Family suing Disney

[barkley]

disney may have deep pockets-but they are RARELY opened. a book i read a few years back (behind the ears?) researched the cases filed against disney in california and florida and detailed out the results, and with very few exceptions disney won every ruling. they don't settle out of court to avoid lawsuits, they fight them to defend their safety standards and the training of their staff. there were several detailed wherein the person had an underlying medical condition.

that said-dd was injured by a disney employee several years ago (nothing major, scared her more than hurt her) and "the suits" came running and had us fill out an accident report. their risk managment people were very nice and payed everything (for the most part a follow up visit at the pediatrician when we got home-the park medical staff checked her out on site). we did'nt want anything beyond that but they were nice enough to send the entire traveling party 5 day tickets to use at a future date-pretty cool since it happened on the last day of our visit.

i'm sorry for these people-but i would think it would be heartwrenching to have to re-live the tragic events over and over for depositions and the like. i think they will also end up losing money in the long-run, disney also has a practice of going after those whose cases are deemed "meritless" and securing their legal fees.

 

[Daxx]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this kid's having a pre-existing heart condition is Disney's fault!?!?

 

[MJMcBride]

I'm still waiting for someone to tell me how this kid's having a pre-existing heart condition is Disney's fault!?!?

OK. Lets try this again. Nobody is saying that Disney gave this kid a pre-existing heart condition. But that does not mean that Disney wasn't negligent. The only thing any authority has determined is that the ride was not faulty and the warnings were adequte. That doesn't mean the authority is right or a Court of Law accepts either of those as true. Regardless, NO ONE has made any determination as to whether there was a ride defect or if the riders were not monitored appropriately.

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they just accept that Disney couldn't possibly be at fault.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why they just accept that Disney couldn't possibly be at fault.

That's easy--

innocent until proven guilty.

With all the extensive warnings---which seems to be the basis of the case from what little I hear.....Disney is innocent until it is proven that they must beat you over the head with a stick to convince you not to ride if you have any of the listed conditions.

 

[Geoff_M]

That's easy--

innocent until proven guilty.

Technically, that's not true. Presumed innocence only applies in criminal cases. In a civil case neither party is presumed to be right or wrong before the trial starts. Also, the burden of proof doesn't rest with the Plantiff in a civil trial. The Plantiff must try to show that the Defendant is liable, and the Defendant must try and show that it isn't. It's a pretty level playing field. If, as a jury, you think that "51%" of one side or the other is more believable in the end, then you are told to find for that side. If you serve on a civil trial jury, both of these points will be hammered home in questioning during jury selection and opening statements by the lawyers... and a third time by the judge during jury instructions at the end.

But I agree that the boy's parents face a very tough uphill battle in their case, if the sole point of their case is that Disney didn't sufficiently warn that the ride could be harmful to those with compromised health. The state's findings will be more than likely pretty hard to negate with a jury and be some big arrows in their quiver.

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I stand corrected.

Innocent until proven guilty is in our culture and though legally incorrect--still probably stands to bear why most of us aren't giving the plaintiff the BOD but rather the defendant.

Not a lawyer nor do I play one on the DIS.

 

[JimFitz]

I hope they close that ride down.

 

[poohandwendy]

But I agree that the boy's parents face a very tough uphill battle in their case, if the sole point of their case is that Disney didn't sufficiently warn that the ride could be harmful to those with compromised health. The state's findings will be more than likely pretty hard to negate with a jury and be some big arrows in their quiver.

I agree. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that Disney be found to be liable/negligent in some way. I just have a problem with the 'not enough warnings' angle. Mainly because I think that ride has more warnings than any other ride I have been on. To the point where by the end of my wait, I wondered if I should just opt out and my 14 yo son actually did (he eventually did ride it and enjoyed it)...as well as many others from what I saw. In fact, they even stress how you can opt out if you are so inclined, repeatedly.

That is what has me stumped. I think if this were to go to trial with that as the sole angle, the prosecution has an uphill battle ahead of him/her/them.

 

[poohandwendy]

One thing that I just thought of, maybe the prosecution is going to try to prove that the family thought the warnings were so over the top, that they seemed like part of the pre-show, to add to the thrill or something?

I dunno, just tossing things around because I really do not understand how anyone could say there were not adequate warnings on that ride?

 

[Ginamarie]

But I agree that the boy's parents face a very tough uphill battle in their case, if the sole point of their case is that Disney didn't sufficiently warn that the ride could be harmful to those with compromised health. The state's findings will be more than likely pretty hard to negate with a jury and be some big arrows in their quiver.

I'm with you Geoff.. if the crux of the argument is insufficient warnings, it's going to be a really tough case to win. That being said, there are a lot of stupid lawyers who will put anything into suit because they see deep pockets and dollar signs in their eyes. I've seen situations many times where attorneys will start lawsuits with little or no grounds for one because they misinterpret the laws or because they think they can squeeze out a settlement. No wonder why people look at attorneys in such a bad light.

 

[ilovepcot]

I agree. I don't think it is out of the realm of possibility that Disney be found to be liable/negligent in some way.

Heard yesterday on local news that the family is saying Disney is negligent due to the fact they have no *portable defibrilators* available for emergency use. Family and their lawyer say that Disney knew this was bound to happen eventually and should have been prepared.

