Segway Lawsuit

[Justin Jett]

I do agree that FDA approval is not currently required by the ADA. That said....the FDA's approval process as it relates to the ADA is currently under review. Link posted above.

This raises some questions:

Segway's literature has a disclaimer that states the Segway was not designed as a medical device. I realize that disabled people have to be creative and resourceful sometimes, but should the ADA allow usees of a device outside of a manufacturor's stated design parameters?

Why does Segway put such a disclaimer in their literature? They have a Segway designed for mail delivery and law enforcement, as well as other designs. Segway could very easily design one for use as a medical device.

 

[Justin Jett]

I'm hold off on judgment until I get my free ride around EPCOT!!

The Invacare TDXSP tour of World Showcase costs $80.

 

[DisneyKevin]

The Invacare TDXSP tour of World Showcase costs $80.

Plus the $14 parking fee.

 

[Justin Jett]

Plus the $14 parking fee.

Park Admission is required for this tour.

 

[Justin Jett]

I do love how the courts seem to dismiss cases while leaving gaping doors through which to file new lawsuits.

I think the debate boils down to needs vs wants. I am fortunate in that I do not need a wheelchair or GAC but have been on the boards enough to see the conversation from those that do. From what I can tell and what people like Skip and Kevin have mentioned Disney goes out of their way to make sure everyone can enjoy their parks. There are bare minimums designated by laws like the ADA and the absolute no device barred view that any device is allowed regardless of cost or guest safety.

Disney is somewhere in the middle of the continuum. While I'm sure there are people who would like to use a Segway instead of a an ECV or wheelchair is it necessary that they do? There may be the one in a billion outlier with an ailment that doesn't allow them to sit in a chair, but basing a policy on such a rare situation would be like forcing them to completely cover the parks with canopies for the one or two people who can't be exposed to the sun at all.

No policy will make 100% of the people happy and trying to do so will end in ulcers and possibly a rubber room.

I agree

 

[jcb]

I do love how the courts seem to dismiss cases while leaving gaping doors through which to file new lawsuits.

I think the debate boils down to needs vs wants. I am fortunate in that I do not need a wheelchair or GAC but have been on the boards enough to see the conversation from those that do. From what I can tell and what people like Skip and Kevin have mentioned Disney goes out of their way to make sure everyone can enjoy their parks. There are bare minimums designated by laws like the ADA and the absolute no device barred view that any device is allowed regardless of cost or guest safety.

Disney is somewhere in the middle of the continuum. While I'm sure there are people who would like to use a Segway instead of a an ECV or wheelchair is it necessary that they do? There may be the one in a billion outlier with an ailment that doesn't allow them to sit in a chair, but basing a policy on such a rare situation would be like forcing them to completely cover the parks with canopies for the one or two people who can't be exposed to the sun at all.

No policy will make 100% of the people happy and trying to do so will end in ulcers and possibly a rubber room.

Frank,

I don't view the decision as "leaving gaping doors through which to file new lawsuits." I realize the media probably portrayed the decision in this manner. Most news media rarely understand legal procedures and rules (they are not alone; most lawyers don't either).

A fundamental rule federal judges must follow is to only rule on the issues before the court. In the Segway decision, the judge could only rule on the ability of the suing parties to bring the suit. He simply couldn't rule on anyone else's ability to sue. It wouldn't be fair to them (or to WDW). It takes long enough to get legal suits resolved, the system would be a parking lot if the rules permitted judges to rule on issues not before them.

I am not sure I understand your point about requiring a policy to be based on a one in a billion outlier. Certainly, the decision did not close the door on someone who wanted to file a lawsuit insisting that a costly policy be adopted solely to fit their unique needs. It isn't really accurate to say the decision "opened the door" for your hypothetical outlier lawsuit because that lawsuit could be filed without regard to the court's decision.

I'm not disagreeing with you on where Disney falls in the continuum of accommodating individuals who have a disability. I certainly agree that it makes little sense to require costly changes in order to accommodate only a very select group of folks. The ADA doesn't really do that, however. Of course, the issue is almost always how costly and how many folks will benefit.

 

[FireDancer]

Frank,

I don't view the decision as "leaving gaping doors through which to file new lawsuits." I realize the media probably portrayed the decision in this manner. Most news media rarely understand legal procedures and rules (they are not alone; most lawyers don't either).

