Disney Wins Segway Suit Dismissal

[mdricks]

This is an amazing case from the standpoint of a lawyer. There were over one hundred briefs filed from all sorts of sources including 23 state attorney generals. The core issue in this case was not the safety of the segway vs. scooters but was instead the very basis by which we define “reasonable accommodation” under the law.

Every one of these plaintiffs could and has comfortably used wheelchairs. They just don’t like the stigma attached to the use of a wheelchair and prefer the “stigma free” Segway. The plaintiffs did not NEED the Segway they WANTED the Segway. The court declared that the law, as stated in the complaint, did not take the disabled persons preferences in account and therefore they did not have "standing" or a right to sue.

The claim against Disney is an attempt to expand the present application of “reasonable accommodation” to include the issue of patient dignity. It is an attempt to change the adequacy determination from a question of physical ability to a determination of total patient “well being” emotionally as well as physically. I don’t think Disney cares one whit about Segways in the parks. They are interested (as are many large corporations) in keeping the definition of reasonable accommodation an objective and not subjective determination.

The Judge in this matter declined to expand the law but remarked that such an expansion was ripe for determination by the legislators in the enactment of new law. It’s a fascinating case.

(Disclaimer! I am an attorney who has some small experience in this area. The above is my understanding of the Court’s ruling only and is not a legal opinion or advice, nor is it based upon an acceptable review of the pertinent legal authority. I have no relationship to any party, I am not privy to any inside or confidential information, and I have no business interest in this litigation. I think Segways are really cool and will be taking the Segway tour of Epcot for the second time this November!)

[BrerGnat]

Thanks for that post! Very informative.

I have to wonder why some people feel such a sense of entitlement, though?

Disabled or not, laws are not in place to make you "feel better". They are there to protect people and to promote a sense of "fairness" across the board. Personal preferences are usually not taken into consideration.

I can't even believe a group of people came together to file a suit based on the notion that what they WANT is not allowed by law.

Unbelievable...

[Ian]

As an innocent bystander with no real horse in this race, I have to say I think this kind of expansion of the ADA would be pretty scary.

If you think of the ramifications such a broadening of the act could have across the board, it opens up just an entire world possibilities.

If you think about it ... this would basically be codifying a legal right to things people want, not things they need. The ADA was enacted to allow disabled people equal treatment and access to public venues. It doesn't (and shouldn't, in my opinion) address things they'd like to have.

There are things that all of us would like to have that would make us feel better about ourselves and improve our "emotional well-being." Heck ... I'd love to have a Ferrari to drive around in. I'd feel waaaaaaaaaaaay better about myself driving that as opposed to my nine year old Lexus.

Should we pass a law for that, too?

[mdricks]

Now we get to the meat! Its not an issue of self esteem, or how you view yourself. Its an issue of dignity, or how others view you. One of the purported purposes of the ADA is the preservation of the dignity of the disabled. The opinion is an easy read and a bit of an eye opener. If you cant find it PM me and I will send you the link.

Once you read some of the personal stories you will be hard pressed to argue that the Segway does not enhance the dignity of the plaintiffs.

These plaintiffs view the Segway as a technologically superior assistive device. As I read the opinion, I would suggest the court agrees with them. If Disney was put in the position of arguing a legitimate business reason for their exclusion (absent the possible argument of speed) they would have a difficult time of it. That’s the reason why DRAFT and the supporters spend so much time on the defense of the Segway as a safe alternative.

As a substitute for the scooter or wheelchair, the Segway is likely no more difficult to accommodate. Remember its not an issue of what Disney must provide, its an issue of what Disney must permit. Going back to Ian's example, should Disney be able to tell you have to drive the Lexus if, in fact, you also own the Ferrari?

The argument is the failure to require all reasonable devices will result in a stifling of technological advancement. In short if we only require the wheelchair, then we will never have anything better. It’s a very compelling argument, its just not the law. And I wholeheartedly agree that if we change the law we will open the litigation floodgates.

I presume I am in the minority if I see that as a good thing. (Baby needs new shoes!)

Like I said, a fascinating case. It’s a law school exam question looking for a classroom.

[Hammer]

mdricks, thank you for in depth analysis. Very informative.

While some of you scoff at the idea of a disabled person's sense of dignity, I am going to tell you a personal experience.

Some of you may know that my mother uses a wheelchair brought on by a stroke she had the night the Eagles were in the Super Bowl, 2005. The biggest lasting effect from it is she has balance issues and can only stand and walk no more than 50 to 100 feet without holding onto something, From all appearances, my mother looks and speaks perfectly fine and most would not realize anything is wrong with her.

