Your VMK Cards or Your Life?

[BTTF4Life]

Isn't there a release of liability on the back of Disney tickets?

[IdiotsAreEverywhere]

Isn't there a release of liability on the back of Disney tickets?

For the Disneyland Resort park hopper it states:
Guest assumes the inherent risks associated with the operation of all rides and attractions. Read and obey all safety signage (90% don't), instructions and rules. Parks or attractions may change operating hours, close temperarily or may otherwise change or be discontinued without notice and without liability to the owners of the parks.

I wonder how many people have tried to sue Disney for a ride closure or a discontinuation of it. I'm sure at least a few money hungry people have.

[se8472]

I heard about this event the other day from peeps in t-land who watched it happen.

[leftcoaster]

For the Disneyland Resort park hopper it states:
Guest assumes the inherent risks associated with the operation of all rides and attractions. Read and obey all safety signage (90% don't), instructions and rules. Parks or attractions may change operating hours, close temperarily or may otherwise change or be discontinued without notice and without liability to the owners of the parks.

I wonder how many people have tried to sue Disney for a ride closure or a discontinuation of it. I'm sure at least a few money hungry people have.

The only problem with that is the wonderful California State Supreme Court recently ruled that rides like BTMRR, etc are considered "transportation" and the riders of said "transportation" have a 'reasonable regard to safety' - even if they do not wear restraints. *brick

I could see "attractions" such as the monorail and the WDRR getting that designation, but BTMRR, SM?

[SRT_GB]

The only problem with that is the wonderful California State Supreme Court recently ruled that rides like BTMRR, etc are considered "transportation" and the riders of said "transportation" have a 'reasonable regard to safety' - even if they do not wear restraints. *brick

Could you please post or PM me a link to a credible website that says this? I'd like to read it.

[PirateJohn]

Can you imagine what would happen if it were the Liberty Belle (if the Belle were running)?

Been there, done that.

I posted a while back about the Marine who, on a dare, took a header off the Texas Deck of the Mark Twain. Idiot is lucky he didn't kill himself, because he jumped not far from where the Fantasmic equipment lurks only a foot or so beneath the surface. If he had landed on that he would have been unavailable for Marine service for a long time.

[Le Poof]

I'm sure this type of thing happens all the time though right? When I was last at WDW and was riding the Haunted Mansion they had to stop the ride because some bloke (who was probably mentally challanged) apparantly got out of his buggy to get a closer look at the crystal ball. Then again you can't believe everything you hear off some random person coming out of nowhere in the exit tunnel and insisting on telling you about it.

[leftcoaster]

Could you please post or PM me a link to a credible website that says this? I'd like to read it.

This link may be old. I cannot access here at work.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050617/D8AP45100.html

...
(I'm not sure if this is the same link as above)

California court rules on rides - State's theme parks now face a higher standard for ride safety - By Maura Dolan and Kimi Yoshino, Los Angeles Times, June 17, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO -- In a decision that could force amusement parks to redesign or remove some thrill rides, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that operators of roller coasters and similar attractions have the same duty to ensure safety as those who run buses and passenger trains.

The 4-3 decision, which found that thrill rides could be classified as "common carriers," said operators must use "the utmost care and diligence" for the safety of riders rather than mere "reasonable care." Most states require operators of amusement rides to use only "reasonable care," industry lawyers said.

The ruling, which deals only with parks in California, is expected to make it easier for people injured on rides to prevail in lawsuits against amusement parks. In response to the heightened liability, officials of California theme parks said Thursday that they may have to change their operations, although the exact nature of any changes has yet to be decided. Park officials insisted they already adhere to the highest safety standards.

About 20 million people visit amusement parks in California each year, generating $20 billion annually for the state's economy, according to the industry. In Southern California last year, 350 accidents at amusement parks were reported to the state, but none resulted in serious injury or death.

Thursday's ruling came three days after a 4-year-old Pennsylvania boy, Daudi Bamuwamye, died after riding the Mission: Space attraction at Walt Disney World in Orlando.

In its ruling, the California Supreme Court said riders are entitled to safety on thrill rides just as they are on trains and buses.

"Riders of roller coasters and other 'thrill' rides seek the illusion of danger while being assured of their actual safety," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the majority. "The rider expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened, but not hurt."

Theme park industry leaders said the ruling could mean the demise of thrill rides.

"Under an extreme interpretation, it would take the thrill out of thrill rides," said John Robinson, head of the California Attractions and Parks Association, an industry group.

But attorney Barry Novack, who represents the family of a 23-year-old woman whose death in 2000 after riding the Indiana Jones Adventure at Disneyland was the subject of the high court's ruling, said the decision would make rides safer. Theme parks could reduce the threat of lawsuits by posting more explicit warning signs and designing better harnesses, he said.

Thursday's ruling sent the lawsuit back to a lower court for trial. The woman's family is seeking unspecified damages.

The state of Florida regulates and inspects rides at fairs and small attractions. Large attractions with 1,000 or more employees, such as Walt Disney World, Universal Orlando and SeaWorld, are exempt.

In 2001, the major parks agreed to voluntarily report basic details of ride "incidents," or cases severe enough to require someone to be transported and admitted to a hospital. Cases where people are treated on site for scrapes, bumps or bruises are not reported.

(That's all that I can quickly find)

[Simba1]

I'm sure this type of thing happens all the time though right?

About a year ago a Guest jumped out off of the back of a Safari truck to retrieve his ball cap that had either fallen or blown out

[coldfire409]

I cannot belive that Disney puts that disclaimer on the back of their tickets, but then goes out of the way whenever a guest hits a CM. Disney is asking for a lawsuit. And I'm not saying that just because I'm an attorney. I really would love to see that suit come up though.