British teenager sues Disney after disabling heart attack on Tower of Terror

Yes. It would be wrong.

But, I can't say I wouldn't do it. And, I'm not sure how many other people can, either.

Brian, I agree. If a family member was injured on a ride you could face massive medical bills which the average person would not be able to afford. If you know that Disney will pay and you could avoid having the rest of your life ruined and gain better care for your loved one by suing them, many people would sue. Even if they know it was bad luck, which the park could not have prevented. I'm not saying it's right, just that it's reality. It is easy to say "I would do the right thing, and not sue" until it has happened to you.

But the family member was not injured on a ride. If it happened to my kid while playing volleyball or skiing or mall walking... should it matter?

Obviously few if any of us will ever be in that kid's parents' shoes, but huge faceless corporation or not, I'm not sure I could short change my soul like that, especially if I live in a country where health care is provided.

Any major park I have been to have signs posted at the entrances of rides posting warnings.

Off the top of my head they include: High blood pressure, back and neck problems, heart conditions, pregnancy, etc.

Alot of them even say not to have candy or gum in your mouth while riding after the Raging Bull incident at SFGAm. Even though it turned out that wasn't the cause of her death.

Why should Disney settle? All this does is set up future cases that is B.S.

Kid gets fat and develops diabetes, what does he or she do? Sue the top fast food joint McDonalds. Nevermind that you can develop the same diseases from other restaurants or even the local supermarket.

It's all a money grab.

Jeff, how can you possibly know that if you haven't been facedwith it?!? I'm being sarcastic. These kinds of discussions alwaysamaze me because the scenario gets laid out and then boxed in with thenotion that if you say you wouldn't do it, you are just being naivebecause you have never been faced with it in reality. I find it ironicgiven the initial proclamation was also made as a hypothetical.

The issue is that those deep pockets that are mentioned come fromrevenue generated from customers. Someone always pays for things likethis. Even if the cost doesn't get passed on to the customers, therecould be legislation or policies that suddenly get created thatnegatively impact others.

Choosing to pursue a monetary gain where it isn't warranted isselfish. And in the case of this teenager, what if she wasn't anattractive girl? What if she was an unattractive, overweight kidwho was otherwise healthy? What if she was a 70 year-old woman who wasotherwise healthy? Would that change the perception that the family isjust doing what is in her best interest?

I agree that she was not literally injured while on the ride. But, the article says she collaped after riding TOT. It seems clear that the ride was the trigger which led to her heart attacks and a chain of events which made her unable to move and speak. Otherwise, it was one heck of a coincidence. She could have had undiagnosed medical conditions which were aggravated by the ride. In my opinion, Disney is not liable. This is a tragedy which was nobody's fault.

Well, you could sue God for creating here like this or the dectors for not detecting it during a genetic screening.

Why should Disney settle?

Because, in the end, it's cheaper---either directly, in potential costs, or indirectly, in lost business. I've been involved in a couple of cases that, while not in the amusement industry, have similar flavors---one party is clearly in the right, in common-sense terms. All of them eventually settled. In all of them, the "right" party still had to give something up that, in common-sense terms, make no sense. However "give nothing" just wasn't a smart business move---because to get to the point where a court would finally say "Yes, you're right, this case has no merit," costs a lot of money.

I'm on the Board for a non-profit that is currently a defendent in a suit that on its surface, is pretty pointless. We're the deep-pocket target of opportunity in a dispute that, at its core, is between two other parties. But, for a variety of reasons we got entangled in it. When our counsel was asked whether we would discuss potential settlement terms, his recommended response was: "Reasonable people are always willing to discuss settlement."

Of course, the trick is: what are the terms. That's where things get interesting.

These kinds of things happen all the time. It's like being a fee-for-service professional with a client who won't pay their bill. You are entitled to the money, there's no question about it. But, you're not going to get it. Sure you could sue them for it, but depending on the circumstances, it's often more trouble than it is worth. My wife has this happen from time to time in her private practice and the practice just builds a certain amount of uncollectable debt into their business model, and sells what they can't get themselves to collection agencies for a few dimes on the dollar.

I think one of the key issues is that a lot of people (perhaps even most people) is that if anything bad happens to them, someone else is reasonable. Just look at all the TV ads for personal injury attorneys. They promise to get you money, and imply you will get hundreds of thousands of dollars or more. I'll bet that the people who are in an amusement park accidents are called by dozens of the attorneys.