A fundamental rule federal judges must follow is to only rule on the issues before the court. In the Segway decision, the judge could only rule on the ability of the suing parties to bring the suit. He simply couldn't rule on anyone else's ability to sue. It wouldn't be fair to them (or to WDW). It takes long enough to get legal suits resolved, the system would be a parking lot if the rules permitted judges to rule on issues not before them.

I am not sure I understand your point about requiring a policy to be based on a one in a billion outlier. Certainly, the decision did not close the door on someone who wanted to file a lawsuit insisting that a costly policy be adopted solely to fit their unique needs. It isn't really accurate to say the decision "opened the door" for your hypothetical outlier lawsuit because that lawsuit could be filed without regard to the court's decision.

I'm not disagreeing with you on where Disney falls in the continuum of accommodating individuals who have a disability. I certainly agree that it makes little sense to require costly changes in order to accommodate only a very select group of folks. The ADA doesn't really do that, however. Of course, the issue is almost always how costly and how many folks will benefit.

The first part was kind of tongue in cheek and not really related to the second. In the segway argument in general, not necessarily this court case, the argument against the policy always seems to be either (1) I want to ride a segway not an ECV or wheelchair or (2) What if I can't sit in a wheelchair or ECV and the only option for me is the Segway.

The first argument I find void because my interpretation of the ADA (at least in intent) is that it is meant to provide access, not cater to choice. If the ECV or wheelchair provides a handicapped guest access I don't feel that access has to be the particular vehicle they guest wants, especially when there are underlying safety issues. The second is what I was referring to as making a rule based on a rarity like the chance someone would have literally no option other than a segway. While I am sure there are people who fall into the category it seems better to make the policy based on the majority (an alternative means of access) then the long shot (no other means of access).

What I would have liked the judge to do is rule that the Disney policy is not a violation of any law instead of just finding the plaintiff has no standing. I'm sure there are a million legal reasons he didn't but it would seem like common sense to me that a ruling that nipped future litigation in the bud is better in general. Just ruling the plaintiff had no standing seems to mean I can book a Disney trip with the intention of using a segway I have a medical need for and then sue Disney again. If the end result of the second lawsuit is going to be a ruling that Disney is not violating the law I would prefer the preemptive ruling now instead of the reaction later. I am of the belief that the less lawsuits the better. Perhaps this is naive but finding that Disney doesn't violate the law now instead of later would save me the time and money of my lawsuit and Disney the time and money of their lawsuit. It seems like a good way to keep a lot of these kids of trials out of the courts and clear up the docket for those that are needed. Kind of the 2 birds with 1 stone view.

 

[jcb]

What I would have liked the judge to do is rule that the Disney policy is not a violation of any law instead of just finding the plaintiff has no standing.

We can certainly agree on that - though I must admit my disappointment was more that the issue was not resolved rather than that the judge didn't necessarily rule in favor of WDW. I thought WDW had the better argument.

I won't repeat my prior, far too long, explanation about judges ruling on concrete issues. The issue you (and I) wanted to see settled wasn't actually a "live issue" presented to the judge. He was simply asked to approve or disapprove a settlement that WDW (and the suing folks) wanted him to approve.

I don't recall whether you followed the prior iteration of this thread but it will get really interesting when the government issues revised regulations that may (or may not) impose new access requirements on theme parks. That legal battle will likely make this lawsuit look like a walk in the park with free parking.

 

[FireDancer]

We can certainly agree on that - though I must admit my disappointment was more that the issue was not resolved rather than that the judge didn't necessarily rule in favor of WDW. I thought WDW had the better argument.

I won't repeat my prior, far too long, explanation about judges ruling on concrete issues. The issue you (and I) wanted to see settled wasn't actually a "live issue" presented to the judge. He was simply asked to approve or disapprove a settlement that WDW (and the suing folks) wanted him to approve.

I don't recall whether you followed the prior iteration of this thread but it will get really interesting when the government issues revised regulations that may (or may not) impose new access requirements on theme parks. That legal battle will likely make this lawsuit look like a walk in the park with free parking.

I did follow the prior thread, I'm not sure I posted on it though. I agree completely with what you said. I have no doubt that the judge was tied by the law, it just seems sometimes the law could be a bit more logical that it is. Sometimes the line between legislative and judiciary gets a bit blurred also, and this seems to be to be a legislative problem more than a judicial.

