Woman Sues DisneyWorld Says Ride caused Stroke [Archive]

thrillme

02-12-2009, 10:09 AM

Woman Sues Disney World, Claims Ride Caused Stroke, Heart Attack
Thursday, February 12, 2009

Print ORLANDO, Fla. — A British woman is suing Walt Disney World, claiming a ride caused her to suffer a disabling heart attack and stroke in 2005.

Leanne Deacon and her mother, both of Kibworth, England, filed the lawsuit Wednesday in Orlando circuit court. They are seeking at least $15,000.

Leanne Deacon was 16 when she rode the Disney World-MGM Studios' "The Twilight Zone Tower of Terror" ride several times.

Shortly after one ride, Deacon's heart stopped and she had a brain hemorrhage.

The Deacons accuse Disney of negligence in the ride's design and operation. They say Disney failed to adequately warn of the risks or provide adequate safety restraints.

Disney spokeswoman Kim Prunty said the company hadn't seen the lawsuit. Prunty said the ride was working properly when Deacon rode it.

***********************************************

:mad: Hold on a minute. I REMEMBER this and really tried to follow up on it. If I recall the young lady rode FIVE times before falling ill...HUH?

MstngDrvnDsnyLvr

02-12-2009, 10:38 AM

This is one of the many rides that warns you about being pregnant, high blood pressure, heart problems etc. :(

JPL

02-12-2009, 10:43 AM

So millions of people ride every year and are fine and there are plenty of safety warnings. I really hope this get thrown right out of court.

So let's see they say "provide adequate safety restraints" so you decide this after riding 5 times. If you felt they ride was unsafe why ride it 4 more times after the first ride.

Sorry but this a joke:mad:

TinkerbellT421

02-12-2009, 11:04 AM

Kind of reminds me of the woman who "burned" herself from a cup of mcdonalds coffee, saying she didnt know it was going to hot....Somethings are just common sense. And one ride on ToT is fine for me, but yet she enjoyed it so much she rode it five times in a row....And hold on a second...she was 16 when it happened....four years ago...and she just filed a lawsuit now!?!? This just cries that her and her mother need money for something else.

Dixie Springs

02-12-2009, 11:35 AM

I just read this one on Fox News. $15K for a heart attack and stroke?? That's a bargain! Disney will pay 10X that amount for the lawyer. Settle out of court and forget it. Next case...

MississippiDisneyFreak

02-12-2009, 12:30 PM

Isn't there a statute of limitations on these type of cases? I was thinking 2 years was the limit....

LauraleeH

02-12-2009, 12:57 PM

Wow, my dad rode Expedition Everest twice and had a stroke but you don't see us suing, and we could really use the money! :sick:
I agree with whoever said that $15,000 is a bargain and they should just get this over with. The girl probably just needs money for school. Does that make it ok? No! But they're going to spend sooooo much more if they try to fight it.

thrillme

02-12-2009, 01:00 PM

Well... they're saying AT LEAST $15,000. It really sounds like such a "trivial" amount that they'll probably settle out of court.

It's just a little disappointing. I feel very badly for the girl and I'm very glad to hear a bit of how she's doing that she survived the ordeal because my prayers were with her...but...there was NOTHING wrong with the ride. Warnings are posted all over the place. Things can happen anywhere anytime. I "personally" (my OWN "non-medically" educated opionion)...thought it was a "blessing" that it happened when it did rather than during the 12-15 hour flight back to England. If it happend over the sea during flight what could have anybody done to save her.

Considering the amount maybe that's just the amount that their insurance wouldn't cover and they just can't afford to pay it.

stitchaholic

02-12-2009, 01:49 PM

that's ludicrous,i see couples surely over 80 years old in line for this ride and others like it.
if she was only 16 there was surely something else wrong with her health.

Mickey91

02-12-2009, 03:26 PM

This is a classic case of trying to get someone else to pay for your bad choices. Instead of rewarding this kind of behavior with a hearing they ought to fine people like this an exhorbitant amount and help the economy instead of hurting it by making companies pay large sums for lawyers and settlements. I get tired of paying higher prices for everything because some idiot doesn't have common sense.:mad:

joonyer

02-12-2009, 03:55 PM

First of all, there is a legal doctrine called "assumption of risk" That's why there are warnings posted on just about every theme park ride (at any park, Disney or otherwise).

