Lawsuit against Disney
February 13th 2009 06:28
A 16 year old English teenager and her family are suing Disney because the girl rode the Tower of Terror ride at the amusement park and suffered a heart attack shortly after. The girl now requires 24 hour care due to brain damage.
In their claim, they state that the ride is designed negligently and does not adequately warn of the risks or use adequate safety restraints.
While the incident is unfortunate, I fail to see how they even have a case. The girl had NO idea she was getting on a roller coaster? These rides always have signage, I have no doubt Disney provides signage on rides such as this. I won't get on a roller coaster because I know I can't handle it, other people who know to heed the warnings on these signs also don't get on them. She did, she took the risk and while everyone feels for this family, it is not Disney's fault that it happened. Disney did the right thing after the incident, they closed the ride and inspected it but there were no errors in operation found.
If the sign does not adequately warn people then how do they want their sign, in a larger font or in plainer English? The signs are there, people heed them if they want to, if not, then they accept the possible consequences.
If Disney is indeed proven negligent then it follows that there would be a large proportion of contributory negligence found also on the behalf of the 16 year old girl and her parents.
Cases like this succeeding can only open the floodgates to a multitude of cases lacking merit being allowed to go ahead, something corporations such as Disney and others in a similar business surely don't need. When the amusement park is actually at fault, then yes, clearly there is a case the plaintiff can and should argue, but when patrons enter a park and do not heed warnings in place regarding the danger presented by some rides, then that is a risk they take, not one that the park should be responsible for.
Source: www.news.com.au
In their claim, they state that the ride is designed negligently and does not adequately warn of the risks or use adequate safety restraints.
While the incident is unfortunate, I fail to see how they even have a case. The girl had NO idea she was getting on a roller coaster? These rides always have signage, I have no doubt Disney provides signage on rides such as this. I won't get on a roller coaster because I know I can't handle it, other people who know to heed the warnings on these signs also don't get on them. She did, she took the risk and while everyone feels for this family, it is not Disney's fault that it happened. Disney did the right thing after the incident, they closed the ride and inspected it but there were no errors in operation found.
If the sign does not adequately warn people then how do they want their sign, in a larger font or in plainer English? The signs are there, people heed them if they want to, if not, then they accept the possible consequences.
If Disney is indeed proven negligent then it follows that there would be a large proportion of contributory negligence found also on the behalf of the 16 year old girl and her parents.
Cases like this succeeding can only open the floodgates to a multitude of cases lacking merit being allowed to go ahead, something corporations such as Disney and others in a similar business surely don't need. When the amusement park is actually at fault, then yes, clearly there is a case the plaintiff can and should argue, but when patrons enter a park and do not heed warnings in place regarding the danger presented by some rides, then that is a risk they take, not one that the park should be responsible for.
Source: www.news.com.au
| 64 |
| Vote |
Comment by S.L.
The Political Brief