I took my parents to Walt Disney World in May 2008. May I say pushing my mother through a WDW park I got to see the best and worst of humanity in how people treated my mother. The comments I heard were so ignorant and downright cruel just because they saw someone in wheelchair and they felt the need to pass judgment. I have yet to get my mother back into a WDW park. When we go at Christmas, she and Dad stay at resort instead of joining us to see the decorations.

I understand that some are afraid of the expansion of the term "reasonable accommodation" but can also understand the other side of the issue and that their all different types of disabilities which need to be handle in many different ways. It is a very complex issue without an easy answer.

[BrerGnat]

I don't think a disabled person's sense of dignity deserves any LESS attention than their desire to have fair access to places. However, if you read the opinion for this particular case (I did), the majority of the plaintiffs suffer from disabilities that affect their VOLUNTARY MUSCLE CONTROL (conditions like MS, and ALS) and/or ability to FREELY MOVE THEIR LEGS. In addition, most of the plaintiffs specified that they are NOT able to stand for long periods of time. I am not a doctor, and I don't play one on t.v., but the idea of people with these types of conditions operating a stand up device that uses VOLUNTARY MUSCLE movement to control it begs the question:

What happens if they LOSE their voluntary muscle control WHILE OPERATING the Segway?

And for those who can't stand for long periods:

How does using a Segway at a DISNEY PARK make any sense?

I can see how using a Segway in daily life for short periods of time could be useful for these individuals, but a theme park environment seems to be more of a liability than anything else.

And, there was one plaintiff that stated that her children didn't seem to be aware that she was disabled, and when she used the Segway, (her "scooter"), they had no awareness that there was anything wrong with her, but if/when she was forced to use a wheelchair, they perceived her as "sick". This particular plaintiff seems to imply that using a Segway is a means to "fool' others into thinking you are NOT disabled. The problem with that is, that's not reality. I can't imagine what type of warped view of disabled people this woman's children will grow up having, if she is not educating them about HER OWN disability and showing them tolerance for other disabled people.

The problem with the dignity argument is that, even if Disney DID allow Segways into the park, they would have to restrict it to ONLY being used by disabled people. And, therefore, the "stigma" of disability would STILL be there. The rest of the patrons at the parks would not be allowed to use Segways, so by elimination, anyone on ANY sort of wheeled device would be perceived as Disabled. The negativity that these people encounter when they ride wheelchairs would persist if they rode Segways instead.

Out in the "real world", where cities across the country have granted permission to use Segways TO THE GENERAL POPULATION, the dignity argument holds up, because if you were to see someone on a Segway, you'd not necessarily just assume they are disabled, since NON disabled people ALSO ride them around.

But, if Disney were to allow Segways in the parks, would they then have to allow them for ANYONE, since Segways are not specifically made ONLY for assistive purposes? And if they didn't, wouldn't that be discriminatory?

The legal opinion stated numerous times that Disney's refusal to allow the Segways had to do with "safety in a crowded theme park environment." I still feel that Disney should have final say in what they allow into their parks. The parks are NOT a public place, they are a private entity on privately owned land. They should not be forced into allowing something that they feel is unsafe.

[Expert_Glider]

A wheelchair, power wheelchair or ECV can be operated in an unsafe manner as well. The device is not the problem, the operator is responsible for their behavior.

If they do not follow the rules, throw them out (be it a WC, PWC, ECV or Segway user).

[mdricks]

Watch out BrerGnat you're thinking like a lawyer!

Did you also note the soldier's story? When faced with a group of children who stigmatized him as being lazy for his use of a segway he lifted his pants leg to show the children he was disabled. Presumably it was important to him at that time to display his need for the device as disabled. In short he chose the stigma of disability over the stigma of being a "lazy" segway user.

There is a valid argument to be made that this is less about dignity and more about self esteem. The point that disability prejudices will flow from wheelchair to segway use remains to be seen but strikes me as intuitive. My point is I don’t think the judge saw it that way.

Disney remains liable (to an extent) for the conduct of its guests. And the "just throw 'em out if they misbehave" argument only serves to illustrate the incredibly complex legal problems created for Disney by adding a new assistive device to the list.

One that will do a 5 minute mile no less.


I could write a 50 page paper on this case........

[Expert_Glider]

If you do write a paper about this case, put me down to get a copy.

[Ian]

If they do not follow the rules, throw them out (be it a WC, PWC, ECV or Segway user).

That suggestion simply does not hold any water.

What if their failure to follow the rules results in them running down and killing a 3 year old little boy?

[BrerGnat]

Watch out BrerGnat you're thinking like a lawyer!

Not the first time I've heard that.

you also note the soldier's story? When faced with a group of children who stigmatized him as being lazy for his use of a segway he lifted his pants leg to show the children he was disabled. Presumably it was important to him at that time to display his need for the device as disabled. In short he chose the stigma of disability over the stigma of being a "lazy" segway user.

