PDA

View Full Version : Suing Disney for heart-stopping ride


madoka
Feb 15, 2009, 03:03 AM
http://cbs2.com/national/Leanne.Deacon.sues.2.935347.html

A British woman is suing Walt Disney World, claiming a ride caused her to suffer a disabling heart attack and stroke in 2005.

Leanne Deacon and her mother, both of Kibworth, England, filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Orlando circuit court. They are seeking at least $15,000.

Leanne Deacon was 16 when she rode the Disney World-MGM Studios' "The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror" ride several times.

Shortly after one ride, Deacon's heart stopped and she had a brain hemorrhage.

The Deacons accuse Disney of negligence in the ride's design and operation. They say Disney failed to adequately warn of the risks or provide adequate safety restraints.

Disney spokeswoman Kim Prunty said the company hadn't seen the lawsuit. Prunty said the ride was working properly when Deacon rode it.

EricNau
Feb 15, 2009, 03:15 AM
Ironic, seeing as less than one hour ago I was telling my friend how much I love this ride.

I'd ride it again in a heart beat.

madoka
Feb 15, 2009, 03:18 AM
1. It's called the Tower of Terror.

2. She rode it several times.

"Failed to adequately warn of the risks?" How much babying to people need these days?

Scarlet Fever
Feb 15, 2009, 03:29 AM
I'm going to sue my local council because I tripped on a gutter. I could have broken several bones, and if I tripped in the wrong spot, I could have hit my head and died. They should post appropriate warnings on all gutters everywhere in the world.

:rolleyes:

Abstract
Feb 15, 2009, 08:57 AM
Leanne Deacon was 16 when she rode the Disney World-MGM Studios' "The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror" ride several times.


She didn't notice the risks the first few times she rode it? :confused:

Idiot.

brad.c
Feb 15, 2009, 09:02 AM
Ironic, seeing as less than one hour ago I was telling my friend how much I love this ride.

I'd ride it again in a heart beat.

Now THAT's funny. :D

Aeolius
Feb 15, 2009, 09:45 AM
It's a good thing she didn't ride with me, then.

There is a point, before you board the ride, where you stand in a waiting room and watch a short film. There is a short pause of two seconds time, between the end of the film and the opening of the doors, when the room is in complete darkness. If you scream like a maniac, during this two-second window, you scare everyone in the room.

I do it every time. :D

(edit:I have been known to exercise a modicum of restraint, when there are small children present)

pooky
Feb 15, 2009, 10:32 AM
They say Disney failed to adequately warn of the risks...

Except they do. Right there at the front. People with heart conditions, pregnant women, etc. should not ride.

Not Disney's fault if she had an undiagnosed heart condition.

jonbravo77
Feb 15, 2009, 10:37 AM
I really wish they could make it to where you can go to jail for these kinds of lawsuits. Like the lady who sued McDonald's years ago because she burned herself with a hot cup of coffee. Infuriates me to see these kinds of lawsuits. Ranks up there with a thief suing you because he hurt himself breaking into your house... :mad:

John.B
Feb 15, 2009, 10:42 AM
Leanne Deacon and her mother, both of Kibworth, England, filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Orlando circuit court. They are seeking at least $15,000.
Fifteen grand? Sounds like medical costs? Anyone know more about that amount?

ucfgrad93
Feb 15, 2009, 11:00 AM
There are plenty of warnings posted for that ride and she rode it several times. I hope Disney fights this and doesn't settle.

iJohnHenry
Feb 15, 2009, 11:07 AM
Pricing their "pain and suffering" at a paltry $15,000 tells me they want some cash, out of court, as a nuisance pay-off.

Screw them. Go for costs Disney. :mad:

.Andy
Feb 15, 2009, 11:12 AM
Pricing their "pain and suffering" at a paltry $15,000 tells me they want some cash, out of court, as a nuisance pay-off.

Screw them. Go for costs Disney. :mad:
$15000 is a drop in the ocean of the medical costs a sixteen year would incur living the rest of their lives following a stroke. It's hardly profiteering. If Disney did nothing wrong they've got nothing to worry about.

As with all these articles I think it's a bit hasty to cast judgement based on what is presented in a few paragraphs.

CalBoy
Feb 15, 2009, 02:42 PM
Like the lady who sued McDonald's years ago because she burned herself with a hot cup of coffee. Infuriates me to see these kinds of lawsuits.

