Trial Run for Dogs in Resort Rooms

[gwynne]

That’s what I thought. I think there is no way WDW can release themselves from liability. Think it’s just extra. Like WDW can go after the guest with the pet to recoup the money they paid out to the victim.

And I doubt most pet owners have really carefully pondered this.
(I think this pet room test has opened a huge can of worms. I'm not in favor of it, but I also don't think it's polite or nice to invite pet owners without really making it clean what kind of liability they could incur.)

 

[BK2014]

I’m actually kind of confused about the waiver since I have no legal training. Its fine and good these people are saying they will be responsible for damage caused by their pets, but what if (what if people), someone does get bit by a dog while staying on property. The guests without dogs aren’t signing any waivers, so whats to stop them from sueing Disney for medical and pain and suffering and all that?? I don’t get it.

Nothing would stop them from suing Disney, but they would have the burden to show that somehow Disney negligently, recklessly or intentionally caused their injuries. Simply allowing dogs on property would not be enough. Generally, they would have to show that Disney's dog policy fell below the what is reasonable for similar policies at similar locations. If Disney's policy is more or less in line with industry standards, they would likely not be liable unless there was some other factor that one could point to to show that Disney somehow caused their injuries through negligence, recklessness or by intentionally doing so. Not properly enforcing their policies could be one argument.

 

[LSUmiss]

Nothing would stop them from suing Disney, but they would have the burden to show that somehow Disney negligently, recklessly or intentionally caused their injuries. Simply allowing dogs on property would not be enough. Generally, they would have to show that Disney's dog policy fell below the what is reasonable for similar policies at similar locations. If Disney's policy is more or less in line with industry standards, they would likely not be liable unless there was some other factor that one could point to to show that Disney somehow caused their injuries through negligence, recklessness or by intentionally doing so. Not properly enforcing their policies could be one argument.

And if a dog did attacked someone the owner clearly didn’t have control over the pet which violates the pet policy & was arguably a way that WDW failed to enforce their policy.

But probably WDW would want to settle with the victim & avoid the bad PR & maybe try to recoup $ from the negligent owner.

 

[Candlelady]

And if a dog did attacked someone the owner clearly didn’t have control over the pet which violates the pet policy & was arguably a way that WDW failed to enforce their policy.

But probably WDW would want to settle with the victim & avoid the bad PR & maybe try to recoup $ from the negligent owner.

Not sure they would be able to avoid bad PR with dog bite. Social media would be all over it.

 

[BK2014]

And if a dog did attacked someone the owner clearly didn’t have control over the pet which violates the pet policy & was arguably a way that WDW failed to enforce their policy.

So WDW would be liable because they have failed to enforce their policies by not knowing that the dog owner would lose control of their dog? No. Under that theory, any business that ever created a policy would be liable anytime someone or something violated the business' policies. Makes no sense to me. The simple fact that someone violates a policy does not mean that the company failed to properly enforce their policies.

 

[LSUmiss]

Not sure they would be able to avoid bad PR with dog bite. Social media would be all over it.

But it could be argued that it would be worse if it happened & WDW denied liability & refused to compensate the victim.

 

[LSUmiss]

So WDW would be liable because they have failed to enforce their policies by not knowing that the dog owner would lose control of their dog? No. Under that theory, any business that ever created a policy would be liable anytime someone or something violated the business' policies. Makes no sense to me. The simple fact that someone violates a policy does not mean that the company failed to properly enforce their policies.

I’m saying that could be the argument. Whether that’s valid would be decided in court. You can sue for anything.

 

[BK2014]

But it could be argued that it would be worse if it happened & WDW denied liability & refused to compensate the victim.

Rarely does a company actually admit liability when they settle with someone. Usually the terms of the settlement are undisclosed or do not assign liability.

 

[BK2014]

I’m saying that could be the argument. Whether that’s valid would be decided in court. You can sue for anything.

You're right, and that is the problem.

 

[scrapquitler]

I’m actually kind of confused about the waiver since I have no legal training. Its fine and good these people are saying they will be responsible for damage caused by their pets, but what if (what if people), someone does get bit by a dog while staying on property. The guests without dogs aren’t signing any waivers, so whats to stop them from sueing Disney for medical and pain and suffering and all that?? I don’t get it.

I don't think that waiver actually lets Disney off the hook. Think about the tickets you buy when you go to a sporting event...it says that the venue and the team are not liable if you get hit by a hockey puck, a fly ball, the stadium collapsing or whatever. That doesn't mean that you can't sue them if something happens. Same here, as I understand it.

