Kenversations™
Page 2 of 2

Yet, a few high-profile incidents have prompted Disney to publicize the steps it takes to ensure safety (and the publicity is mostly a good thing), and has prompted state and federal-level lawmakers to propose and pass new regulations (which have been mostly a bad thing in my opinion). Since the overwhelming majority of visitor injuries and deaths are caused by their own actions, the most effective legislation would focus not on the park operators, but rather on holding visitors accountable - "rider responsibility" laws.

My morbid guess is that if someone decided he wanted to commit suicide but wanted to leave his family with money, and reasoned that, since his life insurance would not pay off if he killed himself, he could defy the warning signs, safety instructions, and safety restraints on a ride and get himself killed at a theme park. The park would then most likely pay an out-of-court settlement in the millions of dollars and, in California, would have to add even more safeguards.

This could happen despite the clear evidence that the person would not have died or even been injured had he simply behaved. Park operators, especially if they are large companies, don't want to face a jury that might see a tearful mother, wife, or child, being put through a court ideal by a "big, greedy" company.

Let's consider some recent coverage:

Did you miss the numerous warnings, Ms. Jacob? Also, millions of people have ridden Indy with no problem, so comparing it to life-long smoking is a bad analogy on that front as well.

Amusement parks have "an obligation to tell the public that they have a risk of serious injury or death, even if the riders feel they are in good health," he said. "These should be thrill rides, not kill rides." - Barry Novack, lawyer for parents suing Six Flags because their daughter died ride due to a pre-existing medical condition after riding the normally-functioning Goliath.

Novack, all I have to say to you is that what goes around comes around. This kind of case is what discourages people from providing productive goods and services.

Industry representatives accuse plaintiffs' lawyers and regulators of hyping a small number of cases. They say roller coasters are safer than many forms of family entertainment, such as soccer on the weekends.

Well said!

Folks, when you are an adult, it is not the responsibility of anyone else - not your significant other, not the government, and certainly not a theme park company - to protect you from yourself or your physical anomalies. For children, it is the guardian's responsibility. The government should offer you some protection from others. A theme park has an obligation to provide a reasonably safe environment and experience, and to warn you when attractions may be physically taxing.

Kathy, you've been very vocal and I feel for your son, but David's foot would have been fine if he would have just kept in inside. There was nothing wrong with the attraction itself. Representative Ed Markey (D-Mass), there are far more important and effective causes to spend your time on. Greg Hale, I'm glad your new position of Chief Safety Officer was created, and I believe Disney should provide a reasonably safe environment and should be held accountable if neglect results in injury or death, but please put a strong emphasis on asking guests to do their part.

Discuss It

• Discuss this article on the LaughingPlace.com Discussion Boards

Related Links

• LaughingPlace.com's Guide to Lilo & Stitch
• Disney Introduces their new Chief Safety Officer (Part One • Part Two)
• List of all Kenversations

-- Ken Pellman

-- Posted June 26, 2002