, "You can't fix stupid." It's just that simple.

Why are people here so quick to blame alcohol for any bizarre behavior? Some people just do stupid things. As stated by others, the article clearly states alcohol was not a factor.

You can't protect people from their own stupidity. Sad, but true.

...Maybe it is an Australian thing, but we have never been offered this here (obviously we have champagne breaksfasts, but that is a completely different thing)...

Why is champagne a "different thing"? Did you know that you can get drunk off of champagne quicker than many other alcohols because of the carbonation? Why is a glass of champagne at breakfast acceptable, but a strawberry daiquiri is not? I don't get it.

- Dreams

 

[tdashgirl]

Oddly enough, I just started law school this week and we've spent all week specifically discussing third party liability in the context of alcoholic beverage consumption in California all week.

Interesting info, thanks for sharing

I don't see how Disney can get sued.

You know how it is though ... people sue all the time even when they're clearly in the wrong. Often corporations, who have insurance, will settle instead of going to court. I say that just from personal observation, I am not in law school and don't plan on ever attending law school

 

[JH87]

If it did go to court, the judge should ask..."Was it funny?" and then dismiss the case.

& the quote about how you can't fix stupid...lol.
It is true...i have encountered some pretty unintelligent people.
But really, why else would a railing there?
If this guy wins any money then I will be very upset. It's like, it pays to be stupid in this country

 

[MRCHIPS]

Well thats no suprise there ha Although they do serve alcohol during glowfest.

 

[MRCHIPS]

Glad to hear it was plain ole stupidity rather than being under the influence.. Kid's still a moron.

Acutally Connie, it's VERY easy to sneak your own alcohol in....vodka looks exactly like water if you put it in a plain water bottle. Not giving anyone ideas, just saying.

True but the smell coming from it is easably noticable someone in the park would confront the man right away

 

[Disney Dreams]

True but the smell coming from it is easably noticable someone in the park would confront the man right away

I doubt it. If you were at the Park and saw someone drinking from a water bottle, why would you even THINK to go over and smell them? It would not be something you would probably even notice.

In any case, the article clearly states alcohol was not a factor.

 

[Leshaface]

True but the smell coming from it is easably noticable someone in the park would confront the man right away

Not if you get a good brand of vodka..like the goose...not that I know or anything......lol jk

 

[CrazyDuck]

This is why they need the ticket gates with the biometric readers like they have at WDW. They could use his fingerprints as a way to identify him and lock him out of the parks!

 

[disneyfaninaz]

This is why they need the ticket gates with the biometric readers like they have at WDW. They could use his fingerprints as a way to identify him and lock him out of the parks!

Yah, nice idea except the biometric readers do not read fingerprints! They read finger dimensions. If he had an annual pass they could just take it away from him.

 

[FoodLover]

Yah, nice idea except the biometric readers do not read fingerprints! They read finger dimensions.

They used to read finger dimensions, back when you had to put two fingers in the reader. Now they read a partial fingerprint, which is why you put your finger on a glass plate these days.

Mary

 

[Funball]

No even close. As long as the alcohol wasn't in a glass bottle or its original container I highly doubt bag check would have blinked twice at it.

I doubt it. If you were at the Park and saw someone drinking from a water bottle, why would you even THINK to go over and smell them? It would not be something you would probably even notice.

In any case, the article clearly states alcohol was not a factor.

Not if you get a good brand of vodka..like the goose...not that I know or anything......lol jk

I read it was a teenager and he wanted to prove to his friends how macho he was….

nothing wrong with grey goose!

 

[Leshaface]

I read it was a teenager and he wanted to prove to his friends how macho he was….

nothing wrong with grey goose!

Absolutely nothing wrong...or the Bel. either!

But for right now, I got the Newcastle going on. Happy Friday!

 

[cats mom]

There is a comedian, Ron White, who has a joke with a punchline, "You can't fix stupid." It's just that simple.

Why are people here so quick to blame alcohol for any bizarre behavior? Some people just do stupid things. As stated by others, the article clearly states alcohol was not a factor.

You can't protect people from their own stupidity. Sad, but true.


- Dreams

In all fairness, the original article did state: "Martinez says there are some indications that the man had been drinking." I believe most of the posts discussing the possible role of alcohol in the "accident" took place before Martinez was subsequently quoted as saying: "Alcohol was not a factor in the accident"

If jumper boy had been drinking, at least he might have been able to claim impaired judgement. You're right about no excuse other than plain old stupidity now though.