It will be interesting to see what the new guidelines will be. If Disney were just doing the minimum in regards to the legislation it could be worrisome but since they are so willing to make most any accommodation I don't know if the legislation will pose that big of a problem with them. I think perception as opposed to reality may weigh against them. They are the big name in amusement parks and they are often viewed as the big bad corporate bad guy, sometimes justifiably sometimes not. It is logical that even if they are the most accommodating they will be the first ones sued and people who don't know first hand (or second hand in my case) of the extent they go to provide access to their parks could easily see it as big Disney against little handicapped segway rider. I guess only time will tell.

 

[Expert_Glider]

Another part of the issue is Disney's high profile in the industry.

For example, a few zoos around the country have been (or recently started) denying Segway access (for persons with qualifying disabilities) based on Disney's denial of access.

This is the "snowball" effect that makes their complete ban problematic in other venues throughout the country.

The updated ADA guidance forthcoming from the US Dept. of Justice should (hopefully) put this issue to rest.

 

[Justin Jett]

Another part of the issue is Disney's high profile in the industry.

For example, a few zoos around the country have been (or recently started) denying Segway access (for persons with qualifying disabilities) based on Disney's denial of access.

This is the "snowball" effect that makes their complete ban problematic in other venues throughout the country.

The updated ADA guidance forthcoming from the US Dept. of Justice should (hopefully) put this issue to rest.

Is any legal action being taken against the zoos? Most theme parks do not allow Segways, although Universal does allow them in.

Why is Disney being singled out?

 

[Justin Jett]

Is any legal action being taken against the zoos? Most theme parks do not allow Segways, although Universal does allow them in.

Why is Disney being singled out?

Busch Entertainment is also high profile in the industry. I have read (on other message boards) that Segways have been denied access. Why is only Disney ever mentioned in the mainstream?

 

[jcb]

Busch Entertainment is also high profile in the industry. I have read (on other message boards) that Segways have been denied access. Why is only Disney ever mentioned in the mainstream?

I'll just pickup this thread where Skip left it off. The Sentinel has a story about a different kind of two wheeled assistive device (called an IBOT) and the "ruckus" it caused this last weekend.

If what WDW says is true - that they "ask" users of two wheel devices to use four wheels while boarding attractions - I am not sure I see the significance of this as a news story. I suppose what makes this a newsworthy story is the allegation that WDW "harassed and followed" the individual.

And a short update on the lawsuit. The original suing parties asked the judge to reconsider the dismissal. He denied the request in a one page order. They have appealed to the federal court of appeals in Atlanta. It takes a while to get an appeal decided and I don't expect a decision for about a year give or take a few months.

 

[Justin Jett]

The IBOT was actually a 4-wheeled wheelchair that uses Segway technology to allow it to balance on two wheels. It was discontinued last year.

Users had to be certified to operate the IBOT, and it had a "black box" to record all operations. I was certified for the IBOT, but it was not covered by insurance.

The IBOT required training and certification to operate it safely. To me....the same rules should be put in place for a Segway. Also, the IBOT's computer regulated the speed while in the balance mode. Segway speed could also be regulated.

www.ibotnow.com

 

[Justin Jett]

Let me also add that the IBOT was a perscribed device. It required a physician and therapist approval. The IBOT was designed as a medical device.

The Segway HT is a spinoff of the IBOT. Segway was first to market, because the IBOT was subject to FDA trials.

The IBOT appeared in Innoventions in the late 1990's

 

[Justin Jett]

After researching the IBOT "ruckus" situation, I must agree with Disney. If the guy was using the IBOT in "balance mode" then it does indeed fall under the Segway ban.

The man should have entered the park in "standard mode." The quoted statement “I’m not going down on four wheels, no way,” is purely a guest not following cast member instructions.

The IBOT Manual states:

"While driving in a noisy, sunny environment, the audible
tones and the display are difficult to hear and see, which
may result in an automatic transition. To avoid this
occurrence, you may want to consider transitioning out
of Balance Function into either 4-Wheel Function or
Standard Function when the environment prevents you
from hearing or seeing potential caution and warning
signals on the UCP."

"Never transition into or drive in Balance Function on
wet, uneven, unstable or slippery surfaces.
The iBOT® Mobility System uses friction to maintain its
balance and could slip on some surfaces. Personal
injury or death could result. Always transition and drive
on dry, even, stable, and relatively level, slip-resistant
surfaces."

