Walt Disney World Magic Kingdom Discussion Thread

[BarryH]

I remember a lawsuit where someone sued Universal because Halloween Horror Nights was too scary. Come on now!

[CardCraze]

This makes so much sense! Let's serve refrigerated nacho cheese!

[MayTheGForceBeWithYou]

I remember a lawsuit where someone sued Universal because Halloween Horror Nights was too scary.

 

There is no way that can be true. Please tell me people are not that stupid.

[imawesome1124]

I remember a lawsuit where someone sued Universal because Halloween Horror Nights was too scary.

 

There is no way that can be true. Please tell me people are not that stupid.

Believe me, people are THAT stupid.

 

In my opinion this is a case of a bunch of sue-happy people looking for a way to get a lot of money, and that is just stupid.

[FeelTheFORCE]

I remember a lawsuit where someone sued Universal because Halloween Horror Nights was too scary.

 

There is no way that can be true. Please tell me people are not that stupid.

Believe me, people are THAT stupid.

 

In my opinion this is a case of a bunch of sue-happy people looking for a way to get a lot of money, and that is just stupid.

 

Yeah, why is it when something goes wrong, the first thing that pops into these peoples' heads is "I wonder if I can sue for this?" It's sad because things like that are what surround the legitimate lawsuits with negativity.

Edited February 13, 2011 by FeelTheFORCE

[BarryH]

It's true about Halloween Horror Nights:

 

http://www.ranker.com/list/the-13-dumbest-lawsuits-in-recent-history/williammtx

 

I can't find the original article, but I remember it made big news a few years back.

[ernierocker]

This sounds like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit all over again. Remember, the lady won that lawsuit because they proved the coffee was "hotter than normal". That is all the lawyer will have to do in this case. It doesn't matter that the parents were negligent and let their kid get too close to get burned. Tort lawyers are the absolute worse!!!

[cfc]

^I feel compelled to point out a few things about the McDonald's "hot coffee" suit. The company had been quietly settling similar lawsuits about their coffee for years, until they got tired of it. Unfortunately, they probably should've settled one more--picking on old lady/grandmother types is usually a bad idea. In fact, they had a chance to settle this suit for $20,000, but refused. In court, McDonald's had to reveal that they had settled 700 similar lawsuits, and that their coffee was, in fact, about 50 degrees hotter than coffee served at most other restaurants. In other words, they acknowledged that their coffee had injured people in the past.

 

The 79-year-old victim had suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body and required skin grafts and hospitalization. The jury awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the judge reduced to $480,000.

 

Now, I'm not saying that the nacho-cheese case is "legitimate," here--only that the McDonald's hot-coffee case was very poorly reported in the media.

[djbrcace1234]

 

This is the second suit against a Disney park this week. In the other case, a quadriplegic man claims that he was stuck in the "It's a Small World" ride for 40 minutes at Disneyland in California, and that there was no way to evacuate him in his wheelchair. He is suing for negligence and emotional distress.

 

 

This Case makes more sense than the nacho cheese case.

[ginzo]

Unless you're related to the kid, who cares about the nacho cheese case? Now, being trapped on Small World for 40 minutes. That's something to get worked up about! I wonder if the poor guy has PTSD now.

[ernierocker]

^I feel compelled to point out a few things about the McDonald's "hot coffee" suit. The company had been quietly settling similar lawsuits about their coffee for years, until they got tired of it. Unfortunately, they probably should've settled one more--picking on old lady/grandmother types is usually a bad idea. In fact, they had a chance to settle this suit for $20,000, but refused. In court, McDonald's had to reveal that they had settled 700 similar lawsuits, and that their coffee was, in fact, about 50 degrees hotter than coffee served at most other restaurants. In other words, they acknowledged that their coffee had injured people in the past.

 

The 79-year-old victim had suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body and required skin grafts and hospitalization. The jury awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the judge reduced to $480,000.

 

Now, I'm not saying that the nacho-cheese case is "legitimate," here--only that the McDonald's hot-coffee case was very poorly reported in the media.

 

I actually knew a little bit about that. The point I was trying to make was that the lawyer in this case will use the McDonald's case as a precedent. Even though parent's negligence should override any harm done, the lawyer will more than likely just have to prove that the nacho cheese was too hot and win his case. Actually, what will likely happen is Disney will just settle out of court.

[larrygator]

I feel more sorry for the quadripeligic that was stuck on It's a Small World for 40 minutes. Absolute torture!

