Originally Posted By barboy ///that the media doesn't care about this story because the dead CM wasn't Natalie Holloway?/// In all basics, yes, that is what I am saying. A missing/exploited teen, a female teen at that, makes for a far juicier story than an accidental death of a CM. And I still say that since this is not an intentional tort(like some sexual battery or one CM murdering another by purposely switching tracks or pushing buttons to willfully cause death or great bodily injury) but an accident fewer will find interest in the story. And don't expect much in the way of "punitive" retribution by a jury(if if this case gets that far) either. ///Orlando media will cover the story; maybe not national media, but the damage is being done locally. And that's an important community that Disney needs to kinda sorta keep on their side, since CMs live in Central Florida/// I am not taking that part lightly--- you have a good point.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> I know Orlando media will cover the story; maybe not national media, but the damage is being done locally. And that's an important community that Disney needs to kinda sorta keep on their side, since CMs live in Central Florida. << You can bet if it did make it to trial it would get some national coverage. You can also bet that everytime it was mentioned all of Disney's misfortunes, of death, and accidents over the past few years would be brought up also. Disney is just to protective of it's image to allow this to happen, in my opinion.
Originally Posted By barboy ///By the way barboy, I bet a family of 4 of any race or nationality were decapitated at WDW, it would be news everywhere./// Of course it would be news, BIG NEWS!---- I didn't say that it wouldn't. I am saying that a good looking white family of commercial/modeling caliber decapitated would sell more People mags. than a motley, bucktoothed, acne scared looking Vietnamese family......and I'm sure you agree, right? Details like race, age, gender, employment/career merely ***MODIFY*** the story(and they also modify jurors opinions of human worth, unfortunately, when it comes time for awarding money)
Originally Posted By barboy And MPierce I hear what you're saying about juries like the McD's but remember jury pools are more of a local phenomena---that is they can be 'liberal' or stingy. Just in my general area alone, the Bay Area of california, depending on which county one lives lawyers change legal strategy. San Francisco loves to give money out(generally speaking) whereas 20 minutes away in my county juries have been more stingy---- especially deep into my county of the "Tri Valley".
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 This is typical of bigtime legal matters. I can't say I agree with Disney's take on it because someone died due to the way they operated their transport department. I also doubt very much this will ever go to trial. The absolute last thing a corp like Disney wants is that type of publicity. It's all gamesmanship. Who knows what figure the family asked for? And who can say what a life is worth? My take on it is life is priceless. NO AMOUNT will ever bring him back and right this wrong. NO AMOUNT will ever provide true closure to the family. I would be asking for an astronomical sum if I had lost someone in a situation like this because only a truly huge number would likely change the way Disney operates and preclude a tragedy like this from every happening again. That number certainly isn't six or seven figures. This is a company that somehow reportedly spent $750,000 to renovate a set of MK restrooms recently (I'm sure Denise has pics!) True punitive damages are needed. It must cost Disney enough to operate differently.
Originally Posted By MPierce What about A poor white family of Rednecks from West Virgina vs. a handsome family of 4 members of Saudi royalty. We could play this back, and forth game all day. Your position in life always drives the media. Always has, and always will.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 Yeah, Disney should have to pay. But should the family get $100,000,000? Certainly he most likely wouldn't have earned that much in his lifetime. So whatever the court decides should be paid out, a certain amount should go to the family, and the rest to, say the TSB?? Just my thinking.
Originally Posted By bobbelee9 <<a handsome family of 4 members of Saudi royalty>> for that I fear WDW might get bombed.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> And MPierce I hear what you're saying about juries like the McD's but remember jury pools are more of a local phenomena---that is they can be 'liberal' or stingy. Just in my general area alone, the Bay Area of california, depending on which county one lives lawyers change legal strategy. San Francisco loves to give money out(generally speaking) whereas 20 minutes away in my county juries have been more stingy---- especially deep into my county of the "Tri Valley". << Very true. That's why the lawyers pay the big bucks to have the jury pool analysed by a professional. It's still a crap shoot though. Especially when you are a wealthy corporation, and you have the loss of an innocent handsome young mans life involved. The only thing Disney has going for it is it's wholesome family oriented image. Which by the way could count for a lot with the right jury.
