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

Carrie M. said:
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.

RatherGoodBear said:
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.

These are the two (two and a half?) sticking points for me.

The first question is a slippery slope argument. But I am not sure how saying that the park is responsible for the damages caused by its negligence (assuming they are found to be negligent and that negligence caused the injuries which are provable) leads to holding the park responsible for all things that happen at the park. Why argue against something that isn't being argued for?

The second question is addressed, at least from a legal perspective, with the concept of proximate cause. You need some directness to the cause of the injuries. You could also argue that had the parents not had a child the child never would have been harmed. Typically folks are help liable for the foreseeable damages that were proximately caused by their negligent actions. And there are a lot of things to argue about generally in such cases and specifically in this one.

RGB -- I don't know the answer to your question. I suspect this isn't the first such case to have been brought in Florida but don't know. Doubt plaintiff's counsel would have cited anything in their complaint. But if SW files a motion to dismiss, I would expect plaintiff's counsel to cite whatever caselaw exists in Florida (and around the country) supporting their claim for liability in this case.

I think the actual first question is whether injury sustained indirectly by the alleged negligence is the same as injury sustained directly by the alleged negligence. And then how far can the indirect injury claims go?

The big issue comes down to whether Sea World was negligent. I'm not talking about the child seeing the accident, but rather should the accident have been prevented in the first place. People have been quick to assign blame because Sea World was cited for violations by OSHA.

OSHA cited three violations, two of which are unrelated to this accident.
- Not having a hand railing by steps leading to the stage.
- An outdoor electrical outlet not having a weatherproof enclosure

The major citation is that OSHA believes that trainers should not interact with orcas unless separated by physical barriers. Not just this orca on this particular day, but rather there should never be any direct interaction - ever.

Here is the OSHA report:
http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=NEWS_...p_id=18207

Here is a reference to a previous OSHA report on Sea World following an accident in 2006:
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/288426

I'm thinking the 2006 accident was the one where an orca kept breaching itself on top of a trainer in the water who almost drowned. I may be wrong on that however.

These will be the major issues if Dawn's husband proceeds with the wrongful death suit. Again, I'm not talking out negligence in having visitors witness accidents.

Is there any reasonable argument to be made that a 10,000 plus pound animal can be controlled 100% of the time? If you believe that only 100 percent accident prevention is acceptable, then the only outcome is to stop whale shows, or at least stop trainer interaction.

Dawn knew the risks. Nobody forced her to work there. She as at least as negligent in this accident as Sea World. Anybody that works with Killer Whales (tigers, lions, etc) will always have a strong component of personal negligence in the event an accident happens.

From my interpretation, that is exactly what OSHA wants.

"In facilities that house wild animals, employers need to assess the animals under their care and to minimize human-animal interaction if there is no safe way to reliably predict animal behavior under all conditions."

How can you reliably predict animal behavior under all conditions? You cannot even do that with the human forms of animals. That's why I choose never to interact with people unless there is a physical barrier between me and them. :)

Then I am of the opinion OSHA recommendations are unreasonable. I could even argue that their guidelines are meant to put Sea World out of the business of animal shows.

Those that agree that humans and animals should never interact for our entertainment hold a differing opinion. I believe that Dawn and Sea World recognized and accepted inherent risk that come from working with wild animals. I also believe that guests that visit such parks accept the inherent risks that come with paying for and watching a wild animal show. There is always a small chance that something can go wrong and you may see something you do not like.

I find the statement "if there is no way to reliably predict animal behavior under all conditions" laughable and disingenuous. Why not just say OSHA is against all animal shows? Common sense tells us that there is no safe way to predict animal behavior under all conditions. It is an unreasonable expectation.

Jeff said:

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.

Must you always be so crass to people when you disagree with someone? And for the record, we have two lawyers in my family so I do know a little bit about what I am talking about versus pulling a "statistic" out of my ass.

Yeah? How many millionaires have your lawyer family members "made?" How many are made by winning lawsuits every year? How does that compare to previous years? What's the average "score" for winning a civil suit?

The way I read his statement isn't that people are actually becoming millionaires, but more so that people often seem to feel that it is an acceptable route to millionaire status. He didn't say that it was working in their favor so much as commenting on the attitudes of people regarding civil litigation.

I did a quick search and didn't find any hard statistics, but scanned a few articles that stated that the U.S. is one of the most litigious nations in the world. I can't back that up, but even so, he seemed to have been stating an opinion more than anything, and based on personal experience, I'd agree.

Jeff said:
Yeah? How many millionaires have your lawyer family members "made?" How many are made by winning lawsuits every year? How does that compare to previous years? What's the average "score" for winning a civil suit?

Jeff, I've got to say that I've been coming to your site for a long time. I am an Ops Director at a Water Park, so I see things from the operator's perspective.

I disagree completely with your argument, but that has nothing to do with my next statement:

Your tone, demeanor, and attitude during the course of this discussion has solidified the fact that I will no longer be a patron of this, or any other website you ever run.

Super. Have fun at your water park, and a sunshiny happy magic day!

Sunshiny Happy Magic Day? Isn't that the name of a park in China? :)

I'm having a Sunshine Day. :)

I hate sunshine.

Carrie is the new Gonch.

Now with baby-hating boobs!

No, if she were the new Gonch, she would say that she doesn't actually hate sunshine, she's just posing the argument for the sake of debate. ;)

Yes. Yes, you have a point. Because I do really in fact hate babies, sunshine, breastfeeding, and ... boobs.

The irony is that I really do hate those things, I just add the disclaimer to sound like less of a jerk.

Stupid babies...