*Update in Post 9* DL Federal Appeals Court Affirms Disney's Safety Ban on Segways

[jcb]

This is a huge win for Walt Disney World.

The court of appeals in Atlanta has upheld the district court's decision to approve the settlement in the Orlando Segway lawsuit.

This means Disney can ban the use of Segways at WDW (and possibly Disneyland).

http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/opinions/ops/201112013.pdf

 

[jcb]

One of the criteria for approving a class action settlement is whether the plaintiffs (the people suing) are likely to succeed at the trial. The district court held that they were not, based largely upon the evidence Disney presented about the safety risks posed by Segways.

The DOJ (and others) asked the court of appeals to overturn this finding. The DOJ argued it was inconsistent with the 2010 ADA regulations. The court of appeals refused:

During an extensive fairness hearing before the district court, Hale [Disney's Safety Officer] testified regarding the safety risks posed by the operation of Segways® in Disney Resorts. The very factors Hale considered before deciding that Segways® are too dangerous for operation in Disney Resorts are the very factors facilities are required to consider under the new regulation.
​

In case you are wondering how this decision squares with the California federal court of appeals Segway decision from last month, the court explained that the "Baughman" decision (as it is referred to below):

did not hold that Title III requires Disney to permit Segways® in Disney Resorts, and in fact explicitly stated that Segways® can be excluded if Disney determines that the safety factors listed in 28 C.F.R. § 36.311(b)(2) warrant exclusion. Baughman, __ F.3d at __. In the present case, the district court found that if this action went to trial, Disney was likely to prevail because of its reliance upon those exact safety factors. Therefore, Baughman is factually and procedurally different from the case at bar and does not transform the district court’s well reasoned analysis into an abuse of discretion.
​

Ms. Baughman objected to this settlement. The legal nerd in me is fascinated to know whether she is now bound by this decision (which would mean her lawsuit gets tossed). I don't know. A status conference in her case is set for September 11. I expect it will be discussed then.

 

[safetymom]

Thanks for the update. I find this case fascinating.

 

[WebmasterMike]

Whew, that clears the way for me to get a Ryno!

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_...-wheel-electric-scooter-cooler-than-a-segway/

 

[jcb]

Whew, that clears the way for me to get a Ryno!

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13746_...-wheel-electric-scooter-cooler-than-a-segway/

I think Disney should let you use it in the Theme Parks if you can pop a wheelie on it.

 

[Cheshire Figment]

I noticed that, although this was an 11th Circuit decision, one of the Judges on the panel is from the 9th Circuit. And this could easily have an effect on the Baughman case which had been remanded to the District Court and, no matter what the result, will probably be appealed again in the 9th Circuit.

 

[WebmasterMike]

I think Disney should let you use it in the Theme Parks if you can pop a wheelie on it.

My brain just exploded, Jack.

 

[Sarabi's Cubs]

Thanks for the update Jack!

Laurie

 

[jcb]

I mentioned in my second post that there was a status conference set for today (September 11, 2012) in the Disneyland Segway lawsuit.

Yesterday, Disney fired a shot across the Segway bow, by filing a motion to dismiss Ms. Baughman's (the DL Segway plaintiff) lawsuit because it has been settled by the "Ault" (the name of one of the WDW Segway plaintiffs) litigation. Disney explained:

The settlement class in Ault includes all individuals who “(1) suffer from a mobility disability; (2) rely upon a Segway or substantially similar stand-up mobility device for assistance with their mobility; and (3) intend to visit the Walt Disney World Resort or the Disneyland Resorts.” Plaintiff Baughman is part of this nationwide class and in fact filed objections to the settlement. The Honorable Gregory A. Presnell considered all objections in Ault, including Baughman’s, but nonetheless found that the settlement was “fair, adequate, and reasonable.” Because the Ault class action involved injunctive and declaratory relief only, there are no optouts of the settlement and it is binding on all class members including Plaintiff Baughman. Finally, the Eleventh Circuit recently affirmed the district court’s order approving the class action settlement, noting among other factors the evidence before the district court of the safety risks posed by Segways, and thereby effectuating the terms of the settlement agreement.

Not surprisingly, Ms. Baughman opposes Disney's motion. Among other things, Baughman asserts the settlement terms do not cover her because she filed her lawsuit two months before the WDW Segway lawsuit was filed. She also argues that the objectors "will likely" ask the Supreme Court to reverse the decision approving the class settlement. She also asks the court to rule in her favor as a matte of law because Disney hasn't shown that imposing speed limits on Segways is a reasonable modification of Disney policies.

Baughman's arguments seem to me to be a little bit far-fetched but this is pending in California, where far-fetched can be ordinary.

 

[chirurgeon]

Having ridden Segways in controlled settings (Epcot, Fort Wilderness, cruise excursion) the thought of Segways running around the parks terrifies me. I LOVE Segways. But they don't belong in crowded parks. I have had to use ECVs in the past. Even then I was afraid I would run someone over when they weren't paying attention. Thank goodness the judge seems to be making the right decision.

Kim

 

[WebmasterMike]

Having ridden Segways in controlled settings (Epcot, Fort Wilderness, cruise excursion) the thought of Segways running around the parks terrifies me. I LOVE Segways. But they don't belong in crowded parks. I have had to use ECVs in the past. Even then I was afraid I would run someone over when they weren't paying attention. Thank goodness the judge seems to be making the right decision.

Kim

That is why we need Rynos!!!

 

[AndyPok1]

I have had to use ECVs in the past. Even then I was afraid I would run someone over when they weren't paying attention.

I think I was the victim a couple of times!