Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45
  1. #1

    • Junior Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    2

    Disneyland rides must be as safe as buses - Supreme Court

    Decision just came down yesterday regarding the Indiana Jones brain injury.

    http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions...ts/S118489.PDF

  2. #2

    • Member
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, California, United States, United States
    Posts
    986
    I've been jostled around on the bus FAR worse than anything Indiana Jones Adventure ever did... this is just plain ridiculous.

    It should be the other way around (buses should be as safe as theme park attractions)

  3. #3

    • I won't grow up!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Utah
    Posts
    254
    What the?!?!

    This is so upsetting!! Whats the point of all the warnings then... you get jostled around on the bus far more and they don't warn you..

    This irritates me on such a high level


    Working daily to infect my two little princesses with Disney obsession

  4. #4

    • Circle of Ancients
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Posts
    22,687
    I have never felt safe on Public Transportation.

    Does this mean they don't need to have seat belts anymore?


  5. #5

    • WDW FAN
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    273
    grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr


    They even quoted an English Court from the 1800's..........HELLO?!?!?!? This is America not the UK.

  6. #6

    • The one, the only...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles, California
    Posts
    2,846
    Remember that you in California have the power to vote out these idiot judges.
    Jiminy Cricket Fan
    .................................

    Love Disneyland and Walt Disney World!

  7. #7

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In a 3D movie theater
    Posts
    4,834
    I love reading suprime court rulings, particularly the responces...

    I don't think it is saying that the ride car must be as safe as a bus...

    The Court's Ruling is actually AGAINST DISNEY... And the ruling states that the same "comon carrier" statutes that apply to Elivators apply to Theme Park Rides...

    Now this has to do with a Legal Argument... There are other laws on the books which are appliable that govern over theme park rides, and of course negligence laws as well... But they where not argued by the Petitioner...
    Check out my other blog:

  8. #8

    • At the Gym or at DL
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    128
    Yes, the jist of this ruling is than an amusement park ride must use the same high standard of care as any common carrier that is transporting persons for hire. This ruling upholds an earlier appellate court ruling. Disney argued that an amusement park ride is not transportation but for a purpose of thrills and entertainment and the fact that people are transported is an incidental consequence and therefore should not be held to this higher standard of care.

    In my opinion the Disney argument is the correct one and this is a horrible ruling by the California Supreme Court. I imagine Disney will appeal to the US Supreme Court and I certainly hope they hear it and overturn it. If not, this could have some profound effects on the entire amusement park industry.

  9. #9

    • Darkbeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Tustin
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1
    Have you read the actual Supreme Court ruling (the link is available in the news section here at MiceChat). ?

    Did you know that in the past, two rides at Disneyland have been ruled "common carriers" by the California courts, including Pirates of the Carribean in 1995?

    A 1934 case against Venice Roller Coaster called a Roller Coaster a common carrier..

    A 1962 ruling (Kohl v. Disneyland, Inc.) in 1962 ruled the Stagecoach ride a common carrier..

    And then the Pirates of the Carribean was also ruled a common carrier in 1995.

    You take an escalator or elevator from the parking structre to the tram loading area, they are common carriers... Then take a tram, which is also a common carrier....

    Airplane and helicopters rides that go nowhere (sightseeing tours) are common carriers.

    I also don't see any major changes happening, all this really says that the park guests have a right to presume a safe ride, and that parks owe guests a "duty of utmost care and diligence". And that folks can sue the parks if they feel that the park did not take that care...

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...9&pageNumber=1


    But the court responded in its 4-to-3 decision: "Certainly there is no justification for imposing a lesser duty of care on the operators of roller coasters simply because the primary purpose of the transportation provided is entertainment ... The rider expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened but not hurt."
    Check out my Theme Park Photos at http://darkbeer.smugmug.com

  10. #10

    • 0 to 200 mph in 1 second!
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Southern end of the DLR
    Posts
    1,424
    Considering that Disney (especially with Matt at the helm) takes better care of its "passengers" than traditional common carriers, what difference will this make besides more frivolous lawsuits? Maybe someone should start suing transit authorities because they don't provide the same safety restraints we get on Indy or Screamin'. Anyone up for riding OCTA all day until the driver has to put on his brakes a little harder, then "fall" out of your seat?

    I just hope Disney Legal doesn't think they have to "rescue" us (or their own butts) by toning down Indy now that its actually thrilling again. Or decide to super-glue the teacups into place.

    Disgusting.
    Last edited by speederscout; 06-17-2005 at 09:10 AM. Reason: addition

  11. #11

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In a 3D movie theater
    Posts
    4,834
    Quote Originally Posted by GymMouse
    Yes, the jist of this ruling is than an amusement park ride must use the same high standard of care as any common carrier that is transporting persons for hire. This ruling upholds an earlier appellate court ruling. Disney argued that an amusement park ride is not transportation but for a purpose of thrills and entertainment and the fact that people are transported is an incidental consequence and therefore should not be held to this higher standard of care.

    In my opinion the Disney argument is the correct one and this is a horrible ruling by the California Supreme Court. I imagine Disney will appeal to the US Supreme Court and I certainly hope they hear it and overturn it. If not, this could have some profound effects on the entire amusement park industry.
    As the finding is based on common law, with out a constitutional question, I think it would be unlikely the US Supreme Court will hear this case...

