Clarification to the Disney post
It occurred to me that I should explain the rationale behind my argument. No one disputes that Disney has a duty to ensure the safety of their guests. Disney's defense to the lawsuit was simply that they should not be liable under a law meant to protect consumers of transportation services.
At the core of this argument is the definition of what is a "transportation device." Logically, a structure designed to hold people is not sufficient to fall under the heading of a transportation device. Rather, the device must naturally include both the "people holder" and the means of conveyance. This is what poses the challenge to Disney. The fixed rides operate for the most part on some sort of track. This track must be considered the means of conveyance, and thus an integral part of the transportation device.
Therefore, according to this ruling, any injury that takes place on any part of the ride, irrespective of where the guest (i.e. passenger) is located, must be considered to be Disney's fault. This is what removes the test of negligence from consideration of the injury claim.
According to the plaintiff's attorney, the result of the ruling is that Disney has to warn all "passengers" that injury can result. This will not prevent the inevitable lawsuits, however, since the ruling said that Disney is liable under laws regarding transportation services in contradistinction to laws requiring informed consent. Because of this ruling the mere fact that I was injured becomes sufficient proof that the transportation was provided in an unsafe manner regardless of whether or not I was notified.
The California Supreme Court justices have clearly overstepped the legal bounds and are simply reflecting popular opinion that it is OK to sue large corporations.
At the core of this argument is the definition of what is a "transportation device." Logically, a structure designed to hold people is not sufficient to fall under the heading of a transportation device. Rather, the device must naturally include both the "people holder" and the means of conveyance. This is what poses the challenge to Disney. The fixed rides operate for the most part on some sort of track. This track must be considered the means of conveyance, and thus an integral part of the transportation device.
Therefore, according to this ruling, any injury that takes place on any part of the ride, irrespective of where the guest (i.e. passenger) is located, must be considered to be Disney's fault. This is what removes the test of negligence from consideration of the injury claim.
According to the plaintiff's attorney, the result of the ruling is that Disney has to warn all "passengers" that injury can result. This will not prevent the inevitable lawsuits, however, since the ruling said that Disney is liable under laws regarding transportation services in contradistinction to laws requiring informed consent. Because of this ruling the mere fact that I was injured becomes sufficient proof that the transportation was provided in an unsafe manner regardless of whether or not I was notified.
The California Supreme Court justices have clearly overstepped the legal bounds and are simply reflecting popular opinion that it is OK to sue large corporations.
posted by exsubdriver at 1:32 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home