Amputees kept off roller coaster sue Universal Studios Hollywood

[Browntggrr]

Angel Castelan, whose forearms were amputated after an electrical accident as a child, and Marvin Huezo, whose legs were amputated after a car accident, say they were kept off Revenge of the Mummy: The Ride, an indoor roller coaster.

The suit, filed last month in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles, contends the men were kept off the ride in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

http://www.latimes.c...0,2075162.story

Similar KIC discussion:

http://www.KICentral...__1#entry433818

http://www.KICentral...__1#entry427220

From USH:

TO RIDE YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO:

Continuously grasp the lap bar with at least one upper extremity; independently

maintain yourself in an upright position while seated; and absorb

the sudden and dramatic movements similar to a rollercoaster.

http://www.universal...e2012Online.pdf

[TombRaiderFTW]

I can understand that they're disappointed. Considering the price of admission to Universal, it's probably incredibly frustrating to not find out you can ride a ride until you're trying to get in line for it, even if the details of the qualification are available online.

However.

If there was actually a change in policy, I'm willing to bet it's probably been influenced by the Darien Lake Ride of Steel incident. And, honestly, if Universal errs on the side of caution, I can't say I blame them. From an engineering standpoint, designing for disabilities seems like it would be a bit of a gamble--there aren't any standards for body dimensions for amputees, etc. that could be used to design trains and the like. I don't say this to be mean, but with a leg amputee, what if there happened to be a position comfortable for riding in, which the person had never sat in before, that put the person in risk of falling out? Wasn't that the cause of the RoS incident?

Seems like it's a gamble of a liability for Universal... I guess I'd have to side with them on this one.

[bkroz]

And if they were put on the ride and did not experience the ride safely, it would be their family suing for allowing them to ride to begin with. You can't win.

[Browntggrr]

^^ Unfortunately, when policies like this change, it is often a reaction to an incident.

Or, policies change because we have learned from mistakes- smoking in hospitals & airplanes come to mind as an example.

[LongliveKingsCobra]

I'm going to have to, like most, side with the park. The risk is just too high for the park to take. I feel sorry for the family, but not sue worthy.

[SOB_TOM]

After working down there for about 6 months on Spiderman, I can tell you that there are requirements for amputees. It depends on where the amputation took place (above/below the knee, elbow, ect,) and the restraint system. Example: If it was a double amputation above the knee, and someone wanted to ride Mummy, most likely they would not be able to because of the restraint system. On the flip side, if they wanted to ride, lets say, Storm Force (teacup style ride,) they most likely would be able to.

*Note: I was sent over to Mummy once, never worked Storm, so therefor I do not know their policies for amputees. Do not take these for the Gospel truth because I'm not sure what their policies are. These are just examples I thought of.

In any case, every attendant is told that if they see someone who is either borderline to ride, or has an amputation (fake limb, whatever,) to contact a lead or a supervisor, and they will make the decision. The lead and supervisors, from what I have been told, are told to border on the side of caution (duh) so that no one gets injured.

If this lawsuit wins, then what is stopping the ADA from suing any other park because the rides do not allow those with certain amputations to ride, and therefor are not ADA compliant?

[TTD-120-420]

What if they had the fake metal legs like the blade runner guy from the upcoming Olympics? Can you ride with prosthetics?

[The Interpreter]

Suing is one thing. Winning is another. Anyone can literally sue anyone for anything. That doesn't mean there might not be consequences.

[Dieseltech20]

I understand why things, such as ADA, exist and support them. I don't understand why so many seem to be so sue happy over every little thing. Sadly, there are just some things that some people cannot do. Just except it and continue to enjoy the things that you can do.

[Browntggrr]

What if they had the fake metal legs like the blade runner guy from the upcoming Olympics? Can you ride with prosthetics?

Probably not given the legs are not permanent.

I'm just glad I don't have to make that decision!

[TTD-120-420]

I remember the story of someone with a fake leg rode Raptor and it fell into one of the classic cars below. Doubt it is true, but a stoy either way.

