-
Amputees Suing Universal
Story
Apparently, two aputees (one had both arms amputated the other had both legs amputated) are suing Universal Studios because they prevented them from getting on a roller coaster citing safety reasons.
I hope this lawsuit is thrown out instantly. The ride in question uses lap bars. Imagine what would happen if the leg amputee slid out of the constraints (that are designed around people with legs) and got seriously injured or killed. Now, the guy who had his arms amputated, okay maybe that's a LITTLE overboard (if at all). However, I do get what they mean by saying that you need to be able to hold on to the restraints.
Thoughts?
-
07-11-2012 09:10 AM
# ADS
-
Obsessed Disney Mama
I'm not familiar with the Mummy ride at all so I can't comment on the restraint system. But I do think they may have went overboard with the arm amputee.
Also I don't like that after the one was denied, he found another amputee to go back with him because it looks like it was done with the intention of causing a scene.
-
I don't know the ride either so my husband and I discussed this policy in the abstract - using the Disney rides we do know for comparison.
Our conclusion: you may not need arms/hands to ride the ride, but you may need to have at least one hand to successfully evacuate the ride in the event of an unforeseen closure.
So does this mean that theme parks will need to have virtual roller coasters ala Finding Nemo Subs for every ride in the future? There are already plenty of rides that "discriminate" against obese people who cannot fully close the safety harness.
-
Force is strong in this one
I would guess that this violates the ADA. Can't any sort of accommodation be made?
Poker Apparel, from Tim
Goofy and C2C finisher, 2012. Ironman Wisconsin 2012 Finisher. Training for WDW Marathon 2013
-
Disney Bird Watcher
The law suit should immediately be thrown out. It is simply a matter of safety, not only for them but for the other riders and by-standers as well - who may also be injured if they fall off the ride. Look at it as a similar rule as height requirements. Height requirements for safety reasons do not violate any discrimination laws.
-
Obsessed Disney Mama
Originally Posted by
timl33
I would guess that this violates the ADA. Can't any sort of accommodation be made?
Only if the accommodation that can be made is "reasonable". If it's a safety issue and they cannot provide a "reasonable accommodation" then no, it's not a violation. Which is why I think they may have overstepped the line with the guy that lost his forearms, but not the guy that lost his legs.
Here's the LA Time article with a picture of the ride vehicle:
http://www.latimes.com/business/mone...,2075162.story
Shannon
Mommy to 3 Princesses and 1 Prince
Miss M(11), J(8) and R(5), and Mr. N(4)
-
Read Everything-Assume Nothing
MousePad Administrator
The article you posted does say this...
Castelan, according to the lawsuit, returned to the park in 2011 with Huezo, and operators of the Mummy ride barred both men, saying
a new policy requires that all riders have at least one hand and one leg.
Emphasis mine.
The problem is that there was most likely a precedence set before the policy change (ie: they rode it before) and there in lies the rub. While Im not a lawyer, (I dont play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night,) in business, precedence is a bear to try to get away from. Do it once, set an example for life even though there might be bona-fide reasons for the change, including for safety reasons.
Personally, I dont think precedence overrides the need for reviewing and revising safety precautions, but I think that is where this suit is coming from. Just a guess.
The search function is like the Force. It may take practice, but the more you use it, the more control you will have over it!
-
Disney Bird Watcher
Just last year, July 9, 2011 a U.S. Army veteran who lost both legs in Iraq was killed after he was thrown from a roller coaster at an upstate New York amusement park.
http://news.yahoo.com/army-amputee-t...044044948.html
As for the guy who lost his forearms - I'm sure the experts - safety engineers and coaster designers have determined that the risk would be too great for him. I remember a ride that I was on at a local carnival years ago - I wasn't tightly in and if I hadn't been able to hold onto the restraints - I might have been thrown from the ride.
-
Obsessed Disney Mama
Originally Posted by
GusMan
The problem is that there was most likely a precedence set before the policy change (ie: they rode it before) and there in lies the rub.
The LA times article said he'd ridden it several times prior to being denied in 2010 (because he couldn't hold on), then again in 2011(new policy of needing 1 hand/1 leg)
Originally Posted by
bochnikm
Just last year, July 9, 2011 a U.S. Army veteran who lost both legs in Iraq was killed after he was thrown from a roller coaster at an upstate New York amusement park.
http://news.yahoo.com/army-amputee-t...044044948.html
As for the guy who lost his forearms - I'm sure the experts - safety engineers and coaster designers have determined that the risk would be too great for him. I remember a ride that I was on at a local carnival years ago - I wasn't tightly in and if I hadn't been able to hold onto the restraints - I might have been thrown from the ride.
And I don't know when they were denied in 2011, but it would not surprise me if the new policy was because of this incident. And this article states other rides that denied riders without both legs from riding.
Shannon
Mommy to 3 Princesses and 1 Prince
Miss M(11), J(8) and R(5), and Mr. N(4)
-
Read Everything-Assume Nothing
MousePad Administrator
Thats exactly my point.
Policy changes are usually due because someone found a gap in how things are done. Sometimes its done through normal reviews and sometimes its done because something bad happened somewhere else. In either case, impacted guests will feel spited when its really for their own good.
The search function is like the Force. It may take practice, but the more you use it, the more control you will have over it!
-
Registered User
I find this thread very interesting because we just returned home from a trip to Dollywood this past June. Posted in front of all the thrill rides at Dollywood and printed on the park maps are the limitations for each ride. These included height restrictions, limitations on certain body shapes and rules about amputations. I dont recall ever seeing the restrictions for amputees at any of the theme parks in Florida. Being a Florida resident I have spent a great deal of time in the many theme parks here. It made me wonder why Dollywood felt the need to post these and FL theme parks, to my knowledge, dont post these warnings. I have to wonder now if FL theme parks will start posting these warnings rules at their attractions now that this lawsuit has surfaced at Universal?