I had an "incident" back in college(Okay, Community College, but hey, I made an effort), where I was heading to a class on the 2nd floor of the building. I took the escalator, and was talking with a friend, and without even thinking about it, the edge of my sneaker got caught up in the metal siding of the escalator, when we approached the top, and I couldn't seperate it, or my foot, from the escalator, until it basically ripped away.

I was fine, the sneaker was torn but, I still filed a report with the school, basically to let them know that it could possibly happen again, and worse to somebody else.

A few days later, I got a call(I still assume that it was a lawyer), asking me about the incident, and if I was interested in persuing it further. I basically told them it wasn't that big of a deal, at lest for me, because it never got worse then that torn sneaker, and I was conciously aware of that fact.

With the frivilous lawsuit era we now live in; I guess that this little story puts me in the wrong for not suing the college for millions, for the psychological damages alone. Hell, I still have nightmares today about that incident. I wonder if I can still sue.

Brian Noble said:
Because, in the end, it's cheaper---either directly, in potential costs, or indirectly, in lost business---because to get to the point where a court would finally say "Yes, you're right, this case has no merit," costs a lot of money.

I don't think people realize how often this scenario really plays out.

Without trying to sound like a total scumbag or that I support the idea, if you pick and choose your opportunities correctly, you could make a decent living off the courts. Flat out, if you're willing to 'settle' for less then it would cost a big corporation to get to that point (really think about it and consider the math) then you get money.

^ There's a reason there's 10+ pages of lawyers in most big cities phone books.

Lord Gonchar said:

Brian Noble said:
Because, in the end, it's cheaper---either directly, in potential costs, or indirectly, in lost business---because to get to the point where a court would finally say "Yes, you're right, this case has no merit," costs a lot of money.

I don't think people realize how often this scenario really plays out.

Without trying to sound like a total scumbag or that I support the idea, if you pick and choose your opportunities correctly, you could make a decent living off the courts. Flat out, if you're willing to 'settle' for less then it would cost a big corporation to get to that point (really think about it and consider the math) then you get money.

Don't forget that it costs a defendant a lot of money just to get to the settlement point as well. Which is why I think there should be some kind of tort reform to prevent frivolous cases from even entering the system. It's not like there wouldn't be anything else happening in courthouses if these suits didn't exist.

I think there should be some burden put on the plaintiff to show they have a valid case, to the point where they'd be responsible for court costs and the defendants' costs if it were shown they were wasting everyone's time and resources.

That's what a trial is for... to present the burden of proof.

RatherGoodBear said:
Don't forget that it costs a defendant a lot of money just to get to the settlement point as well.

That's exactly what we're saying.

Knowing how much it costs to defend these lawsuits, it only makes sense that these corporations settle easily and early if given the chance.

Sue them for a ridiculous amount and 'settle' for a lot. Happens all the time.

Of course the flip side would be the huge costs involved for an individual in fighting a huge corporation for something you feel is right and that you refuse to settle on.

Perspective, I guess.

Which is why something should be done to stop all these lawsuits. My simple suggestion was if a lawsuit ever got to a jury/judge whatever side lost should be expected to pay for all the other side's legal expenses. That way all these frivolous lawsuits would stop, because the party that knows they have a 90% chance of winning would not be risking any money.

I think that would be a terrible idea. I'm as against willful misuse of the legal system as the next guy, and in fact I work for and in part own a company that has gotten hammered by these kinds of suits. But what you're suggesting would have terrifying ramifications.

Let's take the Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom incident, for example. Just because you and I realize that the park was at fault doesn't guarantee that a jury will find it that way. Juries are always a crap-shoot. So what happens if Six Flags spends $1 million to defend the case -- not a pie-in-the-sky number, by the way. If the jury finds for Six Flags, suddenly that girl's family has to pay SFI that million dollars, in addition to all the lifetime medical care that girl is going to need that the family is now going to have to somehow pay for.

Making the losing party pay for the winning party's legal expenses would have an extremely chilling effect on both gold-diggers and legitimate litigants. And it would hugely benefit large corporations that have deep pockets and can afford to spend that $1 million if it means they might not have to pay $10 million. Your idea would be quite welcomed by the Wal-Marts and Exxons of the world, I can assure you.

Touchdown said:
My simple suggestion was if a lawsuit ever got to a jury/judge whatever side lost should be expected to pay for all the other side's legal expenses.

If that were the case, corporations would always win, and the little guy would never get his day in court even when it was legitimate. There's nothing simple about that.

Yes, to echo Ensign's and Jeff's thoughts, most cases are decided upon based on whose attorney is more intelligent and/or experienced. It's not always about who's right or wrong.

And how much paper you can bury opposing council with.