There's actually a lot of misinformation surrounding that lawsuit, but McDonalds has been successful at marketing the coffee incident as one of pure frivolousness; it wasn't.

For starters, the lady who spilled the coffee was not driving the car (a common mistatement of facts about the case), nor was the car in motion (they were still at the drive-through window).

Secondly, the coffee makers McDonalds was employing at the time were known to be defective. Internal memos had found that a substantial percentage of the coffee makers overheated coffee to a point beyond a temperature fit for consumption. Don't forget that she had suffered 3rd degree burns-quite severe when one considers that coffee is intended for consumption.

The coffee lady, as she's known, had a legitimate claim and prevailed in court because the jury knew the true facts of the case, while most of us took the media's word at face value.
$15000 is a drop in the ocean of the medical costs a sixteen year would incur living the rest of their lives following a stroke.

It really makes you wonder why the lawyer isn't asking for more then. She has the ability to ask for punitive damages and compensatory damages, both of which seem absent in this suit. o_O
If Disney did nothing wrong they've got nothing to worry about.

Ahh, if only. If Disney attempts to defend itself in court, the costs will far exceed $15,000. It's cheaper and more expeditious for Disney to cut a check for $7,500 or $10,000 and get it over with.


As with all these articles I think it's a bit hasty to cast judgement based on what is presented in a few paragraphs.

I'm with you there. We tend to only get a sliver of truth from the media when it comes to lawsuits; there's usually more than meets the eye in most cases, but by the time the truth comes out, the public's attention is usually elsewhere.

gnasher729
Feb 15, 2009, 04:20 PM
I really wish they could make it to where you can go to jail for these kinds of lawsuits. Like the lady who sued McDonald's years ago because she burned herself with a hot cup of coffee. Infuriates me to see these kinds of lawsuits. Ranks up there with a thief suing you because he hurt himself breaking into your house... :mad:

Instead of getting on your high horse you could try to educate yourself about the details of the McDonald's case. You are not supposed to get significant third degree burns from spilling a cup of coffee.

jonbravo77
Feb 15, 2009, 04:24 PM
Instead of getting on your high horse you could try to educate yourself about the details of the McDonald's case. You are not supposed to get significant third degree burns from spilling a cup of coffee.

Wow, ok. Who is on a high horse. Was just citing an example, sorry if it was you who it happened too. geese.... :eek:

There's actually a lot of misinformation surrounding that lawsuit, but McDonalds has been successful at marketing the coffee incident as one of pure frivolousness; it wasn't.

For starters, the lady who spilled the coffee was not driving the car (a common mistatement of facts about the case), nor was the car in motion (they were still at the drive-through window).

Secondly, the coffee makers McDonalds was employing at the time were known to be defective. Internal memos had found that a substantial percentage of the coffee makers overheated coffee to a point beyond a temperature fit for consumption. Don't forget that she had suffered 3rd degree burns-quite severe when one considers that coffee is intended for consumption.

The coffee lady, as she's known, had a legitimate claim and prevailed in court because the jury knew the true facts of the case, while most of us took the media's word at face value.



Ok, sorry for the poor example.

Sun Baked
Feb 15, 2009, 05:20 PM
A extremely honest and stern warning at the beginning of the ride that says # People Maimed, # heart attacks, # strokes, # paralyzed people would do nothing but get more people to ride it.

CalBoy
Feb 15, 2009, 05:30 PM
Ok, sorry for the poor example.

It's really something that large corporations have been successful at doing, so I don't blame you for having anger towards the coffee lady (Stella Liebeck for whatever it's worth), but it's honestly misplaced, as is most anger when it comes to large lawsuits. Usually jury awards for millions are worth that amount, or close to it.

To be honest, it's hard to find an example of a large, truly frivolous lawsuit. If a lawsuit is really that frivolous, corporate attorneys (which, remember, are typically the crème de la crème of litigators) will have them dismissed fairly rapidly. If a case makes it before a jury, the chances of corporate wrong doing are probably pretty high.
A extremely honest and stern warning at the beginning of the ride that says # People Maimed, # heart attacks, # strokes, # paralyzed people would do nothing but get more people to ride it.

Rides already warn people with heart conditions and pregnant women not to ride. Maiming incidents are fairly rare and typically involve someone trying something stupid while on the ride.

madoka
Feb 15, 2009, 07:58 PM
To be honest, it's hard to find an example of a large, truly frivolous lawsuit.

