Abstract Disneyland, theme park located in Anaheim, California, was sued by Mr. Steven Wilson after an incident involving the roller coaster Splash Mountain. Wilson said the incident left him with a back injury and sued the theme park for negligence. The jury ruled that all though they believed the cast to be negligent, the negligence did not cause the back injury. In March of 2010, Steven Wilson, his wife, and a small group of his friends spend the day at Disneyland theme park in Anaheim, California. What was supposed to be a fun filled day ended in what Wilson claimed to be an act of negligence by the employees of the park causing him to leave the cartoon theme park with excruciating back pain. While on the roller coaster …show more content…
Disneyland had a few counterarguments to Wilson’s claim. One of the points Disneyland made was that the car was technically not overloaded with weight. The park also argued that there was no requirement of tying down the car during evacuation, taking blame away from the employee. The employee in charge of running the ride in question also stated during the trial that Wilson never actually lost his balance while trying to evacuate the car. When an expert witness was called in the favor of Disneyland, the witness stated that “Wilson had a long-standing history of degenerative disc disease and the evacuation did not cause or exacerbate Wilson’s back problems.” says Burgin (2014). Burgin (2014) also stated, after explaining that Wilson’s pre-existing back condition was actually a degenerative spine condition, that “Under California law, Wilson had to prove that Disneyland’s negligence was a “substantial factor” in causing his injuries.” The accident, though it could have very well caused Wilson some pain, did not play any part in the initial “injury” itself. This explains why the jury ruled the way that they did. Wilson claimed that he would be seeking a new trial, but would have to provide significant evidence of error in the first trial to win his case. Because he has
On the morning of the 17th of May 2005, Nola Walker was involved in a two vehicle motor accident. She had just dropped her son off at his new job, when she ignored a give way sign at an intersection. When the ambulance arrived the officers, Nucifora and Blake, recall Walker being “able to converse” and “orientated”. Blake conducted multiple assessments and did her vital signs twice. The results deemed Walker to be within normal ranges, with the only noticeable trauma involving superficial skin injuries on the left hand, an abrasion over the right clavicle which was assumed to be a seatbelt injury. Ms Walker denied she was ever in pain. Nucifora mentioned on several occasions that it would be best to take Walker to the hospital to be further
A dentist fits several children with braces. The children are regular patients of the dentist. The results for some of the patients turn out to be unacceptable and damaging. There are children who have developed gum infections due to improperly tightened braces. Some mistakenly had their permanent teeth removed, while others have misaligned bites. A local attorney becomes aware of these incidences, looks further into it, and realizes the dentist has not been properly trained and holds no legal license to practice dentistry or orthodontics. The attorney decides to act on behalf of the displeased patients and files a class action lawsuit. The attorney plans to prove the dentist negligent and guilty of dental malpractice by providing proof using the four D’s of negligence. The four D’s of negligence are duty, dereliction, direct cause and damages.
This design defect, however, does not mean that the plaintiff is awarded since the design defect was not the proximate cause of injury for Cheyenne. Due to Gordon’s modification of the seat belt, Ford is not liable for the injuries that Cheyenne suffered. Stark ex. rel. Jacobsen v. Ford Motor Co., 365 N.C. 468, 472, 723 S.E.2d 753, 756 (2012). The evidence supports the idea that her spinal cord injury was a direct result of placing the seat belt behind her back. Preemption as a theory that would bar the Starks from recovering does not apply in this case, since the federal government’s regulations do not make manufacturers immune to design defect claims. Stark’s claims of inadequate warnings likewise do not apply since the misuse of the product, it’s alteration, is the proximate cause of injury. Had the modification of the seat belt not been the proximate cause of injury, and instead a contributing factor, the court might have decided that Stark was only twenty percent responsible for the injury that occurred. This amount of contributory negligence would not have barred them from recovering, according to Indiana Statutes, and Ford would have been liable for the
The theories in which I base my decision on are res ipsa loquitor and negligence per se. Res ipsa loquitor means that “it creates a presumption that the defendant was negligent because he or she was in exclusive control of the situation and that the plaintiff would not have suffered an Injury”. Negligence per se means “an act of the defendant that violates a statute regulation or ordinance can be used to establish a breach of the duty of due care” (Mayer et al,. 2014, p. 163). Therefore, the injuries of the Prius driver and the people at the train station, I believe that George is at fault of negligence, because of negligence, carelessness and is foreseeable. Now as for the sparks from the wiring caught that lead to the other chain of events. I feel that George should not be held accountable for negligence, because it was unforeseeable. He could not prevent that it can cause a barn to explode and setting forth a series of
It was the summer of 2012 and my family was taking another trip to Six Flags Great America. Earlier that summer we went just for me to be disappointed. At the time I wasn’t 54 inches yet and couldn’t ride any of the rides that I wanted to because they were the most popular at the amusement park. But, I hit a growth spurt between trips and we planned to ride all of the big rollercoasters. The one that I was most terrified of at the time was Raging Bull, one of the tallest, fastest, and longest steel coasters in the US. As we started to wait in line for the ride I was shaking with both anticipation and fear and began to rethink my idea to ride the rollercoaster. I decided to stay in line and see what many people thought was a great coaster.