Yes, I did notice this story as well. This is actually the story I was thinking of when I presented the argument that Segway users in the parks would be as stigmatized (and perhaps MORE SO) as wheelchair/ECV users. While a person in a wheelchair/ECV is, to most, OBVIOUSLY disabled, one on a Segway would likely be perceived as simply "lazy", due mainly to the excessive amount of walking needed at WDW, and the fact that in "the real world", people use Segways MOSTLY to avoid having to walk long distances...

[Expert_Glider]

That suggestion simply does not hold any water.

What if their failure to follow the rules results in them running down and killing a 3 year old little boy?

If the possibility of "killing people" is the test, this hasn't happened to anyone with another operating a Segway.

In fact, there has never been a single reported incident of a person, using a Segway as their mobility device, causing injury to another person.

Unfortunately, Disney cannot say the same about their safety record on their rides.

[mdricks]

Actually Expert I don't think that's true. I may be mistaken, but I think there was a Chicago lawsuit based upon a Segway user failing to yield to a bike rider and causing the rider injury as a result.

Also, it is not much of a stretch to see how either of the basis for the two prior recalls would have had serious consequences in a crowd.

There is a video on the interwebs purportedly used to support sentiment against the Segway. The video shows the crash testing of the Segway against a parked car. The video is rightfully panned as ridiculous in that the Segway at 12.5mph is no more or less dangerous than a bike, skateboard or scooter at the same speed when striking a parked vehicle. The attempt to paint the Segway as abnormally dangerous, comparatively, as a result is silly.

Its a completely different animal when you start looking at it from the point of view of the parked car and compare it to a scooter going 1/3 the speed. As I said above, my potential problem with the device is speed.

The Segway is a tool like any other. In some states you can take classes, prove competence and receive a permit to carry a concealed firearm. Even after all that, you still cant take it into a bar. Why? It certainly isn't because the gun changes in some sinister way after you cross the threshold of Moe's tavern. Its because the bar presents a unique set of circumstances.

The crowds at Disney can easily be said to present their own unique circumstances.

[Goofster]

The Judge in this matter declined to expand the law but remarked that such an expansion was ripe for determination by the legislators in the enactment of new law. It’s a fascinating case.

(Disclaimer! I am an attorney who has some small experience in this area. The above is my understanding of the Court’s ruling only and is not a legal opinion or advice, nor is it based upon an acceptable review of the pertinent legal authority. I have no relationship to any party, I am not privy to any inside or confidential information, and I have no business interest in this litigation. I think Segways are really cool and will be taking the Segway tour of Epcot for the second time this November!)

Exactly...the Judge said the law allowed Disney to have the ban, BUT...the regulations under the ADA should be "updated/changed" to accomodate for the Segways. THEN, Disney's ban could fail...but...that is what we lawyers call "dicta" and really has no bearing on a future lawsuit.

I also ditto the disclaimer too! (Though I think Segways are stupid).

[Celestria]

..... Correct me if i'm wrong, but if you can stand on a segway doesn't that mean you can walk around the park?

[TheVBs]

I think, unless your a doctor - or more specifically the doctor of an individual who's disabled and prefers to use a Segway - speculating on whether or not someone could operate one as safely as a wheelchair or ECV, or walk instead of using a device to assist them, is pointless. You simply don't have the medical background or know the details of the individual's case.

While I can certainly understand the safety concerns laid out by others here regarding Segway use in Disney's theme parks, and understand the precarious legal position Disney may or may not be in as a result of people wanting to use them there - I most certainly do not think wanting to use the best tool for one's disability is some overblown sense of entitlement.

I am very aware of how lucky I currently am to be very healthy and have no mobility issues (knock wood!). But if, goodness forbid, that were to change, I know that I would want to use whatever device I could safely operate to enhance my quality of living. Would anyone here really want to deny that to a fellow human being?

[Splash_Lover]

I am sure that sooner or later some judge will rule that segways must be allowed. I would hope that if they are included that to bring in your own that you have a legal doctor provided licence showing the need. Also, a legal document needs to be signed waving your right to sue if you are injured in the park as a result and that you are responsible for any damage or injury to others.
proof of a training course should also be provided as this is a motorised vehicle that can cause a lot of harm if someone is hit especially a child.

safety for all should come first before an individuals desire.

[joonyer]

Think abou this. Why not golf carts in the parks?

Once you start down the slippery slope . . .

[Lakin]

..... Correct me if i'm wrong, but if you can stand on a segway doesn't that mean you can walk around the park?

Not necessarily. Lots of people can stand but can't walk.

[LVT]

I agree with MDRICKS. Certificate of training at the least. Maybe a poll of persons who have done the Segway tours to see if anyone felt confident about using them in a mob of mixed age people as occurs at WDW. Especially if multiple Segway users are around. I did the tour and loved it, but would not dream of using it in MK.