[Browntggrr]

I was on WT when a fake leg came off the forward launch side.

The ride was e-stopped & homed out, and it created quite the scene (with some blood curdling screams) when someone yelled out "SOMEONE LOST A LEG!" and then we all saw it laying there.

My wife freaked, I then sarcastically asked her: "I wonder what it hit?"

She then hit me (this happens often).

[BavarianBeatle]

Interesting case.... The Plaintiffs, to start with, need expert witnesses to testify that they can ride safely.

[bkroz]

Now THAT will be interesting.

[Browntggrr]

I wonder what they will consider "expert", as who can be more of an expert than the actual designers of the train/ restraint?

[bkroz]

I'm just imagining a family doctor taking the stand and speaking very highly of his patient's character.

[AintNutinElse2Do]

I know as most rides are currently designed is likely unsafe for certain disabilities to ride especially in e-stop scenarios. Though it would take a lot upfront for parks to implement I do think at least in future designs many rides could be made more accessible to those with disabilities. What I imagine would be select seats with mechanisms similar to child seat restraints that are put into many vehicles now. Then when say an amputee that wouldn't normally be able to ride desired to do so they could put on a harness that would attach to one of the mechanisms on the select seats. As for e-stop scenarios like when Diamondback stops at the MCBR have a lowering device that could be attached to the harness to safely lower the guest. This would allow for the disabled to ride safely while not interrupting normal operations other than a little extra time given to secure the disabled. As the rides are now I side with the parks who do not permit those individuals to ride but there can be more done in the future to increase the experience of all guests.

[bkroz]

Every B&M ride at Busch Gardens Williamsburg and Tampa was equipped special securing brackets so that people with amputations or missing limbs could ride in certain seats. Before the installation, anyone with an amputation above the knee could not ride the B&M coasters while anyone with an amputation above the ankle couldn't ride Apollo's Chariot.

http://www.buschgardensvablog.com/making-coasters-accessible

For everything there is a reason.

(That was seven years ago. The man and Busch Gardens settled out of court for an amount that "barely covered his lawyer fees." The 2011 article is primarily there to reflect on the tragedy at Darien Lake, but notes of Montu at Busch Gardens: "But amputees wearing prosthetic limbs above the knee are still not allowed to ride the 60-mph roller coaster on which riders' legs dangle freely." From that article:

"Nobody wants a lawsuit but unfortunately that's the country we live in," said Dennis Speigel, an amusement park consultant in Cincinnati. "If you tell them they can't get on the rides, they sue. If there's an accident, they sue. It's a difficult situation."

Also:

James Barber of the National Association of Amusement Ride Safety Officials said most major parks have rules regarding disabled riders. ...

"I know they can deny access if it's determined the person cannot be properly restrained on a ride," Barber said. "That's allowable under ADA rules. Each park takes their stand on it and it depends on whether their attendants believe a person is able to ride the ride."

But let's bring the car around again and go through the legal process required to arrive at the same decision: policies are in place to keep people safe. Instead of being shocked and appauled, anyone missing a major limb should recognize their responsibility to contact the park beforehand and read every sign they can find to determine their ability to ride. I guess my annoyance is that if I was missing a leg, I would accept that I will probably be limited and contact the park to discuss my options.

That requires, though, that park representatives know - and for that matter, have - a strictly adhered-to policy in place that all employees know and are not afraid to enforce.)

What if I take legal action because my child isn't tall enough to ride The Beast? What if I SWEAR that my child is mature enough to hold on tight and to make good decisions on the ride? What if I tell the ride operator that my child has safely ridden The Beast before by standing on his tip-toes? Manufacturer recommendations and park procedure be darned, right? ... Until something happens.

[BavarianBeatle]

Manufacturer recommendations and park procedure be darned, right? ...

If those rules and policies discrimated against the Plaintiffs in this case based upon their disabilities, yes. That question will ultimately have to be answered by a judge or a jury.

[bkroz]

Precedent says that they weren't discriminated against.