There are a whole host of defenses that amusement parks and ride manufacturers may raise in a personal injury lawsuit. The defenses discussed below can be defenses involving amusement park rides.
In the civil suit against Firefighter Johnson and the Portage Fire District, the prosecution was charged with providing evidence that negligence by both parties had contributed to the death of Ian Huffman and the attempted homicide of Olivia Duty. Prosecutors allege “Mr. Johnson was driving his personal vehicle as fast as 98 mph on State Rt. 19 on his way to the fire station in Oak Harbor just seconds before he crashed into the rear of Ms. Duty's car at Portage River South Road” (Feehan, 2012, para. 6). The posted speed limit on Portage River South Road was 55 mph at the time of the accident (Curt, 2012). The defense alleges that Firefighter Johnson was using his lights and sirens and that Ian Huffman was not wearing a seatbelt at the...
The movie “A Civil Action” released on January 8, 1999 provides viewers with an extraordinary story of the nightmare that occurred in Woburn Massachusetts in the late 1970’s. The people of this small town at the time had no idea what was going on until there were various cases of Leukemia in small children that ultimately resulted in the early passing of them. The people eventually had gone to find out that the drinking water in this small town was contaminated and there were many women that stepped in to get answers. This movie is a tremendously jaw dropping, eye opening account of a heartbreaking true story incident. There are various elements of negligence in this movie including, duty, legal cause, proximate cause and damages.
Negligence, as defined in Pearson’s Business Law in Canada, is an unintentional careless act or omission that causes injury to another. Negligence consists of four parts, of which the plaintiff has to prove to be able to have a successful lawsuit and potentially obtain compensation. First there is a duty of care: Who is one responsible for? Secondly there is breach of standard of care: What did the defendant do that was careless? Thirdly there is causation: Did the alleged careless act actually cause the harm? Fourthly there is damage: Did the plaintiff suffer a compensable type of harm as a result of the alleged negligent act? Therefore, the cause of action for Helen Happy’s lawsuit will be negligence, and she will be suing the warden of the Peace River Correctional Centre, attributable to vicarious liability. As well as, there will be a partial defense (shared blame) between the warden and the two employees, Ike Inkster and Melvin Melrose; whom where driving the standard Correction’s van.
In the case of Kolchek suing to recover for Litisha’s injuries, she can sure under the negligence liability. Every product should be fully tested in every way possible to see if the product functions correctly and will it injure individuals. There should not have been a whole that is not covered. Like stated in our book The Legal Environment of Business, “if a manufacture fails to exercise “due care” to make a product safe, a person who is injured by the product may sue the manufacture for negligence”. Kolchek could sue the manufacture. In this case which is Great Lakes spa. Porter was just a company that was selling the product. Great Lakes spa should have taken the initiative to examine their products throughly before putting it out on the make for individuals to buy. Like in our book The Legal Environment of Business stated, “A manufacture, seller, or lesser is liable for failure to exercise due care to any person who sustains an injury proximately caused by a negligently made (defective) product.”
Nevertheless, before I knew it, it was our turn to ride the Cork Screw. As soon as I entered onto the platform, I bolted towards the first car seat of the roller coaster. Following me slowl...
did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Donoghue, in that it was up to them to...
Amusement parks are by far one of the most thrilling places on earth. As you wait in a long line to get in park, you can hear numerous kids, adults, and tourist shouting off the top of their lungs due to a tremendous jaw-dropping drop on their beloved roller coasters.
Review the scenario below. Consider the legal principles influencing the likelihood of any successful action against Steve in negligence.
Ever since I was about six years old, I wanted in the worst way to go to Disneyland. I would hope every year that my parents would chose Disneyland as our next family vacation destination. I dreamt of the day I would come back from Disneyland with exciting tales of adventure and a pair of sparkly, ruby red and black Minnie Mouse ears of my very own that would be the envy of every kid in my elementary class. Once I finally went to Disneyland, it was amazing; Disneyland was everything I had expected and more. However, a couple years later when I returned to Disneyland, it was different. The rides, buildings, and everything in the park did not have the same allure. The magic I had experienced as a child was no longer there.