Family of boy who saw Brancheau drowning at SeaWorld Orlando sues park

Still that makes you more of an expert than any of the rest of us. I respect your opinions, even if I may not share them.

sws said:
Given the litigious society in which we live...

What does this mean, and what is it based on? I seem to recall reading somewhere (and I can't find the link) that while class action suits are on the rise, the number of civil suits brought by individuals has been on a steady decline for years. And a remarkably small single-digit percentage ever actually see a court room.

I don't even know anyone who has sued someone else. Anecdotal, sure, but how many people do you know?

And frankly, the statistic is meaningless anyway, because it doesn't measure the validity of this particular claim.

Jeff...you are correct about the fact that the number of civil lawsuits have gone down and how very few such cases ever do see the inside of a court room however on the other hand I can see why many have the idea that society overall is "sue happy". For example in many parts of the country its next to impossible to avoid lawyer ads on local tv and radio. Here in Denver there is an ad currently being run on tv showing people holding up their settlement checks to the camera screaming "CH-CHING !!" as if these people had hit the Powerball jackpot while another laywer ad I had seen recently actually promises "quick cash in your settlement". Some of those TV lawyers really do make it seem that it is so very easy to sue and collect when of course in reality..it isn't. My cousin who lives in Maryland SWEARS that she had seen a "legal" ad in Baltimore asking "..how would you like to stay home and play Farmville all day?..well let us sue to help you get your disability !!" Unreal !!

True lawyer ads on TV are nothing new however it really does seem that whenever the economy tanks...the more ads one sees for them.

Jeff said:
You have to separate the emotional response of whether or not it's right or just or whatever from what the courts will want to hear.

I still don't think you're not giving this thread enough credit on this front.

The first question is, was the boy harmed? I think we can agree that yes, it was like he was, and I'm sure expert witnesses will testify to that.

Yeah, I think everyone is ok with that.

The second question is, was SeaWorld in some way negligent in a way that led to the boy being harmed. That's the harder question to answer, but that's where the action will be if the case actually goes to trial.

And that's the one we're discussing.

I'm of the belief that the park could have been negligent on the issue of the accident happening, but it's irrelevant because it's an entirely different issue as to whether they're negligent in the boy witnessing it.

That an incident happened which is someone's fault (as if often the case) and then trying to extrapolate that fault to fault for a third party being nearby and witnessing the incident is something that is scary we can even discuss. How far can the damage chain extend.

If the 'six degrees of spearation' thing is true, maybe we can all cash in?

My guess is this: Because they had an animal known to be violent toward humans, there was some reasonable expectation that it could hurt or kill a trainer, in front of people. (To be clear, this is not an expectation shared with the general public, who probably knows the animals as "Shamu" only.) SeaWorld's response to that will be that they've studied these animals for decades, they have extensive safety protocols in place, etc. The plaintiffs will argue whatever issues were associated with the OSHA fine to demonstrate that SeaWorld's experience and protocol was inadequate.

An actual attorney could probably solidify those arguments, so who knows where it might lead.

Again, I think most of us understand all of that. We're disagreeing with the validity of the claim, not how it will be argued.

Want to win over some here? Describe it this way:

There's a car accident nearby where a guy is waiting on a street corner and one car slams another and a big hunk of car flies off an hits him upside the head. Obviously, he is now a part of that accident and would likely be entitled to compensation for his place in the accident for the damage incurred.

This boy is that guy on the corner and his residual damage is emotional, not physical.

With that said, I still don't like the suit.

Meteors and highway accidents have nothing to do with it.

Nothing's perfect, is it?

Jeff said:

I don't even know anyone who has sued someone else. Anecdotal, sure, but how many people do you know?

I have been sued twice. My wife was involved in litigation once. My sister's family is still in litigation. In both of the cases I was involved with, the court ruled in my favor. The judge had harsh words for the plaintiff to the effect the cases should have never been brought forth. My legal expenses were more than $10K. I motioned the court for my legal expenses to be paid for by the plaintiff, since the cases should never have come forth. Unfortunately, those motions were denied and I was out more than $10K. Unfortunate, but could have been a lot worse.

Chriscub said:
For example in many parts of the country its next to impossible to avoid lawyer ads on local tv and radio.