Mily
-
Obsessed Disney Mama
I find it interesting too Mily. The article about the amputee killed, stated other rides had posted restrictions regarding amputees...something I've never noticed in CA. Of course I'm not looking for it either.
-
Gravity release me...
MousePad Community Leader
I've been on the Mummy attraction and I can tell you it is indeed intense!!! Lots of unexpected turns and drops. And, most of it is in the dark, so you really don't know what's coming next. I hope this lawsuit is dropped.
Have a Magical Day, Month, Year!!!
When you believe in a thing, believe in it all the way, implicitly and unquestionable ~ Walt Disney
Stephanie
~A man's character can be judged by the way he treats his dog.~
-
CL--DLR Trip Planning and DVC
MousePad Community Leader
Originally Posted by
GusMan
The problem is that there was most likely a precedence set before the policy change (ie: they rode it before) and there in lies the rub. While Im not a lawyer, (I dont play one on TV, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night,) in business, precedence is a bear to try to get away from. Do it once, set an example for life even though there might be bona-fide reasons for the change, including for safety reasons.
Personally, I dont think precedence overrides the need for reviewing and revising safety precautions, but I think that is where this suit is coming from. Just a guess.
Turning this around, if they had been allowed to ride, one of them was injured and then Universal changed the policy, the fact that Universal changed its policy after an accident is not admissible. The law doesn't want to make it harder for people to decide to make something safer. The fact that Universal changed the policy in advance of something bad happening should not be held against them either. Seriously, if they are so darned motivated to put themselves in dangerous situations go jump off a bridge (while wearing a bungee cord, of course). There have been rides I haven't ridden because of my body shape. As I often tell friends "it's always the short, fat women who fall out of those things." I just don't see the need to ruin everyone's day and force my way onto a ride that I could get injured on.
Originally Posted by
3Princesses1Prince
The LA times article said he'd ridden it several times prior to being denied in 2010 (because he couldn't hold on), then again in 2011(new policy of needing 1 hand/1 leg)
And I don't know when they were denied in 2011, but it would not surprise me if the new policy was because of this incident. And this article states other rides that denied riders without both legs from riding.
So should we sue pharmaceutical companies when there drugs are removed from the market for safety reasons too? Because we were able to take the medicine before--but now someone has determined it's unsafe. I should have the "right" to continue to take the unsafe medicine and the company should make it available? Come on!
Originally Posted by
momof three
I find this thread very interesting because we just returned home from a trip to Dollywood this past June. Posted in front of all the thrill rides at Dollywood and printed on the park maps are the limitations for each ride. These included height restrictions, limitations on certain body shapes and rules about amputations. I don’t recall ever seeing the restrictions for amputees at any of the theme parks in Florida.
I wouldn't be surprised to see signs pop up. They might have even without the lawsuit. Or maybe the plaintiffs are part of that group of disabled people that go around suing under ADA because they can get some type of small settlement out of it. And attorneys' fees. There is a whole group of people here in California that do that on a regular basis. I am as glad as the next guy that the ADA exists, but both as a consumer and an attorney I feel that there are definite issues with the way the ADA is written and regulated. A property owner doesn't even have a chance to fix something before the lawsuit is filed. So out of the blue one day you get the lawsuit claiming that your toilet paper dispenser is 3/4 of an inch too high or low. Oh and pay us thousands of dollars for this thoughtless violation. I would feel better about the lawsuits if there was some type of notice period--60/90 days maybe--and if it wasn't fixed in that timeframe THEN the lawsuit could be filed. The emphasis should be on fixing the condition--not on the ADA becoming an industry.
So it really chaps my hide when businesses try to be proactive and protect disabled people and lawsuits like this get filed.
If I go down, I'm going down fat and full.
-
Obsessed Disney Mama
Originally Posted by
Toocherie
So should we sue pharmaceutical companies when there drugs are removed from the market for safety reasons too? Because we were able to take the medicine before--but now someone has determined it's unsafe. I should have the "right" to continue to take the unsafe medicine and the company should make it available? Come on!
I wasn't saying that at all. Just confirming GusMan's comment that they had probably been allowed to ride it previously.
Shannon
Mommy to 3 Princesses and 1 Prince
Miss M(11), J(8) and R(5), and Mr. N(4)
-
At home in the hills
Toocherie, we curently have several ADA lawsuits filed against businesses here in my small town, by one disabled attorney, who came to visit and decided all of these things were violations. (I hear one of them is fighting back, which knowing the property owner, this guy may have chosen unwisely.) Our community pool, which wasn't even open when he came to visi,t is in violation and couldn't open this year unless they came up with the money to fix it.
3P1P, think similar ride vehicle to Indy but lap bars instead of seatbelts.
-
Registered User
Since universal is a company don't they have a right to refuse service to anybody for any reason? Especially if they feel it is dangerous?
This is just more of the frivolous law suits that raise park prices and ruin the experience for everyone else. I understand everyone wants to experience everything equally, but sometimes people just can't have what they want.
So if the people win the law suits then now all amusement parks are going to have to close all the rollercoasters until they can make ride vehicles that are all self enclosed or be sued. So all rollercoasters that only have lap bars are going to need seatbelts or something else too, well maybe that way the height requirement will be lowered.
I wonder if the person with the legs that are amputated can go on height restricted coasters.
Bookmarks