Don't forget the $65,000,000 pants:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=301814&highlight=pearson

CalBoy
Feb 15, 2009, 09:18 PM
Don't forget the $65,000,000 pants:

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=301814&highlight=pearson

Indeed, although like the coffee case, that one was mentioned a few times by the media, and then forgotten.

The case was frivolous at the time of filing (well most of it; Pearson did deserve to get his suit money recovered), but the justice system worked exactly as it was meant to. He lost most of the pretrial hearing, the jury voted to give him nothing, and he was not given the 10-year term as a justice he had been seeking.

Now if he had walked away with millions for a pair of pants, then that would be a good example of a frivolous lawsuit gone awry.

gibbz
Feb 15, 2009, 09:27 PM
I'd say this is pretty clear.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/2529226306_e47288916e.jpg?v=0

cashmoney
Feb 16, 2009, 12:41 AM
I'd say this is pretty clear.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3062/2529226306_e47288916e.jpg?v=0

lol, you could have cropped the picture....:rolleyes:

CalBoy
Feb 16, 2009, 12:49 AM
lol, you could have cropped the picture....:rolleyes:

He could have, but it wouldn't matter. Almost every amusement park ride has a similar sign, and Disney, with its long history of litigation, would know about the benefits of a warning sign.

millar876
Feb 16, 2009, 05:32 AM
there are signs all along the cue, at the entrence to the ride, and on the park map explaining that the ride is unsuitable for people with bad hearts, backs, and who may be pregnant. The girl also rode it several times, and seems to have had a previously undiagnosed heart condition, and in my opinion has no case against Disney.

Also why such a small ammount. Seems quite iffy to me.

gnasher729
Feb 16, 2009, 06:40 AM
To be honest, it's hard to find an example of a large, truly frivolous lawsuit. If a lawsuit is really that frivolous, corporate attorneys (which, remember, are typically the crème de la crème of litigators) will have them dismissed fairly rapidly. If a case makes it before a jury, the chances of corporate wrong doing are probably pretty high.

SCO vs. IBM. Started in 2003. Around 2007, four years later, IBM managed despite SCO's best efforts, to find out what they were actually accused of. However, the case hasn't finished yet, because SCO declared bankruptcy and IBM has been disallowed to continue its counterclaims against SCO while SCO tries to reorganize, while SCO has no money to pursue their original claims (which would have been difficult anyway, because another court decided that SCO doesn't own the copyrights on the source code that they claim (without evidence) that IBM has copied).

dmr727
Feb 16, 2009, 10:38 AM
It's obvious that Brits can't handle scary rides!

::ducks::

CalBoy
Feb 16, 2009, 12:28 PM
SCO vs. IBM. Started in 2003. Around 2007, four years later, IBM managed despite SCO's best efforts, to find out what they were actually accused of. However, the case hasn't finished yet, because SCO declared bankruptcy and IBM has been disallowed to continue its counterclaims against SCO while SCO tries to reorganize, while SCO has no money to pursue their original claims (which would have been difficult anyway, because another court decided that SCO doesn't own the copyrights on the source code that they claim (without evidence) that IBM has copied).

Corporate suits are almost never in the category of "frivolous" lawsuits because by their nature they seek to resolve a dispute that on the surface is legitimate.

Whether or not SCO had an actual claim may be in doubt, but the claim itself isn't frivolous. Suing for $65 million over a pair of pants, is frivolous. However, you'll note that that case ended as the justice system intended. Even this case ended with SCO simply giving up. You'll be hard pressed to find a case where a jury awarded damages to a frivolous plaintiff.

My point is, the modern concept of a "frivolous lawsuit" is more a media creation than an actual fact. Lawyers, with all their greed and selfishness, are not stupid. They will not take up a case if they don't see good potential. It's one of the best protections we have against lawsuits involving $65 million clothing items. ;)

Southerner
Feb 16, 2009, 01:20 PM
They are probably just chavs trying to falsely claim compo... :rolleyes:

UWSpindoctor
Feb 16, 2009, 01:32 PM
The main idiocy with the McDonalds suit was that the jury awarded the woman $2.7 million in damages on top of her medical costs (though that number was knocked down by the judge).

