Disney Lawsuits

[Main Streeter]

To me, Nickel Bag means $500.00 Dooney and Burke Mickey Handbag

Nickle bag is a pipe dream Goofyer. Ha! DM, Dooney & Burkes wouldn't be $500.00 to you. You get my 40%. :) I bought so many of the stupid Dooneys before Christmas for others. All I carry goes in jean pockets or it doesn't travel. ;)

[DisneyMom]

Nickle bag is a pipe dream Goofyer. Ha! DM, Dooney & Burkes wouldn't be $500.00 to you. You get my 40%. :) I bought so many of the stupid Dooneys before Christmas for others. All I carry goes in jean pockets or it doesn't travel. ;)

That is again, very nice! :) Will let you know! Love the bags but would think hard before actually getting one-I know,rather silly after money we've spent on pins Think I'm like you,tho,always more fun to give and enjoy reaction ;)

To circle back to topic , have seen valid point about man with dysreflexia posted on Board X-WHY DIDN'T HE OR WIFE CALL 911???

[CujoSR]

All I carry goes in jean pockets or it doesn't travel. ;)

Marry me.

[Main Streeter]

Marry me.

:D: :D: Get in line. ;) No, only kidding you Cujo. You have a better selection of jeans on your fb. :)

[CA Screamin Dude]

"Nacho Cheese"
To inform in regards to lawsuits of this general nature, the Courts have generally sided with businesses in lawsuits regarding interior burns ("mouth burn" or "pizza burn" - a burn to the roof of the mouth or to the tongue, the theme being a burn that occurs inside the body, which generally heals on its own and/or much faster). The Courts have ruled any number of ways in regards to suits regarding deep partial (second degree) or full thickness (third degree) burns resulting from accidents which result in a hot substance coming into contact with (e.g., spilled onto) the skin of the face, arms, liquids seeping through to the groin, etc.

Factors that go into adjudication of these suits (in regards to full thickness burns) are the circumstances of the burn: Can fault be attributed? Is the business/server subject to limited liability (was there a warning label, was the plaintiff informed of risk)? Indeed, it was because of the 1992 Liebeck v. McDonald's Restaurants lawsuit that warning labels became incredibly popular in the food service industry. A jury awarded the plaintiff a staggering sum. What are the damages sought? How are they manifested and justified? Liebeck was helped greatly by the evidence conclusively showing her disfigurement as well as a comprehensive list of medical expenses (damages). Seeing that McDonald's policy at the time was to serve coffee beverages at 180-190 degrees Fahrenheit, scientific evidence produced a consistent explanation for Liebeck's third degree burns. The jury applied principles of comparative negligence to award Liebeck, finding she was 20% at fault. The jury's finding of comparative negligence also compelled the judge to lower the damages award to just $640,000...

[CA Screamin Dude]

Quad./ADA Evac
The most convincing lawsuits have concrete evidence of associated damages, such as medical bills (personal injury), construction bills (real estate), etc. Successful lawsuits against theme parks in regards to accidents or incidents, such as ride malfunctions, usually are associated with a plaintiff's tangible injury. For example, the previously mentioned Nacho lawsuit sees a plaintiff with severe burns, permanent scarring, and a history of medical bills...

That said, certain special arenas of lawsuits aren't as greatly associated with evidential damages: Lawsuits brought under the ADA are one of these special arenas. ADA lawsuits are extremely difficult for defendants in California as state law (and to a lesser extent, Federal law) has a very high standard of accessibility as it relates to both the physical structure of properties as well as the governed actions by employees (Jose R Martinez et al v. The Walt Disney Company et al). Even if the plaintiff would appear to have a weak case under usual circumstances, because this is an ADA case, the plaintiff's standing and cause is much stronger.