 

[LSUmiss]

Rarely does a company actually admit liability when they settle with someone. Usually the terms of the settlement are undisclosed or do not assign liability.

True. You’re right. I guess I meant it would be worse PR if word got out that they refused to compensate the victim & made them fight them in court.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Rarely does a company actually admit liability when they settle with someone. Usually the terms of the settlement are undisclosed or do not assign liability.

Also a settlement is not an admission of guilt or responsibility. Many companies settle for the sole purpose of not wanting their name dragged through the mud. It's common for sure.

Also it's something that happens to with your insurance (I know off topic). There were were enough times that the insurance company I worked for covered a loss they were not legally liable for for no other reason than good press.

These things don't take away the fact that there is a contract with limits, etc it's just the way things can happen.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I don't think that waiver actually lets Disney off the hook. Think about the tickets you buy when you go to a sporting event...it says that the venue and the team are not liable if you get hit by a hockey puck, a fly ball, the stadium collapsing or whatever. That doesn't mean that you can't sue them if something happens. Same here, as I understand it.

There actually was a person who sustained an eye injury at our baseball stadium from one of those hot dog launchers. She sued and lost.

 

[BK2014]

True. You’re right. I guess I meant it would be worse PR if word got out that they refused to compensate the victim & made them fight them in court.

It would certainly depend on the details of the incident. If it were clear that Disney had no liability, not settling sends a message that they will not settle frivolous lawsuits with the hopes that it will deter others from filing baseless lawsuits. On the other hand, if there is some question as to whether or not Disney could be found liable, then you're right, it could be worse not to settle the case.

 

[agavegirl1]

I just read the waiver Andre provided. If I was a dog owner and wanted to bring my dog to WDW, I would think twice before doing so. That is one hell of a "promise" by the pet owner. Thanks Andre once again.

 

[wdw4rfam]

What did they say about your biggest concern?

She told me she couldn’t say for sure and I was always welcome to go to the meeting in December and voice it myself, but that she has definitely passed the info to the right place.

 

[scrapquitler]

There actually was a person who sustained an eye injury at our baseball stadium from one of those hot dog launchers. She sued and lost.

well obviously every case filed against a stadium isn't necessarily going to be a winning case, but a waiver doesn't necessarily remove liability, which was the point. If I post a sign on my front door that I'm not liable for slips and falls on my driveway, it doesn't mean that I'm automatically exempt from liability if the salesman walking up my front walk falls on a patch of ice.

 

[robinb]

The scene itself was witnessed by neutral individuals while my daughter and I prepped our front yard for Fall. She was helping me place flowers n the spots a 3 year old would consider “perfect” and enjoying seeing kids get off the bus as they returned from school when all of the sudden a dog comes running out from somewhere (I cannot recall bc it happened so fast) and launches towards her face and bites North to South puncturing her face while narrowly missing her eye. I’am the 1st to admit my children are far from perfect, but regarding this particular incident, the dog is 100% @ fault. We spent the entire night n the hospital. Plastics attended to her face, sutured it up, and we are now on the road to healing and recovery. We feel very blessed her injuries weren’t any worse; however, the the next child may not be so fortunate! The surgeon reiterated how extremely lucky Elle was that she did not lose her eye.

I am very sorry to hear about your daughter! Poor thing! Sending out {{hugs}} to her and the rest of your family. I totally understand that you would choose a different resort.

 

[Candlelady]

It would certainly depend on the details of the incident. If it were clear that Disney had no liability, not settling sends a message that they will not settle frivolous lawsuits with the hopes that it will deter others from filing baseless lawsuits. On the other hand, if there is some question as to whether or not Disney could be found liable, then you're right, it could be worse not to settle the case.

Frivolous or not, any incident involving a dog is going to make big news. Less than a few weeks ago they did not allow dogs for health and safety reasons. Won't look good if people think they aren't safe. Optics is everything.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

well obviously every case filed against a stadium isn't necessarily going to be a winning case, but a waiver doesn't necessarily remove liability, which was the point. If I post a sign on my front door that I'm not liable for slips and falls on my driveway, it doesn't mean that I'm automatically exempt from liability if the salesman walking up my front walk falls on a patch of ice.

Oh I know was simply giving an example of why people can choose to sue for many things. I was piggy backing off of your comment is all.