Suing Disney for heart-stopping ride

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by madoka, Feb 15, 2009.

  1. macrumors 6502

    madoka

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #1
    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.
     
  2. Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #2
    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.
     
  3. thread starter macrumors 6502

    madoka

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #3
    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?
     
  4. macrumors 68040

    Scarlet Fever

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2005
    Location:
    Bookshop!
    #4
    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:
     
  5. macrumors Penryn

    Abstract

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2002
    Location:
    Location Location
    #5
    She didn't notice the risks the first few times she rode it? :confused:

    Idiot.
     
  6. macrumors 68020

    brad.c

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Location:
    50.813669°, -2.474796°
    #6
    Now THAT's funny. :D
     
  7. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2002
    #7
    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)
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2003
    #8
    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.
     
  9. macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #9
    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:
     
  10. macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2008
    Location:
    Holocene Epoch
    #10
    Fifteen grand? Sounds like medical costs? Anyone know more about that amount?
     
  11. macrumors G5

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #11
    There are plenty of warnings posted for that ride and she rode it several times. I hope Disney fights this and doesn't settle.
     
  12. macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #12
    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:
     
  13. macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #13
    $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.
     
  14. macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #14
    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.
    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
    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.

    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.
     
  15. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #15
    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.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    jonbravo77

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #16
    Wow, ok. Who is on a high horse. Was just citing an example, sorry if it was you who it happened too. geese.... :eek:

    Ok, sorry for the poor example.
     
  17. macrumors G5

    Sun Baked

    Joined:
    May 19, 2002
    #17
    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.
     
  18. macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #18
    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.
    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.
     
  19. thread starter macrumors 6502

    madoka

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    #19
  20. macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #20
    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.
     
  21. macrumors 68030

    gibbz

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Location:
    National Weather Center
    #21
    I'd say this is pretty clear.
    [​IMG]
     
  22. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2005
    #22
    lol, you could have cropped the picture....:rolleyes:
     
  23. macrumors 604

    CalBoy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2007
    #23
    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.
     
  24. macrumors 6502a

    millar876

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Location:
    Peterhead, Scotland UK
    #24
    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.
     
  25. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #25
    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).
     

Share This Page