[StarTrekGeek]

From AOL news

 

http://news.travel.aol.com/2011/02/12/nacho-cheese-leads-to-disney-suit/?icid=maing|main5|dl2|sec3_lnk1|43665

 

The parents of a 4-year-old California boy are suing Walt Disney Parks and Resorts claiming hot nacho cheese scalded and scarred their son during a visit to Walt Disney World.

 

Isaiah Harris suffered "permanent scarring, pain and suffering" as a result of the burns, according to the suit, which seeks medical cost and punitive damages for emotional distress.

 

The boy's parent, Michael and Maria Harris of Chula Vista. Calif., are also seeking damages saying they suffered "serious emotional distress."

 

The family says the incident occured in March at Cosmic Ray's Starlite Cafe in Tomorrowland at Disney's Magic Kingdom theme park in Florida. They claim a paper cup with scalding cheese splashed on the child's face when he grabbed a food tray.

 

"The cheese should not have been that hot," says Sean Cahill, the family's attorney.

 

Disney released a statement saying that the company is reviewing the lawsuit but is saddened by the child's injuries. "It is unfortunate when any child is hurt."

 

This is the second suit against a Disney park this week. In the other case, a quadriplegic man claims that he was stuck in the "It's a Small World" ride for 40 minutes at Disneyland in California, and that there was no way to evacuate him in his wheelchair. He is suing for negligence and emotional distress.

 

While I do feel terrible for the boy who got burned I do have to wonder, who doesn't know nacho cheese is supposed to be hot?

 

People are sometimes so unbelievable.

 

Really? REALLY? What's next, getting sued for having long lines?

 

Probably that.

[cfc]

^I feel compelled to point out a few things about the McDonald's "hot coffee" suit. The company had been quietly settling similar lawsuits about their coffee for years, until they got tired of it. Unfortunately, they probably should've settled one more--picking on old lady/grandmother types is usually a bad idea. In fact, they had a chance to settle this suit for $20,000, but refused. In court, McDonald's had to reveal that they had settled 700 similar lawsuits, and that their coffee was, in fact, about 50 degrees hotter than coffee served at most other restaurants. In other words, they acknowledged that their coffee had injured people in the past.

 

The 79-year-old victim had suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body and required skin grafts and hospitalization. The jury awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the judge reduced to $480,000.

 

Now, I'm not saying that the nacho-cheese case is "legitimate," here--only that the McDonald's hot-coffee case was very poorly reported in the media.

 

I actually knew a little bit about that. The point I was trying to make was that the lawyer in this case will use the McDonald's case as a precedent. Even though parent's negligence should override any harm done, the lawyer will more than likely just have to prove that the nacho cheese was too hot and win his case. Actually, what will likely happen is Disney will just settle out of court.

 

I agree that the case will most likely be settled out of court. My main point is that it's a little premature to make any sort of judgment about the case until all the facts are known.

 

I'd sue, too, if I was stuck on "It's a Small World" for an extra 40 minutes--unless they gave me free nachos.

Edited February 13, 2011 by cfc

[Airtime&Gravity]

This sounds like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit all over again. Remember, the lady won that lawsuit because they proved the coffee was "hotter than normal". That is all the lawyer will have to do in this case. It doesn't matter that the parents were negligent and let their kid get too close to get burned. Tort lawyers are the absolute worse!!!

 

McDonald's truly was at fault in that case. At the time, cup holders weren't common in cars as people didn't eat in them like today. To make up for this, McDonald's made the coffee hotter than normal so that it would still be hot when the person got to their destination. Now, some fault was still with the woman though as most people put their food on the floor, not in their lap.

 

While this seems like another ridiculous case, if Disney did heat the nacho cheese hotter than normal, then they are, at least partially, at fault. The story I read about the incident earlier showed the kid, and the blister was really bad. Now the kids injuries are nowhere near as bad as the woman in the McDonald's case, but with the current information, Disney can still be at fault.

Edited February 13, 2011 by Airtime&Gravity

[Mechanic]

I'd sue, too, if I was stuck on "It's a Small World" for an extra 40 minutes--unless they gave me free nachos.

Me too! And, that nacho cheese better be good and hot!

[PSiRockin]

What kind of parent doesn't warn the kid to be careful because a food is hot? Not to assume, but if they didn't the kid should sue his parents for a lack of a warning! Or if he ignored his parents, they should sue him.