That has nothing to do with how much suing is going on.

Lord Gonchar said:
I'm of the belief that the park could have been negligent on the issue of the accident happening, but it's irrelevant because it's an entirely different issue as to whether they're negligent in the boy witnessing it.

Entirely different issue? I don't think so. I guess we just don't agree.

With that said, I still don't like the suit.

And what you like really isn't relevant. :)

For the record, I think the case is probably pretty weak, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be heard, or that we can chalk it up to one big abuse of the legal system or whatever.

sws said:
I have been sued twice.

That's why I need to stop making those kinds of points, because it's asking for the one person with a story to share it for the reverse anecdote. :)

No harm, no foul. :)
The litigation process dragged on for several months and caused a lot of anxiety and sleepless nights. It was hard to concentrate on much else during that time. Even though the court ruled in my favor, it was very expensive. When it comes to litigation, even when you win, you lose.

Let's put it in terms that maybe some here can identify with. I know I felt pretty horrible for several weeks after the Tamar Felner incident at Holiday World, and I didn't even witness the event. So, say you were on that train that fateful evening and witnessed her flying out of the car. Search deep down and tell me that you would sue Holiday World, or the Felner family, seeing it was really her fault. I'm sure if anyone would have actually witnessed it we would require therapy. No dispute there. But how many would actually file suit on it? I'd say a good 99% here would never sue, even if it wasn't the Koch family and instead a Six Flags park.

Bottom line here is they probably have a case, which I think is a product of our litigious society where everyone has to have a perfect life and if they don't they need to blame someone, especially someone as liquid as a theme park. So, yeah, they probably have a case. They will probably end up settling with the park. They are probably doing it more out of greed than anything else. Crap happens.

Kick The Sky said:
They are probably doing it more out of greed than anything else. Crap happens.

That is the bottom line for me with most lawsuits, somehow in the United States the legal system has become an acceptable route to over-night millionaire status. It really has become a form of the lottery, place your bets and see if you win. No matter what the reason or the industry, excessive litigation is killing our economy, business development and often causes jobs to go elsewhere in the world. There was just a story about this line of thinking the other day in an online newspaper, something has got to change while still protecting those with legitimate litigation.

Jeff said:
And what you like really isn't relevant. :)

That's the problem. :)

That's why I need to stop making those kinds of points, because it's asking for the one person with a story to share it for the reverse anecdote. :)

We have too. Well, my wife has - 3 times in 11 years. I'd rather not get into details beyond all were work related, disgruntled former employees naming my wife as well as the ownership and management companies and franchising company.

Sucks being the boss woman. :)

In all three cases settlements were made because it was cheaper than fighting for what was right. Luckily, all three cost us very little beyond our time in dealing with lawyers.

Lord Gonchar said:
Luckily, all three cost us very little beyond our time in dealing with lawyers.

What do you call a hundred lawyers jumping out of an airplane(sans parachute)?

A good start.

Gosh, I hope you never need one.

Should be fine. Only got rid of 100 with that one. We have a lot more than that.

I think the people who are bringing up "anecdotal" evidence, or mentioning other cases of "what ifs" have very valid points that should be part of this discussion, not simply shooed away as being irrelevant.

The gist of this case is not whether the boy was injured or traumatized. The argument is that his parents claim the trauma was caused because he witnessed a person's death, not because he was directly involved in the accident. Some people here have had the hardest time understanding that. Arguing that a person should have the right to sue a driver who hits their car is not relevant here. Arguing that a person has the right to sue a park if they're injured on the property is not relevant here.

I think it's a valid point to be worried about what precedent a case like this could set. This case could be decided by people who think keeping animals in captivity is bad, or people who think Sea World is bad because they're big business and big business is inherently evil. Not by whether they believe or understand that one or both parties in an accident are responsible for mental trauma suffered by a person who only witnesses the event.

Should this be decided in the Connells favor, does anyone honestly think this is the last 3rd party trauma lawsuit we'll ever see? Do you think case law will be restricted only to cases involving killer whales?

sws said:
No harm, no foul. :)
The litigation process dragged on for several months and caused a lot of anxiety and sleepless nights. It was hard to concentrate on much else during that time. Even though the court ruled in my favor, it was very expensive. When it comes to litigation, even when you win, you lose.