Second, it is VERY, VERY difficult to prove causation in cases like this. If a ride breaks, and a rider plummets to the ground and is injured, it is easy to make the causation link from ride defect to injury. But when an injury is not physical, such as heart attack or stroke, which can have many causes, some of which are unknown, it is just about impossible to prove that the injury/illness was caused by the attraction, and not from some other cause or from no apparent cause at all. We all will die sometime, somewhere, doing something. When I was a teenager one of my friends keeled over dead from a heart attack at age 16 after church one evening. Tragic, but nobody ever thought the church service caused his heart attack. On the other hand, just one week before we were all at Six Flags riding coasters, etc. If he had died then, it would have been easy to think that a ride caused his death. But it was just his time (he had a genetic heart defect that had been undiscovered).

Still cases like this are settled all the time, just to avoid the expense of lengthy litigation.

However I have no doubts that ToT is not inherently dangerous, or I would have already died from a heart attack while riding it. But there's a reason it's called the Tower of TERROR!

TinkerbellT421

02-12-2009, 04:16 PM

I personally think they shouldnt just settle. That will just show that if you sue for a small amount and it will cost them more in court is proving a bad example. Before long you have 100 people (which isnt many) sue at $15,000.00 (which yes I agree is less than what a court appearance will show) will in the end cost Disney 1.5 million dollars! So then if they dont take it to court, there will be plenty of people that will have that mentality of "if you sue for less than what it will cost in court then they will just settle" then DIsney will go broke because if they settle for one they would have to settle for the next, and then the next. So if your child asks you for one cookie before dinner, and you allow it once, you dont think they are going to expect it again? OK though not on the same planet of this situation, the point Im making with it is, everybody looks at it as a miniscual issue, until it happens every time. I think settling would show a bad example. They should take it to court. To proove to everybody that you cant just sue over a little amount of money and think your just going to get it. Not for nothing, that girl will spend over $15,000.00 on her lawyer fees to take it to court too. So why just let her win? Doesnt make sense to me IMHO.

Altair

02-12-2009, 05:45 PM

That's why there are warnings posted on just about every theme park ride (at any park, Disney or otherwise).

The first day in any law class is the day you learn that posted signs mean nothing. A sign does not relieve you of liability.

Not that I agree with the suit, but just pointing out a fact.:blush:

CaptainJessicaSparrow

02-12-2009, 08:31 PM

That's actually incorrect. Posted signs mean a lot when it comes to risk and negligence. In this case, Disney did everything it was supposed to operate the ride efficiently. The ride was operating properly and a malfunction with the ride is not the reason the girl had a stroke. The girl's health is the reason, of which Disney does not owe a duty of care to the girl for her health because they can't discriminate or prohibit her based on medical reasons. Also, her condition may not have been apparent. If she chose to ride the ride, despite the warnings that the ride could be dangerous to someone's health, then there is no liability to Disney. This case will be similar to the boy who died while riding Mission Space, however, I don't think the family sued in that case. It should be dropped from court.

Altair

02-12-2009, 08:47 PM

In this case, Disney did everything it was supposed to operate the ride efficiently. The ride was operating properly and a malfunction with the ride is not the reason the girl had a stroke.

What these people are going to try and prove is that Disney knew this ride, even though working properly, could cause death.
Like I said, I'm not agreeing with the people, I'm just looking at their angle.

joonyer

02-12-2009, 10:32 PM

The first day in any law class is the day you learn that posted signs mean nothing. A sign does not relieve you of liability.

Not that I agree with the suit, but just pointing out a fact.:blush:

That statement is only partially true. It is true to the extent that signs stating that an attraction may pose risks to people with certain medical or physical conditions will not protect the operator from negligent acts in the operation or maintenance of the attraction. However, such signs DO protect the operator from claims that an attraction (properly maintained and operated) caused death or injury by exacerbating a medical or physical condition of the rider. That's exactly the reason you see these signs on every theme park attraction (and warnings on the the sun visor of your SUV, and many other places). If such notices were worthless, they wouldn't be posted in the first place.

