Space Mountain Accident

[Peter Pirate]

Everyone knows that I'm a big Disney defender, but if these people were hurt in the manner described, which would obviously be Disney negligence, then they are entitled to compensation and I wouldn't consider medical bills and a hopper to be sufficient...

 

[Rneighh]

I must have missed something --- how was Disney negligent. Where there reports of the brakes not working? Had they not completed scheduled maintenance checks.

For negligence you must have had prior knowledge or should have had prior knowledge (not performing maintenance which would have shown the problem). If this was a sudden failure with no prior knowledge I don't see the negligence.

I have not read a complete new article on this so I may have missed the negligence on the part of Disney.

Renee

 

[Panthius]

With regards to the negligence argument, if these people involved in this accident were seriously injured or worse, died, would Disney only have to pay for their hospital bills and/or funerals? I don't think that negligence is the only issue here, and if it were, I would believe that only the hospital bills and a refund of their daily admission were in order, but we have the element of human emotions involved here which will result in a settlement for more than just hospital bills.

Pan

 

[Peter Pirate]

Renee, if what happened (as we know it) happend (one car not breaking properly and running into another) is this not negligence? Is it not incumbant upon Disney to make sure that the guest is always safe? That their fail safe system is just that? In this case, for whatever reason, it appears that Disney's fail safe system broke down...Negligence.

I'm not big on huge damages but certainly a nice settlement would be in order to compensate not only for injuries, but lost time & pain & suffering..

 

[KNWVIKING]

I think I started this great legal debate when I comented about BigD's first statement. The issue is not about the details of the accident, it was about the word "...hopefully". I hope that these injured people get what they truely,even legally deserve and don't take the attitude of "hot damn,lucky me got hurt at Disney,I'm set for life now". And that attitude,I might add, is fueled by contingency lawyers.

 

[YoHo]

Look, negligence isn't cut and dry as you would want to believe. Maybe Scoop will come by and edubicate us, but the law MAY say that it was reseaonable for Disney to anticipate the failure regardless of whether the ride past maintainence checks. Its the nature of Civil law.

 

[Bob O]

jeffinBigD the last thing we need is politicians getting involved in insurance premuims. The market should set the rate with no interference from big brother government or politicians getting involved under the ruse they are out for the little guy!!
Peter Pirate What would you consider a nice sttlement???? Millions,hundreds of thousands/thousands?? Accidents will happen and nothing in life is perfect of fail proof. Other than getting hospital bills paid and throw in a park hopper they deserve no more unless it is proven that disney was aware of a problem and didnt fix it. And since millions have ridden this ride without any type of problems i dont think it was caused by negligence. And of course the ambulance chasing lawyers will tell their clients they have struck it rich by being hurt in disney property

 

[Rneighh]

Speaking as a paralegal.............

Disney may well offer some type of a settlement to resolve the issue. However, this thread has gone on to a legal debate. NO just because the accident happened does not make Disney negligent. What constitutes negligence is defined by statute and each of those elements must be met to prove negligence.

Renee

 

[Panthius]

I believe these people should get more than their hospital bills and a park hopper thrown in. There is some level of suffering involved here. The people were riding a ride that they felt "safe" on and thousands, if not millions have ridden without so much as a bruise occuring as a result. These people were sent to the hospital due to a malfunction of a Disney (still supposed to equal happiness) attraction which sent them to the hospital quite possibly on their vacation. For that, they deserve more. How much more, I don't know, but they deserve more in my opinion. I do not think they deserve an absurd amount of money, depending on Disney's negligence of course, but they should get more for their suffering as a result of this happening.

Panthius

 

[Peter Pirate]

I agree Panthius, as for how much? well gee, I don't know and it isn't up to me. Certainly I'm against the frivilous but remember MCDonalds payed millions over the 'hot coffee' incident & I see Disney as far more at fault for this than Mickey D's was for hot coffee...

 

[Bob O]

So what is an absurd amount and what isnt an absurd amount???
And are accidents outlawed now, does machinery work perfect everytime??? If my car doesnt start should i now sue the car manufacturer??? If my computer runs slow should i sue somebody because i also suffered, when will this madness end and will any company not be bankrupt before sanity is restored??
The trial lawyers have apparnetly brainwashed a sizable portion of the public to believe that any accident, no matter how minor must be rewarded with a hefty pay check, and then people wonder why everything is so expensive!!!