    Again, I think the interpretation of the ruling is false here...

    The ruling essencially says that theme park rides must be better than the standards of care of common carriers...

    In other words theme park rides must be safer than an elevator, safer than a bus, safer than riding the back of a horse, safer than a ski lift... Why, because they will be held to the same safety standards...

    In other words, Disney was arguing that Indy didn't have to be as safe as riding a bus because the standards are differant at theme parks...
    Check out my other blog:

  12. #12

    • At the Gym or at DL
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    San Diego
    Posts
    128
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkbeer
    Have you read the actual Supreme Court ruling (the link is available in the news section here at MiceChat). ?

    Did you know that in the past, two rides at Disneyland have been ruled "common carriers" by the California courts, including Pirates of the Carribean in 1995?

    A 1934 case against Venice Roller Coaster called a Roller Coaster a common carrier..

    A 1962 ruling (Kohl v. Disneyland, Inc.) in 1962 ruled the Stagecoach ride a common carrier..

    And then the Pirates of the Carribean was also ruled a common carrier in 1995.

    You take an escalator or elevator from the parking structre to the tram loading area, they are common carriers... Then take a tram, which is also a common carrier....

    Airplane and helicopters rides that go nowhere (sightseeing tours) are common carriers.

    I also don't see any major changes happening, all this really says that the park guests have a right to presume a safe ride, and that parks owe guests a "duty of utmost care and diligence". And that folks can sue the parks if they feel that the park did not take that care...

    http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.j...9&pageNumber=1
    Darkbeer, yes I did read the ruling and what you say about the other two DL cases is correct, those rides were ruled as common carriers. I however, disagree that if this latest ruling stands there won't be a major effect on the industry. Bill Handl (who's an atty., albeit not much of one by his own admission)on KFI radio talked about this subject this morning and concluded that rulings like this will make it much harder for amusement park operators to offer super fast, thrilling type rides.

    First of all, for those who don't know, the standard of care that Disney expects to be held to in an entertainment attraction is "reasonable care and diligence". Of course the guest have a right to presume a safe ride and Disney needs to do everything reasonable to insure that under this standard. However, this is of course a lower standard of care than "utmost care and diligence".

    In the two other Disney cases cited, malfunctions of the attraction were involved so the standard of care probably was not the issue. In the case of a stagecoach tipping over, Disney doubtfully could even argue the reasonable care standard was met.

    In this case there was no malfunction of the attraction so the standard of care becomes a central issue. The CA SC had the perfect opportunity to narrow the definition of common carrier to fall in to line with the cases that were cited from other states. It's typical of many court rulings that disregard legislative intent. That's why I think this is a horrible ruling.

    Again, only my opinion but I think that holding amusement park operators to this higher standard will result in parks either dumbing down rides or more lawsuits. Under the standard of utmost care attys would argue that parks could of done more to protect riders. We know they always could do more. It boils down to whether they would have to do everything possible or everything reasonable to protect the care of the rider.
    Last edited by GymMouse; 06-17-2005 at 11:15 AM.

  13. #13

    • Darkbeer
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Tustin
    Posts
    8,260
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by cellarhound
    The ruling essencially says that theme park rides must be better than the standards of care of common carriers...

    In other words theme park rides must be safer than an elevator, safer than a bus, safer than riding the back of a horse, safer than a ski lift... Why, because they will be held to the same safety standards...
    I don't see anywhere in this ruling that they have to be SAFER than other common carriers, but AS safe. But it really isn't as safe, it is the fact that folks that build and operate amusement rides that they have a duty of utmost care and diligence.

    So they can be surprised, frightened, etc..... the one thing that a ride cannot do is hurt someone. Isn't that already the standard????
    Check out my Theme Park Photos at http://darkbeer.smugmug.com

  14. #14

    •   
    • NEVER to Old To Fly...
    • Offline

    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Bay Area, CA
    Posts
    14,570
    Blog Entries
    6
    If you have a Brain anurism ready to burst, you trip, bump your head into a another person, The Anurism Bursts, and you die, Can The Family then Sue to have all Humans wrapped in Bubble wrap?
    -----------------------------------------------
    DISNEYLAND: Greatest Man-Made Place On Earth

    YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK: Greatest *GOD-Made Place On Earth

  15. #15

    •   
    • Minion
    • Offline

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    In a 3D movie theater
    Posts
    4,834
    Quote Originally Posted by Darkbeer
    I also don't see any major changes happening, all this really says that the park guests have a right to presume a safe ride, and that parks owe guests a "duty of utmost care and diligence". And that folks can sue the parks if they feel that the park did not take that care...
    Exactly... there is a "reasonable expectation" that someone is safe while riding...

    The trouble is, that Indy attempts to break this expectation purposefully while maintianing better safety standards than most common carriers...

    That is why they are thrill rides...

    I think that is what Disney was trying to argue...

    Anyway they lost the arguement... I don't know why the California Suprime Court reviewed this case... As it only upheld the appelate court's decision...
    Check out my other blog:

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 09-25-2007, 08:43 PM
  2. U.S. Supreme Court says 'No Pooh For You!!!'
    By OogieBoogie in forum MiceChat News Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-27-2006, 12:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •