It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A tragic day at Disney Animal Kingdom

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:03 PM
link   
This event actually happened quite some time ago. March of 2011, in fact. The news I caught on this and came to share is about the lawsuit being filed against the Disney Corp for the death of 52yr old Russel Roscoe. Apparently, he was hard at work on the track of the Primeval Whirl Coaster when.......poor communication, poor maintenance of safety equipment (A speaker) and just plain dumb from a ride operator happened.......


She claims her late husband, 52, was on the roller coaster track, testing the brakes of the Primeval Whirl March 13, 2011 when "a Disney ride operator broke protocol and instead of announcing that (a) car was going to be released down the track, he announced one time that the car was going to be released and immediately released the car."

But the loudspeaker near her husband "was not working properly and/or was muted," the widow says, and her husband was struck by the car, traveling at 20 feet per second, giving him fatal head injuries.

At the time, the system was in "maintenance mode," which disables the brakes on a car if a gate is opened, according to the complaint in Orange County Court.


Oddly enough, for the type of accident which almost never actually happens in a Disney park, this coaster has a record.



Russell Roscoe was the second person to die while working on the Primeval Whirl, according to the Orlando Sentinel.

Disney employee Karen Price, 63, was hit by a roller-coaster car and killed in November 2007, the Sentinel reported at the time.
Source

The primary reasoning for suggesting this happened as the fault of Disney is explained in the case as being largely the result of long hours worked into overtime periods that lead to exhaustion and stupid mistakes...like sending a car down the track w/o proper warning while people are on the ride, working on it. In a world where I'm usually quick to see lawsuits for money grubbing which they all too often are....this stands apart of one which strikes me as being near as legitimate as they come?

It sounds like the people at the Happiest Place on Earth could use a little more care and rest allowed for their own lives. It's not reassuring to think how many times I've been at a Disney park in my life and riding thngs to the last minute at closing time. So....how many fixes and other things are done by bone tired workers on those rides....toward the end of the night?

edit on 9-10-2012 by Wrabbit2000 because: spacing and minor correction




posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
bottom line is the guy died providing a service for disney.

the family shouldn't have to sue disney, disney should have stepped forward, settled with the family, honored the worker and made sure tragedies like that don't happen.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:33 PM
link   
It is not unheard of for Disney rides to be fatal.

Anybody remember the old revolving stage at Disneyland? As I recall, an employee became caught between the revolving stage and a stationary center, and was ripped in half.

Not that long ago, a visitor was killed when a huge cable holding the big pirate ship snapped and hit the person as it recoiled.

It happens.

As far as this story goes, it appears that Disney, represented by the careless employee, is at fault.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by randomname
bottom line is the guy died providing a service for disney.

the family shouldn't have to sue Disney, Disney should have stepped forward, settled with the family, honored the worker and made sure tragedies like that don't happen.

You know, you raise an outstanding point to all this. In SO MANY cases, there is true question as to liability. It's a fair fight when it gets to court. Like the famous old lady and her infernal coffee. Is it the Hot Coffee's fault for being Hot, as requested by a customer...or is it the customers fault for being an idiot?

In this case though..and similar industrial accidents I suppose, where is the question? As you note, he was working for Disney. He was on the track of a Disney ride and through absolutely, 100% NO fault of his own, he was killed by a 'runaway' car released by command and leaving him ignorant by a malfunctioning speaker.

Yup... Sounds clear cut enough and indeed.. Just why don't Mega-Corps like Disney just sit back, have a board meeting or something and figure out what's a fair offer to do the RIGHT THING and take care of the person the workplace accident devastated. Heck..as we see, it IS going to court anyway..they could just be decent people and do right without a Judge's order first.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
This is one of the places were complex legislation fails US citizens.

In other countries, the onus is placed on the design team and park owners by simplifying the legislation that governs engineering in general.

In a very(very) basic sense, there is a 'Duty of care' which requires those in charge to ensure that the structure is safe.

This might seem like it is already covered in current US legislation but it is handled by its judicial system differently to a country like - for example - Australia.

In the US, if I build a structure that requires a safety rail, as long as I follow government legislated spec's, I have covered my ar$e wrt being sued if something happens.

In Australia, there are still spec's for the same safety rail, but I also have to ensure that this form of safety system is appropriate (risk assessment) and any other possible points of concern must be dealt with. If - for a reason of negligence - that an accident happened and the design was called into question(usually by a coroner). The people involved would have to prove that they did everything they possibly could to prevent an accident and they would also have to present proof that they performed a thorough 'risk assessment' prior to any construction commencing.

This effectively puts the design team in a position where they actually have to think about possible flaws even if there is no legislation governing the design.

Say - for example - that I design a "quantum rock-crusher" and there is no governing legislation/body that ensures that "quantum rock-crushers" are safe.....I still have a 'duty of care' to ensure that anyone building/maintaining/using my "quantum rock-crusher" is safe doing so.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 08:07 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 

I love your Non-American perspective for legal theory on this. I hear bits and pieces, here and there about how liability and a sense of responsibility is handled in other nation's, but never enough to really get a sense of the difference. Germany's attitude toward car accident fault, for instance...vs. the U.S. attitude of certain accident types being a near 100% automatic and absolute liability to one party and almost without any regard for circumstances at the time.

In this case, that's very interesting..but if I may, I'd like to ask something to clarify this as I think I'm reading it.


Let's say I build a miniature golf course, to stay within what a normal guy like me could do with some money. Let's say in this little mini-golf course of mine, I have a two story castle attraction people could get on and see over the whole course by standing on the second level of.

Now I build a safety railing.....to keep with your example here, and I determine that building code really is the minimums and totally insufficient. So...I build OVER code and make it safer than it ever would have been by just being legal. Follow me so far?

Okay..... As I understand your point, in Australia, what I'd done to this point would be considered common sense and expected in presenting a safe establishment for the public, right?


Now...lets say we're post accident, after my railing failed from some drunk college kids running against it or some other stupid behavior it could never have been expected to withstand and it's time to fix blame for a couple idiots who tried hard to win a Darwin award at my little castle.

In the United States, my efforts to build over code MAY..or likely wouldn't..be appreciated. Code compliance would almost certainly matter first. So..say my SUPER-Railing was screwed for a technical area of building code. My screws were a half inch out of proper spacing distance, for example........ Odds are, that little oversight and boo boo would now cost me 100% of the liability for everything the drunk kids did and suffered at my mini-golf course. Safety was never the issue...the code and technical violation was.

This ...isn't theoretical by the way. Not entirely. This is precisely the logic used in court rooms regularly to hang truckers for accidents which are NOT their fault but a minor technical boo boo in a log book page can say, in theory, they shouldn't have been on the piece of road..hence..it's NOW their fault.


So........ How does the above railing example work under your system? Would the over engineering and good faith efforts to make it BETTER than code matter or would the technical violation rule the day and bring a court loss and end of my little business after the insurance drops my policy?



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 08:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



So........ How does the above railing example work under your system? Would the over engineering and good faith efforts to make it BETTER than code matter or would the technical violation rule the day and bring a court loss and end of my little business after the insurance drops my policy?


In Australia, the fastener spacing would have to be assessed and if found to be weaker than standard then there may(big may) be an issue that an inquiry would make something of.

Otherwise, you have made it stronger than standard for the purposes of safety...after your your name was cleared ...the legal system would officially recognise your work as "above standard"(which is pretty cool in itself as your case sets a precedent attesting to the quality of your design/workmanship) and you would have grounds to get any/all court costs back.


edit on 9/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:06 PM
link   
reply to post by randomname
 


I had a friend who was brain damaged and suffered many broken bones while doubling the Rocketeer in the movie of the same name. Disney was absolutely adamant about not taking blame for the accident even though it was clearly because of negligence on their part. (they lost in court eventually). Many stunt guys testified as well as First Assistant Directors. They are not the happiest people in the world to work for. I auditioned for Euro Disney's wild west show as a utility stuntman and was offered a $400 dollar a week contract. My wife was offered $500 as the lead Annie Oakley. Pffft...stuff it Walt. I get $700/day just for showing up on set. Although I don't work every day anymore. haha.



posted on Oct, 9 2012 @ 11:31 PM
link   
reply to post by OccamAssassin
 

Okay, now I like that system. I really do. Those who do things wrong and are liable in a true way are held to account for their blame as it should be and as it is here. However, our side doesn't go to endorsing or even saying anything either way if you've done better than expected or required that I've ever seen. Not in a court/civil case setting to be sure.

I'd still bet that here, the fact my example of being out of code would come from fasteners being 'improperly spaced' to make it stronger wouldn't matter. Conformity is the name of the game.

I literally had a building code guy here all but tell me I couldn't build a storage shed (10x12 foot type) considerably stronger than they required. Specifically, I'd wanted to add several vertical studs down each wall which would have made my average center a fair bit tighter than code. The end result would have been strong when properly assembled and tied in with everything else....and was denied. I really think sometimes that I should have moved into the county and bought land there... I still haven't gotten around to that storage shed. Kinda does something to motivation when the local Mini-Uncle Sam has to be a partner in such a trivial little project.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



However, our side doesn't go to endorsing or even saying anything either way if you've done better than expected or required that I've ever seen. Not in a court/civil case setting to be sure.


If it is recorded in court that an expert assessed something and it was found to be above code, then it would qualify as an official endorsement. One of the cool things that the USA and Australia (amongst many other nations) share is a legal system that is fluid in form. Once a ruling has been made wrt a situation/case, that ruling can be called upon in future cases of a similar nature.



I'd still bet that here, the fact my example of being out of code would come from fasteners being 'improperly spaced' to make it stronger wouldn't matter. Conformity is the name of the game.


More/bigger fasteners might not necessarily mean a stronger structure. Fasteners can be over-used and can actually be a cause for weakness.

As an extreme example....Take a piece of 4x2 pine and drive self-tapping screws in a straight line along the lateral axis. If you place the screws at too close an interval, the beam looses its integrity and splits. Logic tells us that more screws = stronger join, but taken too far and the structure can in fact, become weaker.




edit on 10/10/2012 by OccamAssassin because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Do you know what the people employed at Disney world call it? Mousewchwitz.

It does not surprise me that people are overworked and underpaid to work for the iron fist in the three fingered glove.



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Clarification on the coffee suit that media didnt' tell you:

The coffee was being kept many degrees over health standards, at scalding temperatures. The woman who got burnt by the coffee in her lap, was about the fourth or fifth person to get burned. Several other customers complained that the coffee was scalding and gave them 2nd degree burns. That Macdonalds was warned several times that the coffee was being kept at unsafe temperatures and several people have gotten hurt as a result of it.

Doesn't sound so frivilous now, does it?



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Clarification on the coffee suit that media didnt' tell you:

The coffee was being kept many degrees over health standards, at scalding temperatures. The woman who got burnt by the coffee in her lap, was about the fourth or fifth person to get burned. Several other customers complained that the coffee was scalding and gave them 2nd degree burns. That Macdonalds was warned several times that the coffee was being kept at unsafe temperatures and several people have gotten hurt as a result of it.

Doesn't sound so frivilous now, does it?


Actually, you have brought me a bit of a surprise. I was so shocked to see someone actually defend Coffee Lady that I went hopping off to get to the bottom of it. Usually when I go hopping off...I come back with a basket of facts to feel real good about too.


This time I'm glad I checked instead of replying by memory...such a fickle thing, isn't it? lol.. Anyway, the main thing I got and for the thread I'd call it a major safety related item..so it fits..
, was this:



It's interesting to note that the highest estimate on the chart for burns (i.e...anything higher is definite to those many groups I gather) is 160 Degrees for HALF a SECOND.


Then I found a Coffee Fan site to see what average is supposed to be. Looks like 175...which means..OUCH! We're getting burned either way and this old lady would have too...but....McD's figured upwards of Two Hundred Degrees was just fine?? Might not get everyone's attention. but one would think they'd have seen charts just like that one.

No.... Not frivolous at all when looked at that way. She'd have been burned from stupidity either way but she got deep cooked by McD's negligence. Now I do think of that a little differently. Thanks!



posted on Oct, 10 2012 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


IN 2010 at Universal Studios Orlando Florida my husband and I were boarding the Pteranodon Flyers with our then 14 yr old daughter. THe car seats 4 but we got seperated due to a long line I had to ride with strangers, so I chose to ride alone. I went first. Imagine my terror when just as my "car" takes off, I hear my daughter scream "DADDDDDY". I turn around in my seat and watch as my husband was being dragged by the car. I had to finish the ride. 88 seconds of hell. One way. When I got to the end I was hysterical. I could see park employees and my husband and daughter freaking out. I ran to where they were. Apparently the older gentleman loading the cars with people had told my husband to step "here" and he did as he was told and that the car would come behind them like a ski lift. Where the guy told my husband to step was a chain...huge...about 6 inches wide running in the center under the boarding area and my husbands shoe got caught in the chain and it drug him about 30 ft before they dislodged his foot. He ankle was definitely broken and the park employees summoned a "big wig" who rode out in his golf cart to retrieve us to meet an ambulance. I was trying to snap photos and was reprimanded by this man in a suit. On our drive to the gate to meet the ambulance this man proceeded to "buy" us off. He handed us LIFETIME passes, LIFETIME express passes (where you dont wait in line) and he took our names and phone numbers. Hubby's foot and ankle were broken in 2 places. He spent the night in the ER and spent the rest of our vacation in a wheelchair in pain. Universal execs called us numerous times, obtained our hospital and ambulance info and paid the bill in full. They also comped our hotel and expenses for our entire trip. I didnt ask for these things, they did it on their own and they were very concerned (about being sued) so they did whatever they could to make it up to us.Accidents happen. BUT, we learned later that the ride was permanently closed for months after this so they could install a cover over the chain and we learned this had happened to others as well including children!

ONE Time is too many. They should have taken action the first time it happened.

And a few years ago a cable snapped on the SUperman at Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom and severed a teenage girls feet off during the ride. The park is now closed. THey were sued for millions and lost.



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join