 

[Esmerelda]

Suing Disney is NOT going to bring back your child. The child obviously had some underlying medical issue or this would have not happened.

I have been on this ride at least 5 times with my family...my youngest was 8 the first time (and is afraid of Space Mountain mind you)...he insisted he wanted to ride it....he did great..he loves it..rides it everytime. Its really not a bad ride (or at least not at all to me) but the warning signs are right in front of you before you enter.

I feel very bad for this family but its NOT Disney's fault that their son is dead. They made the decision to put the child onto the ride, "ride at your own will." Working in Emergency Medicine..I get involved in these legal cases waay to much. We get accused of all sorts of mishaps that we had nothing to do with and there was no negligence on our part whatsoever. I hope their lawyer has some real hard cold evidence on this one, their going to need it.

Esmerelda

 

[cali99boy]

I do not think Disney is to blame for this. They cannot predict ALL catastrophies that could happen. What's next? Someone get struck by lightning out of the blue and the family sue Disney for not providing sufficient lightning rods or shelter??? Or how about someone going to Disney waaay too often and getting skin cancer from prolonged sun exposure without sunscreen and suing Disney for not handing out sunblock for free

I think this whole country is just a little lawsuit happy

 

[John VN]

I wonder how many people here have served on a jury whether it be civil or criminal. Big difference.

Remember that if this gets to trial, all people sitting on the jury will have to go into the courtroom with an open mind as to liability or not and the best argument will prevail whether true or not.

Geoff_M hit the proverbial nail on the head and this is what has me feeling that with todays judicial system even if Disney was to provide a complete medical exam before riding M:S they are still prey within the line of site of a hungry lawyer.

 

[VSL]

disney may have deep pockets-but they are RARELY opened. a book i read a few years back (behind the ears?) researched the cases filed against disney in california and florida and detailed out the results, and with very few exceptions disney won every ruling. they don't settle out of court to avoid lawsuits, they fight them to defend their safety standards and the training of their staff. there were several detailed wherein the person had an underlying medical condition.

... i think they will also end up losing money in the long-run, disney also has a practice of going after those whose cases are deemed "meritless" and securing their legal fees.

Good for them. It's good to see a company willing to get out there and defend themselves rather than always taking the easy way out (ie, an out of court settlement).

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

Heard yesterday on local news that the family is saying Disney is negligent due to the fact they have no *portable defibrilators* available for emergency use. Family and their lawyer say that Disney knew this was bound to happen eventually and should have been prepared.

Would that have saved him?

Would they have sued Publix if he died there and they didn't have them?

We now have to equip rides for code blue?

 

[cardaway]

Heard yesterday on local news that the family is saying Disney is negligent due to the fact they have no *portable defibrilators* available for emergency use. Family and their lawyer say that Disney knew this was bound to happen eventually and should have been prepared.

Wonder where they got that idea. I can tell you they have them. It's possible they didn't have one at M:S on that day, but they have hundreds of them on property.

 

[CarolA]

I didn't read all of this, but this probably has more merit then some Disney suits.

I met a guy who was on the audit team for Disney. They get sued for

Rain (when it rains your vacation is ruined and that is Disney's fault)
Hurricanes closing the parks (A biggie, he said that they got a bunch of "threats and notices" after that!)
Lines
Dirty Rooms
Ear drums bursting in the hydrolators (That was my personal fav)
Post Truamatic Stress Disorder (crowds, noise etc)
Food posining (You know ONE person at the park got sick, but it had to be Disney's fault)

And on and on and on...... (Auditors have to determine if Disney needs a reserve for any of these LOL!)

 

[Lisa loves Pooh]

I had a friend and her whole family did get food poisoning. They didn't sue, just wrote a letter of complaint and they were comped with park Tickets.

 

[rayelias]

Ear drums bursting in the hydrolators (That was my personal fav)

That's not funny. It's one thing to bash M:S; at least thay have warnings all over the place about the g-forces.

There is not ONE SINGLE warning about the tremendous pressure your body is put under going down many fathoms under the water. I'm surprised I never got the bends when I leave. Those hydrolaters must move pretty darned fast to travel such depth so quickly.

(All kidding aside, what lawyer, in their right mind, would even spend the time to prepare this lawsuit? Aren't they under some obligation to do the tiniest bit of research before slapping a suit on someone? Disney DOES have to pay to defend itself - even for a dumb suit like this - I bet it cost a couple thousand dollars just to have this thrown out - how fair is that?!?)


Back to topic... several people have mentioned that suing Disney somehow will make the parents feel better. What happens to the parents' feelings if (when) Disney wins? If beating Disney will make them feel better, would they be completely distraught if (when) Disney beats them? How is that going to help?

I'm wondering if this scenario is feasable (although it would probably never happen in reality). Any lawyers want to chime in?

Presume Disney is found completely innocent. Could Disney sue the parents for negligence, since they, of all people, should have been aware of their child's medical situation before they put him on the ride? Since the parents were negligent, their actions caused the child's death on a Disney ride which caused Disney untold negative publicity. - Again, I doubt in a million years this would happen, but I'm curious if it *could* happen.