Originally Posted By MPierce >> True punitive damages are needed. << If there is clear cut negligence involved I believe punitive damages have to be awarded. When Disney implemented going back to the safety regulations that use to be used, they all but admitted guilt in this case.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< <<a handsome family of 4 members of Saudi royalty>> for that I fear WDW might get bombed. >>> I doubt that would happen. A member of the Saudi royal family is the second-biggest shareholder of Disneyland Paris, right behind the Disney company itself. Having bombs go off in any Disney park would probably not be good for business.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I think it was silly for Disney to demand a jury trial rather than continuing to negotiate quietly behind closed doors. >>> I'm no expert of Florida Civil Procedure, but it occurs to me that perhaps there's some sort of deadline that must be adhered to do in order to request a jury trial. In fact, it took me only 30 seconds to find it in the Google: <a href="http://phonl.com/fl_law/rules/FRCP/frcp1430.htm" target="_blank">http://phonl.com/fl_law/rules/...1430.htm</a> <<< Florida Rules of Civil Procedure RULE 1.430 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ... (b) Any party may demand a trial by jury ... not later than 10 days after the service of the last pleading directed to such issue. >>> I have no idea if such a deadline exists at this point, but the point is that there is some point where there is a deadline to request a jury trial and it's not a matter of deciding to further negotiate - you either request a jury trial or forever waive that right once you get to the deadline. I wouldn't second-guess Disney legal on this one. Then there's the matter of whether a jury trial is desirable for Disney or not in this case. Again, I would not want to second-guess Disney legal. I can think of several reasons why it would be highly desirable for Disney to have a jury. Here's one of them: It gives them another avenue of appeal. If the jury does something crazy like in the McDonald's hot coffee suit, then that's something to appeal. It might be far less appealable if a judge decides it.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< Very true. That's why the lawyers pay the big bucks to have the jury pool analysed by a professional. It's still a crap shoot though. Especially when you are a wealthy corporation, and you have the loss of an innocent handsome young mans life involved. The only thing Disney has going for it is it's wholesome family oriented image. Which by the way could count for a lot with the right jury. >>> That's not the only thing Disney has going for it. In the McDonald's hot coffee situation, you have a poor old lady up against a mighty multinational corporation. It's easy for a jury to feel sympathy for the victim and figure that their judgment won't make any difference anyway to the large corporation. The difference here is that unlike McDonald's in any particular city, Disney is the largest employer in the Orlando area (and the state for that matter). The whole local economy is based on Disney bringing in tourists. If it were not for Disney, Orlando would most likely be just be a tiny blip on the map. USF, to the extent it existed at all, would most likely be near an established city and not swampland in the middle of the state. Almost every member of the jury pool has some ties to Disney, whether it be as a current or former CM, a relative of one, or just someone who realizes that the local economy (which means their jobs and property values indirectly) is driven by WDW. This is going to create a reluctance in at least some of them to agree to an outlandish award.
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< You can bet if it did make it to trial it would get some national coverage. You can also bet that everytime it was mentioned all of Disney's misfortunes, of death, and accidents over the past few years would be brought up also. >>> Another point of order: Disney's request for a jury trial mentioned here only affects whether or not there is a jury at the trial, not whether there is a trial or the timing of the trial. All of the bad publicity about a trial that's open to the public (and therefor the media's cameras and reporters) that you mention above will happen whether or not there's a jury.
Originally Posted By barboy ///life is priceless/// "Yes" and sometimes "no" Unless that cm had some deathwish or suicidal desires(which is EXTREMELEY unlikely)then 'yes' to him his life was priceless. But consider: if a party were suing me for wrongful death(like accidental car collision) and looking for some astronomical number beyond my policy limits I would explore the relationship of the complainant(s) to the deceased fully. Example: wife loses husband and tells the jury how horrible it is to be without him and what they had was beautiful and sacred........ I would see if she has/had a pending divorce (which she initiated), multiple affairs, a history of clubbing husband in his sleep and then taking off to the Bahamas alone ......all relevant when talking about her "loss" of a husband. Hmmmmm, I wonder if Disney is exploring the relationship of the cm to his family(the complainants) to see if there were any documanted cases of abuse, kicking out of houses, physical fights or anything of the sort that would discredit claims that the family suffered a loss.
Originally Posted By MPierce You brought up some valid, and very interesting points. I agree with almost everything you said. Basicly what it boils down to is the evidence, and the crap shoot of a jury trial in the wrongful death of a young man. That's why I think it will never reach a jury
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 <<Yeah, Disney should have to pay. But should the family get $100,000,000? Certainly he most likely wouldn't have earned that much in his lifetime. So whatever the court decides should be paid out, a certain amount should go to the family, and the rest to, say the TSB?? Just my thinking.>> Who knows? You never know how much someone could 'earn' in their lifetime. Do you base it on what he earned at the time of his death? Do you then add a set amount of increases? Do you have a cap? Who's to say what he could have accomplished (and how much wealth he could have earned) if he had lived? The problem is life is very cheap these days. Oh, and don't for a second think Disney and its lawyers won't play dirty with the family ... if this kid had anything in his background that wasn't 100% wholesome they'll exploit it ... if the family has anything they don't want in the public eye, rest assured, Mickey's rats already know it. The system is tilted in favor of corps. I do hope some justice gets served here.
Originally Posted By Spirit of 74 Didn't see barboy's post 36 when I wrote the above ... but that is what I fully expect Disney's lawyers to do. If I represented Austin's mother, I'd try and depose everyone up to and including Bob Iger because that's when the fun stuff gets out ...
Originally Posted By barboy ///don't for a second think Disney and its lawyers won't play dirty with the family ... if this kid had anything in his background that wasn't 100% wholesome they'll exploit it/// Dirty???? It may not necessarily be dirty. What if, just play along for the fun of it please because I am certainly not saying it is true nor believe it is true.... but what if the family had a history of abusing that young man his whole life---doing unspeakable things to him or what if they hated their son and 'disowned' him(don't think that crap doesn't go down because it happens often in the USA) again I am not saying that is the case here but if it were....... ....should the family get $1 billion Spirit of '74 for their "tremendous loss" and use that horrific accident as a huge payday???? Disney should check things out before paying out.