 

[Shellyf62]

There is a comedian, Ron White, who has a joke with a punchline, "You can't fix stupid." It's just that simple.

Why are people here so quick to blame alcohol for any bizarre behavior? Some people just do stupid things. As stated by others, the article clearly states alcohol was not a factor.

You can't protect people from their own stupidity. Sad, but true.



Why is champagne a "different thing"? Did you know that you can get drunk off of champagne quicker than many other alcohols because of the carbonation? Why is a glass of champagne at breakfast acceptable, but a strawberry daiquiri is not? I don't get it.

- Dreams

I have heard of a champagne breakfast, but never a cocktail breakfast, that is what I meant by my comment.
I personally would not drink alcohol at breakfast- other people obviously do, but I dont have to agree with it.

 

[ConnieB]

In all fairness, the original article did state: "Martinez says there are some indications that the man had been drinking." I believe most of the posts discussing the possible role of alcohol in the "accident" took place before Martinez was subsequently quoted as saying: "Alcohol was not a factor in the accident"

If jumper boy had been drinking, at least he might have been able to claim impaired judgement. You're right about no excuse other than plain old stupidity now though.

Also, here in Phoenix on the local news, they interviewed someone that I could have sworn was in police uniform who "confirmed" that he had been drinking. So the information that he was drinking has been announced much wider than the "oops he wasn't drinking" seems to have been....at least here. The newspaper clearly said he'd been drinking.....not "indications".

Just more evidence of the stupidity of journalists too.....I'd like the true and complete version rather than the "gotta rush this and make it up to fill the gaps so we can be the first to report it.". If that means I don't learn about this story until later in the day or even the next day....hey I'm ok with that, this is interesting to me but certainly not earth shattering enough that I have to know it RIGHT NOW. Get the facts straight then report it accurately. Gee, what a concept.

And actually, the guy ought to be wishing that he could use the excuse of "I was drunk"....because if the reports of no alcohol are really the truth...well, then he's truly just stupid with no excuse. Maybe it's just me, but I'd rather be labeled an underage drinker than an idiot, lol.

 

[ConnieB]

Oddly enough, I just started law school this week and we've spent all week specifically discussing third party liability in the context of alcoholic beverage consumption in California all week. The law you are referring to is AB 2486 which modified a section of California Civil code (1714, specifically) to read that a HOMEOWNER is liable for injuries to a MINOR or a THIRD PARTY if he/she serves alcohol to the MINOR at his/her RESIDENCE. Previously, social hosts were indemnified against liability by Business & Professions Code section 25602 and only liable if the minor was "obviously intoxicated" at the time of "selling" the alcohol to him/her under section 25602.1.

The trouble is, DL is not a "social host" within the definition of the new law. What does pertain is the criminal act of selling liquor to a minor in the State of California. That being said, I'm sure a lawsuit is already being drawn up against DL for all kinds of negligence and this young man may have earned himself a nice settlement despite his reckless behavior.

BTW, restaurants who serve alcohol to someone who is "obviously intoxicated" resulting in injury to a third party are also NOT civilly liable under California law, they can serve and serve and serve to the point of utter inebriation and can get off scot free if that person hurts someone.

Well, being that I'm not in California I haven't heard anything about this law until the news anchor spouted off about it, and the quickie sound bite of Gov Arnie which really seemed to be saying that had this bill been passed already then gee Disney would have been their first case, lol. Journalistic spin or a Gov speaking out of turn. But...that sounds like a good first step for a law.....now if they'd just extend it to anyone serving alcohol. Bartenders keep serving after someone is so far gone they can't get the money out of their pocket without help.....sorry in my opinion that Bartender is just as responsible for the accident the guy has on the way home, because Bartender was too greedy to say no to his customer. Or at least require them to take away the keys and call the guy a cab. A friend told me in Texas you have to give them your license and they "charge" drinks you buy towards your license...then if you're in an accident there is no "I only had one drink"....your license says it all. He also thought there was a limit to how many you could have a night, but couldn't remember what that limit was, lol. I hate giving the government control of my life...after all if I want to get drunk that's my choice....but given the potential for my decision to cost someone else their life....well, since folks won't take responsibility for themselves, someone needs to when it affects the rest of us.