Avenue opened for more lawsuits against Disney

[Ghoulish Delight]

This comes at a particularly bad time for Disney, with the death on Mission Space.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7793737/

So dumb. "Novak, who has litigated several brain trauma cases against Disney and other parks, said the opinion means that theme parks 'must warn the public that the rides can cause serious injury and even death to people without preexisting conditions.' What? That's your goal, a warning sign? That right there is evidence of how meritless this whole thing is if it can be "fixed" with a warning sign. A damned vague, meaningless warning sign. Will be required to have warning signs visible at all times that say by walking through the park you run the risk of being hit by falling space debris from decaying sattelites? Because it could happen, and Disney certainly has taken no steps to protect their guests from such an event. That's basically what they're asking for. A "sh!t can go wrong that we can't predict" warning. And what's supider is that they might have to now pay out millions because they didn't tell us before that, get ready for this shocker, you could die at any moment due to some random circumstance that no one can predict.

[Cadaverous Pallor]

America isn't any fun anymore. Hmm, Australia or Canada....I'm thinking Australia, don't they take more risks down there?

[mousepod]

They should just put a sign up at the Main Gate:

"Welcome to the Happiest Place on Earth. Abandon Hope All Ye Who Enter Here."

Should take care of it.

[innerSpaceman]

Relax. The same standards of "utmost care" have already been lawfully applied to Pirates of the Caribbean and, before that, the extinct Stagecoach ride.

Disney has not lost the lawsuit, they've just been ruled against on a Demurrer. Which means that the plaintiff has a case that can now proceed. Certainly if Pirates of the Caribbean is held to the standard of a "carrier for pay," then Indy must be.

In some states, amusement park rides are not held to this standard, but they have always been held to it in California. Disney tried the lame argument that, just because a ride does not transport a person from one place to another and because the passenger's purpose is thrill and excitement rather than transportation, it is not a carrier. This may seem to make common sense until you consider the example of a helicopter sightseeing tour whose purpose is also thrills rather than transport, and which also returns passengers to their starting point. Should the helicopter not have to meet the standard of "utmost" care?

So, then, why should Indiana Jones or any Disney attraction not have to meet that same standard? The standard simply means that the ride must be exceedingly safe. As safe as a city bus or an elevator. It does not mean safe for every single person on the planet under every possible human circumstance. It simply means that Disney must use every effort to assure safety. I am comfortable with that standard. It's been in place for decades, and mind-jarring, G-force-stressing rollercoasters have continued to be built in this state.

I don't see any dumbing down of Indy or other rides coming from this particular ruling. (However, if Disney goes on to actually lose the lawsuit, that may change.)

[mousepod]

Interesting points iSm. Just having returned from TDR, I found it interesting that the differentiation between a "ride" and transportation there is the number of stops. The railroad at Tokyo Disneyland only has a single station, making it a ride and therefore free of (specifically union) rules governing transportation. The monorail, which has multiple stops qualifies as transportation and is run by union members - you even have to purchase a train ticket to ride it.

[Prudence]

I've been in "explanation mode" all morning and now I can't resist applying that to this forum.

A "demurrer" (now a 12(b)(6) motion in the federal system) basically says: "even if everything the plaintiff says is true, they don't have a case." It's the "so what?" motion.

History lesson: under the English common law from which our legal systerm derived, a demurrer was a risky motion because you had to actually and irrevocably admit everything the plaintiff alleged in your claim that there was, regardless, no legal cause of action. If you miscalculated and the court ruled against you, the plaintiff then won automatically because you'd already admited everything. I have no idea what the current status of the demurrer is overseas.

You're now ready for the "obscure judicial trivia" category on Jeopardy.

For this case, I imagine Disney was trying to duck (amongst other things) the strict liability issue. As well as make the whole thing go away. No matter how fruitless the case ultimately is, it's bad PR and the plaintiff knows that. It's in the plaintiff's best interest to keep the case moving forward as long as possible, thereby increasing the liklihood of a settlement.

If it does ultimately go to trial, I would imagine that assumption of risk would play a significant role in the defense.

I personally would have sided with the dissent and looked to legislative intent. Courts across the country are by no means in agreement on the interpretation of common carrier statutes. I would draw a distinction between conventional methods of transport (helicopter, elevator, cable car, etc...) and theme park attractions. Is it a bright line distinction? Probably not. But I think a theme park boat attraction is sufficiently distinct from, say, a water taxi that I would not apply the common carrier statute to the attraction.

Plus I think ordinary negligence law should be sufficient. Theme park rides aren't an essential services such as housing or *actual* transportation. If the legislature wants to enact heightened standard of care rules for theme parks then they should do so.

[innerSpaceman]

Ah, but then how is the really pertinent example of a helicopter tour different from a rollercoaster? Transportation or not, you still want the helicopter to use the utmost level of safety. Thrill ride or not, you certainly want the rollercoaster to use the utmost care for your personal safety, do you not?

Is a water taxi on a "real" lake that different from the water taxis that cross the World Showcase Lagoon at Epcot? It's a body of water bigger than all of Disneyland, but it's within a theme park and is man-made. People have drowned in the four-foot depths of the Rivers of America; do you want the Epcot water taxi's subject to a lesser safety standards because they are operating on "man-made water" inside a theme park?

[Prudence]

I don't like strict liability statutes except under very limited circumstances. I think they should apply to conventional transportation and I don't think they should apply to theme park rides.

I am not in any way advocating against applying traditional negligance laws to theme parks. If any park is negligent in their operation of a theme park attraction, then they should be liable for damages.

[Tref]

This avenue that opened for more lawsuits ... well, I live just around the block.

[€uroMeinke]

Our birth certificates should contain disclaimer statements indicating that Life is a temporary state of being whose quality and longevity may be affected by our decissions.

[Not Afraid]

Our birth certificates should contain disclaimer statements indicating that Life is a temporary state of being whose quality and longevity may be affected by our decissions.

I love you!:snap:

[Name]

Ahhh, some people need to realize that life is a terminal disease, 100% chance of death, absolutely no chance of getting out alive. Every baby should have a warning tattooed on their hands that no matter what they do, it has the posibility of killing them.

[€uroMeinke]

Ahhh, some people need to realize that life is a terminal disease, 100% chance of death, absolutely no chance of getting out alive. Every baby should have a warning tattooed on their hands that no matter what they do, it has the posibility of killing them.

Or an implant in the palm of thier hand...

Carrousel!