EDIT: yeah though, this is rediculous.

[ernierocker]

This sounds like the McDonald's coffee lawsuit all over again. Remember, the lady won that lawsuit because they proved the coffee was "hotter than normal". That is all the lawyer will have to do in this case. It doesn't matter that the parents were negligent and let their kid get too close to get burned. Tort lawyers are the absolute worse!!!

 

McDonald's truly was at fault in that case. At the time, cup holders weren't common in cars as people didn't eat in them like today. To make up for this, McDonald's made the coffee hotter than normal so that it would still be hot when the person got to their destination. Now, some fault was still with the woman though as most people put their food on the floor, not in their lap.

 

While this seems like another ridiculous case, if Disney did heat the nacho cheese hotter than normal, then they are, at least partially, at fault. The story I read about the incident earlier showed the kid, and the blister was really bad. Now the kids injuries are nowhere near as bad as the woman in the McDonald's case, but with the current information, Disney can still be at fault.

 

Read the entire thread before you post!

^I feel compelled to point out a few things about the McDonald's "hot coffee" suit. The company had been quietly settling similar lawsuits about their coffee for years, until they got tired of it. Unfortunately, they probably should've settled one more--picking on old lady/grandmother types is usually a bad idea. In fact, they had a chance to settle this suit for $20,000, but refused. In court, McDonald's had to reveal that they had settled 700 similar lawsuits, and that their coffee was, in fact, about 50 degrees hotter than coffee served at most other restaurants. In other words, they acknowledged that their coffee had injured people in the past.

 

The 79-year-old victim had suffered third-degree burns over 6 percent of her body and required skin grafts and hospitalization. The jury awarded her $2.7 million in punitive damages, which the judge reduced to $480,000.

 

Now, I'm not saying that the nacho-cheese case is "legitimate," here--only that the McDonald's hot-coffee case was very poorly reported in the media.

 

I actually knew a little bit about that. The point I was trying to make was that the lawyer in this case will use the McDonald's case as a precedent. Even though parent's negligence should override any harm done, the lawyer will more than likely just have to prove that the nacho cheese was too hot and win his case. Actually, what will likely happen is Disney will just settle out of court.

Edited February 13, 2011 by ernierocker

[MayTheGForceBeWithYou]

^From Barry's Link:

 

The funny part is that this case seems to have some merit to it. The temperature McDonalds’s serves its coffee at (180 Fahrenheit) legitimately will burn your skin severely in a matter of seconds, and so forever ignited the debate whether people can sue for not using common sense.

[ernierocker]

^Yeah, I know. Not really sure what the point of your post is.

[Tmcdllr]

I would like to find the article about the Small World incident, that must have been terrible for that guy. Yeah, in that case I could sue. 40 minutes....wtf?

[Fooz]

I know this makes me a douche, but if that cheese was hot enough to do permanent and sizable skin damage (I don't know the size of the injuries, but the article did say "permanent"), then the disney corporation is absolutely to blame and the family deserves compensation. I know its easy to say "nachos should be hot!", but it is a food service product and there should be strict upper limits temperature-wise. Burns are terrible and disfiguring.

 

Can you imagine spilling some cheese on your lap, experiencing serious pain, ending up in the hospital, and having a large scar there for the remainder of your life? This could have been prevented if the temperature of the served food was taken seriously.

[Jay20016]

I know this makes me a douche, but if that cheese was hot enough to do permanent and sizable skin damage (I don't know the size of the injuries, but the article did say "permanent"), then the disney corporation is absolutely to blame and the family deserves compensation. I know its easy to say "nachos should be hot!", but it is a food service product and there should be strict upper limits temperature-wise. Burns are terrible and disfiguring.

 

Can you imagine spilling some cheese on your lap, experiencing serious pain, ending up in the hospital, and having a large scar there for the remainder of your life? This could have been prevented if the temperature of the served food was taken seriously.

 

Oh, when did they come out with imperative data showing that Disney's cheese is indeed hotter than normal?

[cfc]

Excuse me for feeling compelled to repeat something I said earlier:

 

My main point is that it's a little premature to make any sort of judgment about the case until all the facts are known.

 

Threads about lawsuits involving theme parks and injuries tend to get a little out of control. Let's keep the tone civil, everybody.

[beatle11]

Wow, I can't help but remember Kramer suing for his cafe latte's being too hot. Disney may just settle to get this over with.