CaptainJessicaSparrow

02-13-2009, 12:01 AM

What these people are going to try and prove is that Disney knew this ride, even though working properly, could cause death.
Like I said, I'm not agreeing with the people, I'm just looking at their angle.

The ride doesn't cause death if it is functioning correctly and the passengers are in good health.

The nice thing is that in a case like this, the plaintiff has the burden of proof. They have to prove that the attraction caused the girl to have a stroke through proximate cause, and that it wasn't a secondary causation. The passengers health is what matters here, and if she was in 100% good health, she would have been fine riding the attraction, and as a result, Disney did not owe a duty to the guest because they did what they were to maintain and safely operate the attraction.

The girl rode it multiple times in a day, one time after another. The body can only withstand so much stress and since it pulls you down faster than gravity, the average body would eventually start to tire. She failed to think like the reasonable person (which is a common determination for negligence in lawsuits) and ignored the signs that the ride was not meant for people with severe health problems, regardless of whether or not they were known to the passenger at the time.

I love my hospitality law classes. I really love all my classes, I learn so much in them. :D

cgriff

02-13-2009, 09:30 AM

What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

thumperbug

02-13-2009, 09:46 AM

Ride at your own risk. How can they say Disney knew hte ride "could" cause death? Does everyone sue car manufactuers, cigarette companies, beer manufacturers because they make/provide a product/service that can kill??

People need to start taking responsibilities for their own actions. She was 16 and had a stroke/heart attack?

For someone that young, that tells me that there was a medical condition there somewhere...either known/unknown..

Bottom line...ride at your own risk.

Negligence only happens if the ride broke, malfunctioned or human error (as in not checking to make sure ride was working properly).

I am pretty sure those larger then life warning signs at ever ride, and on the maps, (which are available in multiple languages) and those warnings have not only wording but picture warnings as well (in case someone pleads illiteracy), cover things pretty well.

I think there might even be warnings reservations about park rides and liability,

Stop wasting money on lawyers.

grumpyguy

02-13-2009, 12:33 PM

wait a minute.....i've riden tot dozens of times and all i've experienced is,joy,excitement,laughter,fun,thrill,anticipation ,glad it was over,wishing it wasn't over,clapping,high fives,and any other positive adjectives you can think of...can i sue over that?:confused:

Gooftroop5

02-13-2009, 01:11 PM

thrillme

02-13-2009, 03:49 PM

I've ridden it a lot and I do believe I have developed an addiction to TOT and Disney overall. Even the Intercot...

I didn't intend to become addicted despite the warnings...but it happened anyway. I'm not sure any of the warnings were properly posted.

Shucks. If I win I'll probably end up spending it on a trip to Disney while staying at Animal Kingdom

TinkerbellT421

02-13-2009, 03:55 PM

Ride at your own risk. How can they say Disney knew hte ride "could" cause death? Does everyone sue car manufactuers, cigarette companies, beer manufacturers because they make/provide a product/service that can kill??

The sad part is, yes....The woman that sued McDonalds because she burned her hand when she didnt know the coffee was hot. The women that sued nintendo for the wiifit because it told her her daughter was overweight (and she was). The woman that sued McDonalds for making her daughter fat. The guy that sued the women whos house HE was breaking into when he fell and cut himself. The person who sued Marlboro because he got lung cancer. People sue over anything they can. And the more companies "just settle" cases because they dont want to spend the money on lawyers and court dates is just telling more people that they can sue over common sense things and get free money. Thats what society has become. Its sad and pathetic.

disneyaholic46

02-13-2009, 04:17 PM

There are sooooo many warnings signs for certain attractions at the Disney Parks, I am very sorry for the family, but Disney is in no way responsible for what happened, PLEASE READ THE SIGNS!!!!!!!!! that is why they are there. A pre-existing condition is probably the culprit.:-o

brownie

02-13-2009, 06:00 PM

Isn't there a statute of limitations on these type of cases? I was thinking 2 years was the limit....

In this case, since she was a minor when it happened, the statute of limitations probably runs out when she turns 21. This probably varies from state to state, and I'm not sure on the specifics for Florida.

3 years is pretty standard for the statute of limitations, but it will vary from state to state and with the circumstances of the specific case.

IloveDisney71

02-13-2009, 06:31 PM

TheRustyScupper

02-14-2009, 02:59 AM

Wait, what about me and my lawsuits . . .

1) Space Mountain - caused my baldness.
2) Hall of the Presidents - caused me to use contacts.

TinkerbellT421

02-14-2009, 07:15 AM

Wait, what about me and my lawsuits . . .

1) Space Mountain - caused my baldness.
2) Hall of the Presidents - caused me to use contacts.

And me (and I will use your numbering form lol)

1) Its a Small World - caused me to get voices in my head

2) The Tea Cups - gave me a perminent case of nausea

3) Monsters, Inc. - Gave me nightmares

:(

jpH/keD

02-14-2009, 09:53 AM

I was fine on ToT! I rode it 3x and I got nothin!
BUt that Star Wars thing gave me vertigo for 2 weeks afterwards! :sick:

I will just skip that one next time! But I want $15,000.00 too? Will they give that up? LOL! :blush:

brownie

02-14-2009, 12:31 PM

I was thinking exactly the same thing. I don't think Disney should settle.

Settling usually involves no admission of fault. Remember that Disney is responsible to its shareholders (owners) and needs to be responsible in how it uses its money. If it's cheaper to settle, that's the route they'll probably go. Simply taking a case to trial won't stop others from filing suit, especially if you end up losing. Our society is a litigious one, so unless the laws are changed to prevent frivolous suits you won't see much deterrence from fighting lawsuits.

SteveL

02-14-2009, 12:31 PM

I didn't think Hall of Presidents could cause anything other than narcolepsy.

ThanxForNoticin

02-14-2009, 03:26 PM

1) Its a Small World - caused me to get voices in my head

We got caught inside Small World for an extra 10 minutes one trip. I swear I have never been the same since, listening to that song over and over and over. They should have warning signs up for that!

But seriously, a law suit like this just shows a ridiculous mentality of the times - a way of thinking that says no one is ever accountable for their own actions. If something goes wrong, it's got to be someone else's fault. Now if it's someone else's negligence, that's a different story. But too often accidents happen and we try to force someone else into looking negligent. That McDonald's coffee law suit mentioned earlier has to be near the top of the list.

DixieBelle

02-16-2009, 10:02 AM

The woman that sued McDonalds because she burned her hand when she didnt know the coffee was hot..
From what I understand on this one, the employee put the women’s coffee in a regular paper cup, not an insulated one. That is why she got burned, and that is why she sued.

The women that sued Nintendo for the Wiifit because it told her daughter was overweight, (and she was). The woman that sued McDonalds for making her daughter fat. The guy that sued the women whos house HE was breaking into when he fell and cut himself. The person who sued Marlboro because he got lung cancer.

These others do sound pretty bad. I wonder if any of these people actually did win their case?

CU Tiger

02-16-2009, 12:52 PM

If DW was truly negligent, I think they would be trying to collect a lot more than they are.:confused: If someone else caused me to have a stroke, the bill would be a lot higher than this! They just want DW to settle out of court to get some easy, free cash. :mad: DW should not settle out of court or they will be inundated with other lawsuits. I bet they get sued more than makes the news. Big companies are big targets for people wanted free money. Why work for it when you can take it from someone else for doing nothing? Don’t worry; an increase in ticket price will cover it. :blush::mickey:

TinkerbellT421

02-17-2009, 09:35 AM

From what I understand on this one, the employee put the women’s coffee in a regular paper cup, not an insulated one. That is why she got burned, and that is why she sued.

Actually I was refering to the one that burned her mouth when she went to drink it. She said she didnt know it was hot because the cup didn't say it on it. And thats why they had to put "Caution: Contents may be hot" on the side of the cups.

joonyer

02-17-2009, 01:49 PM

ANYBODY can SUE ANYBODY else, for ANYTHING they can dream up. That does not mean they will be successful in getting a judgment, or that they will be able to collect on a judgment if they obtain one.

