Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest.asp?I1=ID&I2=74034" target="_blank"><b>Latest: OrSen: Disney goes to trial over safety of Tower of Terror</b></a> <p>A Florida jury heard opening arguments in the case of Pennsylvania man claiming Tower of Terror led to his stroke. The case is unusually in that the lawyers are not claiming malfunction resulted in injury to their client but rather the ride is fundamentally unsafe and visitors are not appropriately warned of its dangers.</p>
Originally Posted By PirateMinnie Not appropriately warned? No offense meant, but I feel like you can simply look up from the outside of Tower of Terror, see an elevator falling from the top level of a building and figure out if the ride is for you or not. Not to mention the video they play inside.
Originally Posted By Anatole69 Wasn't there the case of the spanish speaker who climbed a fence at a Great America in San Jose and was hit by the coaster and won the lawsuit for a similar reason? Who knows what the legal threshold is for these things. - Anatole
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper What a joke. People need to know their limitations, and read freaking signs.
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 Shouldn't "Tower of TERROR" be all the information you need? It doesn't say "Tower of leisurely fun"
Originally Posted By Disneymom443 It makes me so mad when people sue over things like ,"It made me feel bad, Or I got sick, I was worned enough". Thoes people need to open their eyes and read the signs that Disney posts. <<<Tower of Leisurely Fun>>> good one.
Originally Posted By HokieSkipper <<It makes me so mad when people sue over things like ,"It made me feel bad, Or I got sick, I was worned enough". Thoes people need to open their eyes and read the signs that Disney posts.>> If only people were that smart... Maybe we'd still have Alien Encounter.
Originally Posted By LadyandtheTramp The only resaon people keep suing for these types of things is because juries keep awarding them money. If the juries would stop throwing money at these supposed injuries, they wouldn't sue anymore.
Originally Posted By rhodisney So true. After turning 50 and being prone to nosebleeds and my hubby having just been fitted with a pacemaker, we'd be idiots to get on the TOT or the RRC,and expect not to have a problem. I'm not saying we would, but why tempt fate? People just need to use common sense with these rides! We rode both of them lots of times Before we got sick, so we don't feel like we're deprived of ever having experienced them. I've always thought that one of the greatest things about WDW was that there is always something else to do...if the line is too long for a ride, or you have a physical limitation, you can always find something else to occupy your time.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 welcome to sue happy America- anything to get rich quick. Does this guy also want signs that say - do not step in front of the moving train, it could cause injury, do not put hand in operating garbae disposal- injury should occr -- I always wondered WHO they were talking to when they would add- don't try this at home to 3 Stooges shorts... these idiots should have to pay ALL court costs - in fact they should be split evenly between the suer and the ambulance chasing attoryney-- blocking up the courts for real cases
Originally Posted By vbdad55 who's his attoeny - Lionel Hutch ? If WDW put any more signs up at attractions, you wouldn't be able to see the rides. I'm now 55 years old- slightly overweight ( maybe more than slightly but I'm sticking to that story ) - and although relatively healthy I also know that there comes a time when some limitations start to set in. Wetn surfing last time in Florida and had 'bad' fall....at 21 I would have shrugged it off- at 54 it took weeks to be 100% again... should I sue the pier that I surfed from or should I just realize everything carries risks - and oh btw- the older you get, even healty, the greater those risks become
Originally Posted By MPierce It kind of reminds be of all the safety warnings that are required on items sold now. Like the warning on ladders, that they possibly could tip over, and do not stand higher than this rung. Those warnings all add cost to the products that we purchase. I realize some people might be genuinely stupid enough to need these warnings. However, the warnings mostly are put in place to keep predatory people at bay from sueing everytime their desire for money does kick in.
Originally Posted By jkayjs As I've said many times~lawsuits used to be a way to right a wrong, now they're a way to make a living! I once heard a comedian say the "a jury is made up of 12 people not smart enough to get out of jury duty" funny but only because there is a thread of truth there.
Originally Posted By SFH jkayjs, that's a good one, although I am thankful for any thoughtful person who is willing to sit on jury. I am close to someone who came out on the losing end of a civil lawsuit. This person was a doctor who was being blamed for something that was physically impossible for him to have done. Another doctor could have been blamed, but THAT doctor had declared bankruptcy. But the jury didn't understand that it was physically impossible for the first doctor to have been at fault - all they saw was someone who had suffered and "someone else" should have to pay. The point of this is... the first doctor points out that he did NOT have a jury of his peers. Although that is really more relevant to criminal trials, he had a point... if the jury had consisted of people with more experience with anatomy, he would have stood more of a chance. He WAS able to turn around and sue his insurance company, as he had told them from the start to settle the claim because he could see the writing on the wall, but they wouldn't settle because they knew he wasn't at fault. Getting hack to Disney - I don't see how thrill rides, which people go on for entertainment, can be compared to transportation in terms of level of comfort and care they are expected to provide.