"Allow for 9.2 feet (2.8 meters) of braking distance
when traveling at top speed in Balance Function.
Balance Function requires a greater stopping distance
than other functions. Braking without considering the
required stopping distance could result in personal
injury. Always be aware of the needed braking
distance. Reduce speed in congested or confined
areas."

I am speaking from my own IBOT experiences in the summer of 2007

 

[Expert_Glider]

He is shown in the photo with his family.

He is not travelling at top speed. He is going with his family at walking speed. I'm sure there are similar warnings with your chair too.

He just wants to be at (or close to) eye level with others.

Disney has banned Segways (even though their Cast Members use them and they offer public tours) and now they are trying to ban the iBOT. The weight and speed of Bounders has been brought up as well as other chairs that may not "fit" Disney's idea of what is OK.

But it is not Disney's choice because they are a "place of public accommodation"...it is the individuals choice (protected by the ADA) as long as they are not a "direct threat" to others. A "direct threat" cannot be imagined...it has to be real and provable by objective measures.

Is this gentleman, moving about with his family in his iBOT, a direct threat?

Once Disney is allowed to thumb their nose at some mobility devices (Segways), other infractions will surely follow.....hence the iBOT ruckus.

This is not the end...just the beginning.

 

[kaligal]

I'm very pro-Segway and feel that people who can't walk but don't have to sit shouldn't be forced to sit because someone else feels that is best for them.

I believe that in time, society will catch up with the technology. Once upon a time, people didn't want motorized wheelchairs, either. Hell, some still don't. The Segway's time will come just like it did for scooters and such.

I specifically like how the Segways are safe and just peachy when the Disney employees are riding around on them...but the customers can't use 'em.

 

[Justin Jett]

He is shown in the photo with his family.

He is not travelling at top speed. He is going with his family at walking speed. I'm sure there are similar warnings with your chair too.

He just wants to be at (or close to) eye level with others.

Disney has banned Segways (even though their Cast Members use them and they offer public tours) and now they are trying to ban the iBOT. The weight and speed of Bounders has been brought up as well as other chairs that may not "fit" Disney's idea of what is OK.

But it is not Disney's choice because they are a "place of public accommodation"...it is the individuals choice (protected by the ADA) as long as they are not a "direct threat" to others. A "direct threat" cannot be imagined...it has to be real and provable by objective measures.

Is this gentleman, moving about with his family in his iBOT, a direct threat?

Once Disney is allowed to thumb their nose at some mobility devices (Segways), other infractions will surely follow.....hence the iBOT ruckus.

This is not the end...just the beginning.

There are plenty of pictures of people using an IBOT in standard mode at Walt Disney World. Some on Independence Technologies' own website. The picture of the man in question at Walt Disney World clearly shows him using the chair in in standard mode.

This is no different than "Please keep your arms and legs inside the train at all times." Safety Rules! As someone who has used the IBOT, I uderstand why these rules were put into place.

The cast members would have allowed him into the park, if he was in standard mode. As I posted before, there are rules (set by Indepence Technologies) for using the IBOT in balance mode. These rules were put in place for SAFETY reasons. There are countless accidents caused by IBOT users who ignore the training and certification. To see these reports, please search the FDA's website for Adverse Event Reports about the IBOT.

It is important to once again note that the IBOT is a medical mobility device, but the Segway HT is NOT a medical mobility device. The Segway HT literature clearly states that the Segway HT is not DESIGNED to be a medical device. Does the ADA condone using a device outside the MANUFACTURER'S design parameters???

Segway has designed HT's for golf, law enforcement, and off-roading. They could easily design one for medical mobility.

Why hasn't Segway designed a HT to be a medical mobility device?
Are the Segway users able to operate an ECV?
Why are financial awards and vacations being saught by the group?
How is WDW "violating the ADA," when they are making wheelchairs and ECV's available to guests?

WDW makes REASONABLE accomodations for a very wide range of diabilities. I cannot find any fault or violation of the ADA. If anyone can give me a paragraph or section of the ADA that proves a basis for the lawsuit, please clarify it for me.

If the judge's decision was a "victory for the disabled," why did the plaintiffs ask the judge to reconsider his decision????

That will do it for this edition of "The Skip Fully Charged." And remember.....STAY OFF THE DARN SEGWAYS!

 

[jcb]

That will do it for this edition of "The Skip Fully Charged." And remember.....STAY OFF THE DARN SEGWAYS!

You make me laugh.