 

[Peter Pirate]

Don't be ridiculous Bob. If you car doesn't start nobody got hurt. If your car's steering wheel freezes up while in motion and an accident occurs, yes I think the car co. should be sued.

You're reaching because of your disgust with the litigation world and perhaps justice in general & I don't necessarily disagree, but when people are put in danger or hurt under circumstances where they had certain assurances that these things WON'T happen, then someone needs to be responsible.

I don't belive in slip and fall accidents & I don't believe in holding other peope responsible for yor idiocy but I do believe in the responsible parties to accidents paying reasonable restitution.

As for how much...I won't play th game, there is no point.

 

[Bob O]

Peter Pirate what if my car doesnt start in winter and its below zero which happens often in Wisc and i get severe frostbite or freeze to death, shouldnt the manufacturer be held responsbile under your logic?? Thats not supposed to happen is it?? I would probably have suffered far worse than those hurt on SM?? And then you believe they are deserved compensation but wont let us know how much you believe they should get, if you want them to get money shouldnt you also let us know how much?? And nobdy can slip and fall accidently?? Are you telling us it never happens??

 

[Golter]

I must defend insurance companies.. As a poster stated before we do not expect to make a profit on premiums. Our business overhead is about 30% (Salaries, Benefits, and Insurance, etc.) the other 70% is paid out as claims. We actually expect to pay out more than that usually 1 - 3 % in a good year. Last year as an industry in Texas it was about 30%. And on the homeowners insurance we (Insurance companies in Texas) are paying out $2 for every $1 we take in . Our loss ratios are 200%. Insurance rates are just a product of society. Lawsuit abuse, Fraud, rising medical cost, rising repair cost, the economy, unbalanced budget, Bush in White House, all lead to higher premiums. You cannot legislate rates. It doesn't work. You have to contol the claims abuse. Rates have gone up over a 100% in Texas in the past 12 months and they will continue to rise if the claims are not reduced. Insurance is not a maintence policy or a warranty.

 

[Jeff in BigD]

Originally posted by Bob O
jeffinBigD the last thing we need is politicians getting involved in insurance premuims. The market should set the rate with no interference from big brother government or politicians getting involved under the ruse they are out for the little guy!!

Actually they have in a way. You're required, by law, to have car insurance. The minute that the law demands a service, there needs to be a checks & balance system. I think it's silly that insurance companies fight tooth & nail not to give the money they've insured the people for, in case their house gets blown away, & the house is obliterated by a twister. I'm sorry if this seems a little harsh, but I trust insurance companies about as much as I do the IRS or the mob.

 

[Rneighh]

Actually the McDonalds hot coffee was over turned on appeal but that is never reported so the public get the wrong impression.

Renee

 

[Rneighh]

I state this once again --- a company is negligent IF they had knowledge or should have had knowledge that their is a problem. If you car steering column suddenly goes haywire -- the manufacuter is not negligent unless they had knowledge.

The laws are designed to stop the get rich con artist. However, this does not stop some from filing suit and rarely do you see courts hold plaintiffs liable for friviolous lawsuits. The cases are dismissed and each party bears their own costs. --- Hence the insurance company pays to defend on a case which should have not been filed by both the con artist and attorney who took the case. We would never take such a PI case as it is a waste of time and our time would be better spent on cases with merit.

Renee

 

[Bob O]

JeffinBigD-Not every state are you required to have car ins.In my state you arent required to have auto insurance unless you were involved in a accident and were unable to pay any damages that were your fault. (The requirment mandating car insurance is also wrong and has been shown just to increase costs for the honest driver and have no effect on the dishonest as they will drive if they have insurance or not or have a license to drive or not).
Insurance comnpanies have to look over claims closely as their are numerous dishonest people who will overstate a claim and the value of their holdings in a attempt to make money and then juries who will buy the lawyers idea that insurance companies are rich and can afford it and juries stupid enough not to realize they are screwing everybody who pays a premium by their outrageuos awards based on sympathy and not any actual loses.

 

[EUROPA]

Originally posted by Rneighh
I state this once again --- a company is negligent IF they had knowledge or should have had knowledge that their is a problem. If you car steering column suddenly goes haywire -- the manufacuter is not negligent unless they had knowledge.

...so lets say a part may fail 1% of the time and the company knows this, are they responsible for any damage from that failing part may cause?

 

[Rneighh]

Europa --- that would be for a jury to decide.

Renee