Sounds like you were traumatized. You might have grounds for a lawsuit there. :)

RatherGoodBear said:

Sounds like you were traumatized. You might have grounds for a lawsuit there. :)

Nahhh. I've found a better way to deal with my trauma. Currently I go to parks dressed up as a giant pantless duck who talks with a lisp and fondles hot young women. Just don't tell anyone.

I personally don't think Sea World will pay off the Connells just to make them go away for the same reasons you cite. It would open themselves up for countless other lawsuits. Basically, everyone at the park that day will asking for their handouts. Sea World is also facing a more serious wrongful death suit from the trainer's husband. If they pay off the Connells, it could hurt them in the later lawsuits.

mlnem4s said:
That is the bottom line for me with most lawsuits, somehow in the United States the legal system has become an acceptable route to over-night millionaire status.

This is complete nonsense. You're pulling that "statistic" out of your ass.

With all of the comparisons to the "what if" comparisons, many of you leave out the key question: Could the park have prevented it. We can generally agree that the kid was scarred for life, but was it within SeaWorld's power to prevent it. Trying to build a straw man around any other argument isn't constructive or relevant, because it's not answering this question.

I doubt this is the first claim filed in the State of Florida seeking damages for non-physical injuries. And jury bias is not unique to this case and would be addressed in jury selection (if it even gets to trial and most cases don't). At this point, the family has nothing. We shall see if that changes.

Jeff said:

...many of you leave out the key question: Could the park have prevented it.

That's not the right question, though. Many accidents could have been prevented if by no other means than utilizing the information learned by the accident itself.

Isn't it a silly question anyway? If it could have been prevented, don't you think Sea World would have prevented it? I'm fairly certain Dawn would have prevented it if she had known what would/could have happened. It's not like there are manufacturing specs that could dictate/predict what an animal will do in any given situation.

Besides, by making that the key question, you've already decided that a park is responsible for all things that happen at the park and for their guests' exposure to them. That's what people are arguing against here.

And even still, if it's proven that the family has/had video tape of the incident, I'm thinking they don't stand a chance at demonstrating they were forced into being exposed to this traumatizing event.

I think real question is, is SeaWorld negligent in keeping visitors from seeing this accident happen. It's a really tough question. Is keeping the accident from happening altogether included as part of the question?

They knew that that particular whale has killed a human before. I think that I read that the whale was acting funny that day. Whose responsibility was it to call off the show? Was the whale's behavior different enough from normal days to make that decision?

If it goes to trial, I would think that it would be very difficult for the jury to come up with a unanimous decision.

GoBucks, I don't doubt it either. But have there been other cases brought by someone was injured by something they saw happen to someone else, rather than being injured by something happening directly to them?

Jeff, I think it is you tiptoeing around the idea. Whether Sea World could have prevented the accident is a different concept than whether Sea World could have prevented the kid from being traumatized. Granted, if there was no attack or drowning, the kid doesn't have nightmares. But how far do you take that argument? If there were no killer whales in captivity, this kid wouldn't have been traumatized.

If Sea World had made these people leave the arena before the trainer got in the pool, would the boy be traumatized? Although, even in that circumstance you couldn't rule out the idea of someone saying, "we have that girl and that whale on video or in pictures, and now she died and everytime we look at the video, we get upset and have nightmares."

I still don't know if I buy the scarred for life idea. If that is the case, then there must be billions of people on this planet also scarred for life because they witnessed firsthand people die in warfare, natural disasters, and by any other number of violent or non-violent means. How's this kid going to react when someone close to him dies?

I think our society has an even more warped sense of dealing with death than we do with sexuality. We flirt with death, some are almost obsessed with the idea, yet so many don't want to acknowledge the reality and inevitability of it. When confronted with that reality, we have little idea how to deal with it (and in this case, I think it applies more to the parents than the boy).

Question is whether the park could have prevented the injury through the exercise of reasonable care. That removes the plane crash and meteor hit from liability situations. It may remove this case as well. Negligence cases typically involve injuries that could have been avoided. Question isn't whether it could have been avoided but whether it should have been avoided.