My frail, sickly, 95 year old grandmother takes four hours to shuffle her way back to Flight of Fear, looking exhausted and near collapsing just from the walk. Is the park agist if they do not allow her to ride? But even that's different, because in the case of missing limbs, clearly stated rules require that they not ride, and doesn't Ohio law state that riders obey all guidelines and read safety signs before riding amusement rides?

Again, the annoying thing is that these people are missing limbs, but then act surprised and appalled when they arrive at a ride and have - gasp - different rules applied to them for their own safety. And it's not as if there are absolutely no instances of things going wrong when amputees do get on these rides!

And just as frustrating, the park will probably settle out of court and keep their policies while the plaintiff will go about their merry way, forgetting the "discrimination" that they alleged they were fighting against in favor of a payout.

[BavarianBeatle]

Precedent says that they weren't discriminated against.

Do you have a link or a citation for this precedent? I have been unable to locate any analogous decisions one way or the other.

[The Interpreter]

What precedent? Apparently you have better sources than most?

Also, what different rules? Actually, plaintiffs posit their disability should exempt them from rules applying to others.

EDIT: Bavarian Beetle and I posted at the approximate same time.

[Oldiesmann]

While it is frustrating to see these things settled out of court (for an "undisclosed amount"), it is often the cheapest and easiest route for those at whom the lawsuit is directed - pay the person suing you to shut up and forget the whole thing vs spending countless hours and a lot more money to defend yourself in court.

[The Interpreter]

But, many settlements do NOT result in monetary relief, but rather changes in operating methods, apologies, policy changes, etc.

[Browntggrr]

I cannot play football, should I sue the NFL for discrimination?

Absolutely not, it would be foolish.

Unfortunately, there are certain things some people cannot do. That does not mean they are discriminated against.

Even if it was allowed at one time does not mean it is or was the right decision.

[Keysersoze]

I can see it now...next they will sue becuase there too big to ride!

[bkroz]

But, many settlements do NOT result in monetary relief, but rather changes in operating methods, apologies, policy changes, etc.

I guess it's not a legal precedent since no verdict was reached, but in at least the article I linked to above, the park settled with the man for an amount that he claimed barely covered his legal costs and the park did not change its procedures. If he thought he had a case for discrimination, wouldn't he have pursued it instead of letting it go and letting the apparently-awful "discrimination" continue? In that case, there was no change in operating method or policy and why shouldn't that be recalled when this happens once or twice a year? Last year, wasn't it a ride at Cedar Point that kept a woman off due to a missing limb and she sued? What happened there?

Have any of these cases ever gone to trial? I just can't imagine in a million years that an amputee would win and that suddenly parks would HAVE to change their policies to let on riders without legs or without arms. It's insanity.

^ And truthfully, that doesn't sound too far off. Same thing, right? "The lapbar clicked, what do I care if some Swiss engineer says it has to click twice? You're discriminating against me for my size!" (On each B&M coaster at Busch Gardens, by the way, certain seats are equipped for amputees, and certain seats are equipped for larger riders).

[The Interpreter]

One reason settlements are made is to avoid legal precedent. And the terms of a settlement are typically, though not always, confidential. What may have changed due to a settlement is not always, or even frequently, information in the public domain.

[bkroz]

I guess I don't even understand how states have laws that require riders to obey park signage (which, in turn, in based on some state's requirement to obey manufacturer recommendations) but then people can still sue when those rules don't favor them. If the park rules say you must have two fully functioning lower extremities to ride a given ride and the law says you must obey that rule, then literally what can someone sue over? The parks are only following the mandate of the state that is following the expertise of the parks and / or the person who built the ride!

Is their hope truly that anyone with any level of ability would be allowed on a ride and that it would be considered discrimination to keep them off? Do they understand the ramifications of that? Like, try to make a case that things should be handled on a case-by-case basis if you must, but isn't it a Pandora's Box to say my friend with no legs or arms should be allowed to ride Diamondback?

[KIfan73]

I would imagine that lawsuits like these are analogous to getting into an automobile accident with LeBron James, as opposed to someone that works at WalMart.

Or, it can also probably be called one of the costs of doing (big) business.