Most people who file suit against deep pockets, count on:
1) having at least an "arguable" claim, otherwise they can be subject to penalties in most states for frivolous litigation that have no merit whatsoever, and;
2) that it cost less for most large companies to settle (up to a point) than to take the case through to trial.

pink

02-17-2009, 06:04 PM

I hope they throw this case out.

CaptainSad

02-18-2009, 09:13 AM

Don't forget. LLC (limited Liability Company). They will settle and they will tell this woman that she is no longer welcome at WDW. Just like all the others. A poor trade off if you ask me....

Celestria

02-19-2009, 01:43 AM

yeah...... sure... i believe this and the i got hit on the head by a brick off of cinderella's castle. honestly.... ;)

drummerboy

02-19-2009, 05:25 PM

That McDonald's coffee law suit mentioned earlier has to be near the top of the list.
It's near the top of the list of musunderstood lawsuits that get dragged out too often. The woman in the one that people usually cite to 'prove' ridiculous lawsuits received third degree burns on her private parts from superheated coffee (not your everyday home coffeemaker kind of hot), was not driving the car (in fact, the driver had pulled off the road), and the coffee got dumped in her lap when she tried to remove the lid to put in sugar, etc..

NOW, having said that, I doubt the case in question has much merit, based only on the few facts that were presented here. They might try to establish that the ride is inherently dangerous (that it's a hazard no matter how carefully operated because of the way it's designed) but I doubt they'd be able to prove it.

Don't forget. LLC (limited Liability Company).
The limited liability only refers to the company owners not having personal liablity if the LLC gets sued, not that the company's liability is in any way lessened.

I'm not sure how it is in Florida, but here the only figure that can be mentioned on filing of a lawsuit is 'in excess of $10,000'. If something similar exists in FL, then the amount actually sued for could be very large but the suit would have to ask for an amount, 'in excess of $15,000' for instance, so that it could meet the threshold to bring it in a certain court level.

Celestria

02-19-2009, 08:42 PM

Wait, what about me and my lawsuits . . .

1) Space Mountain - caused my baldness.
2) Hall of the Presidents - caused me to use contacts.

i have one!!!

1) walt Disney World- caused my insane obsession to everything Disney

sisterdisco

02-20-2009, 08:34 PM

There is no mandatory accident reporting at Amusement Parks in the US. So you don't hear about all of the problems that people have. A Congressman several years ago was doing some work on this. There have been instances in WDW/DL, Busch Gardens, Six Flags (pretty much every major park) where people walked on an intense ride and dropped dead or had a stroke or a brain hemorrhage or some other major medical problem. Most of the report that I read was involving people who had brain aneurysms that they did not know that they had, went on an intense ride (safe for normal healthy people) and then the aneurysm either leaked or ruptured, causing a major problem.

That isn't a problem caused by Disney or any other park, but rather an unfortunate pre-existing condition that no one knew about.

Keeps me off the really intense stuff.....

hardingella

02-23-2009, 05:06 PM

This is exactly why all our insurances have gone up so much, because people like this are allowed to sue. I'm sure people go around lookink at ways to make money this way. "Oh look an uneven paving stone, oops!":ambal:My daughter was running at POP and fell over hurting her arm, before we knew it their were 3 CMs in our room (duty manager, head housekeeper and security manager) 2 ambulances turned up, please it was such an over reaction, all because, I'm sure they thought "Oh no, another law suit coming".Dont get me wrong i was very reasured at their attentivness, but dont you think
THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD:mad::mad::mad:

drummerboy

02-23-2009, 05:46 PM

but dont you think
THE WORLD HAS GONE MAD:mad::mad::mad:
Nah. You shoulda been around for the 60s. That's what everybody thought then, too. :D

Ian

02-23-2009, 06:12 PM

Nah. You shoulda been around for the 60s. That's what everybody thought then, too. :DThe world did go mad in the 60's. We just haven't recovered yet, because all those aging hippies are still the ones running the country. ;)

drummerboy

02-24-2009, 11:23 PM

The world did go mad in the 60's. We just haven't recovered yet, because all those aging hippies are still the ones running the country. ;)
But then again, everybody thought the same thing in the 20s and the 40s, etc. Seems to be an every-twenty-years cycle; that's about the time it takes for a new generation to come to the fore.

But we digress. :D