As for Disney's Assumption of Risk clause (back of ticket fine print, whatever you call it), it carries relatively little legal weight. As with most printed and public policy material, the fine print is designed to protect under only the most basic and ordinary circumstances. Moreover, its purpose is to deter the average patron from pursuing legal action. Often, legal action proceeds when Disney fails in some regard and consideration is not upheld (often in regards to safety policy or law code violation). When consideration is not upheld, the contract falls. You can't sue Disney for Splash Mountain being closed, but if you're injured (physically, monetary, and/or emotionally,e.g.) and you have reason to suspect Disney didn't do their job or was negligent (violated laws, codes, or policy, maliciously performed the injurious task or created improper circumstances, etc.), you have standing to initiate a suit. In other words, Disney's Assumption of Risk only really sticks when Disney follows through with their end of the bargain in providing the theme park experience.

Basically, this means that the Assumption of Risk clause and duty of care exemption (the ordinary elements of negligence in contract law being Duty, Breach, Causation, and Damages) really only applies to a guest who is not in a situation to negligently, maliciously, or otherwise improperly suffer an injury or loss. Once a Disney guest is put into that situation where injury is likely, probable, or even possible, the Assumption of Risk clause (and actually the entire contract / ticket fine print) falls.

California's Fourth Appellate recently opined re: Rosencrans v. Dover Images, a somewhat related contracts case. In Rosencrans, the plaintiff suffered injury as a result of what is alleged to have been negligence and a deviation from standard operating procedure on the part of the defendant (Dover). Though the plaintiff signed a standard waiver releasing Dover of ordinary negligent liability, the Courts have routinely ruled liability for gross negligence can not be waived. Rosencrans, being a motocross injury case, is obviously very different since it is a case in which the activity (motocross racing) is inherently risky... going to Disneyland isn't risky... Volenti non fit injury: to a willing person, no injury is done. This legal principle often applies to risky activities, such as boxing, base jumping, sky diving... going to Disneyland simply doesn't fall under the volenti non fit injura doctrine.

In 1960's Lyle v. Disneyland case, an incident at Astro Jets set precedent for theme park (specifically Disneyland) assumption of risk. In Lyle, Disneyland argued the plaintiff assumed risk when setting foot onto the centrifugally fast Astro Jets ride and that defendant shall not be liable for injuries. After an affirmed appeal, Disneyland won the case. Herein, certain assumption of risk exemptions to the duty of care rule were allowed in regards to Disneyland and rides that move at a moderately quick rate.

In this case, the issue of gross negligence may rule the day: were training guidelines followed? Did Disney take necessary steps to minimize risk (compliance with ADA, should effective ADA fast-evac zones have been stationed throughout the attraction)? Did Disney's actions during the incident greatly drop below standards? Was Disney's negligence a substantial factor in causing an injury. As Rosencrans has demonstrated, "a significant time delay" may be seen as a "substantial factor," though the Court has opined that this and similar issues are triable issues of fact, and questions to be resolved by trial. Whether and how Disney wishes to settle is another story for another day.

[Goofyernmost]

Yea...what CA said...

[darph nader]

I now have the Marx brothers running through my read.
The party of the first part,shall be known as the party of the first part.
The party of the second part,shall be known as the party of the second part.
(that's a lot of partying)

[GRUMPY PIRATE]

Somebodys been jumping into lexis/nexis!

[TalkingHands]

I have been on Small World and Figment when they have broken down. I found that the CM were very efficient and remained with me during the entire time.
For Small World we had to wait for maintainence to come and dislodge the boat in front of one I was in. It took over an hour and there was no way to evacuate me and my power wheelchair but to get to the exit so wait I did.
On Figment, Reedy Creek was called and they made sure that the vehicle was safely turned so I could back out and then carefully back to a spot where I could turn and go forward. CM stayed with us(my husband would not leave us) for the entire time.
In both cases I felt I was well treated.
Also been stuck on the Monorail from EPCOT to TTC. and stuck on a curve so it felt very uncomfortable. We survived. Even then I felt Disney was doing its best to handle the situation as expediently as possible.