CalBoy
Feb 16, 2009, 02:03 PM
The main idiocy with the McDonalds suit was that the jury awarded the woman $2.7 million in damages on top of her medical costs (though that number was knocked down by the judge).

The bulk of that $2.7 million was for punitive damages because McDonalds was being arrogant in court, and they knew their coffee makers were defective.

Even after the judge knocked down the total amount, McDonalds quickly settled to prevent an appeal; they probably realized that $2.7 million was not such a bad verdict considering the numerous other burn victims that hadn't come forth.

gnasher729
Feb 16, 2009, 07:00 PM
Corporate suits are almost never in the category of "frivolous" lawsuits because by their nature they seek to resolve a dispute that on the surface is legitimate.

Whether or not SCO had an actual claim may be in doubt, but the claim itself isn't frivolous. Suing for $65 million over a pair of pants, is frivolous. However, you'll note that that case ended as the justice system intended. Even this case ended with SCO simply giving up. You'll be hard pressed to find a case where a jury awarded damages to a frivolous plaintiff.

My point is, the modern concept of a "frivolous lawsuit" is more a media creation than an actual fact. Lawyers, with all their greed and selfishness, are not stupid. They will not take up a case if they don't see good potential. It's one of the best protections we have against lawsuits involving $65 million clothing items. ;)

SCO vs IBM: SCO wanted $5bn (that is 5000 million) for IBM allegedly copying 300 lines of code to which SCO had no copyright. Fifteen million per line of code. I call that frivolous.

And SCO's lawyers were not stupid. They were paid tens of millions of dollars; SCO may not have won their case, but their lawyers certainly did.

gnasher729
Feb 16, 2009, 07:11 PM
They are probably just chavs trying to falsely claim compo... :rolleyes:

I admire your superior knowledge of people, that allows you to make such a judgement of people that you have never, ever met in your life.

CalBoy
Feb 18, 2009, 10:08 PM
SCO vs IBM: SCO wanted $5bn (that is 5000 million) for IBM allegedly copying 300 lines of code to which SCO had no copyright. Fifteen million per line of code. I call that frivolous.

It doesn't matter how much code is in question, but rather how relevant it is.

The case could be frivolous for other reasons (ie, SCO doesn't have any claim to the code in question), but not over the quantity of material at issue.

And SCO's lawyers were not stupid. They were paid tens of millions of dollars; SCO may not have won their case, but their lawyers certainly did.

SCO would not have continued the case if they didn't see any potential. A good lawyer would have advised the company that the case was poor; to do otherwise would be in violation of legal ethics.

TheWelshBoyo
Feb 19, 2009, 03:29 PM
Did any of you read the bit about her being British?
Unless she chose to go private, we don't have medical costs in Britain.
We have a little something called the NHS :)

rhett7660
Feb 19, 2009, 04:24 PM
Ironic, seeing as less than one hour ago I was telling my friend how much I love this ride.

I'd ride it again in a heart beat.

Ha.. that is great! I love this ride also. One of my favorites at Disneyland California Adventure...

15K seems really low for a lawsuit of this nature.

CalBoy
Feb 19, 2009, 07:19 PM
Did any of you read the bit about her being British?
Unless she chose to go private, we don't have medical costs in Britain.
We have a little something called the NHS :)

Still, $15k for punitive and other compensatory damages seems very minimal. It's not even enough to cover an attorney's fees for a full blown jury trial. Something's amiss.

eleven2brett
Feb 20, 2009, 11:30 AM
Grrr, I thought my Disney stock had enough to worry about!

John.B
Feb 20, 2009, 12:45 PM
Grrr, I thought my Disney stock had enough to worry about!
Lesseehere...

Yahoo Finance has the Disney market cap at $32.04 billion. At yesterday's close of $17.69, that puts the total outstanding shares somewhere around 1.8 billion (with a "b"). By my math that puts the potential impact of this at something like $0.00000825 per share. Are there any tall buildings near you that you could, you know, throw yourself off? The angst you must be feeling from that potential financial loss must be unbearable...

weckart
Feb 21, 2009, 03:44 AM
Did any of you read the bit about her being British?
Unless she chose to go private, we don't have medical costs in Britain.
We have a little something called the NHS :)

Did you read the bit about her being in the US? Unless she flew back immediately having suffered a heart stoppage and brain haemorrhage, she went to a US hospital where something called the NHS matters diddly squat.