Disney’s rides aren’t common carriers, but what about its monorail?
Jason Garcia, News — By Jason Garcia on May 17, 2010 at 8:56 amNOTE: This story ran in today’s paper with ‘Disney wins important legal ruling setting safety standards for rides.’
Florida courts long have held that amusement park rides such as Walt Disney World’s Twilight Zone Tower of Terror are not common carriers. But what about a theme-park’s conventional transport systems, such as Disney World’s buses, ferries and monorail?
Disney, for its part, has argued that they are not common carriers.
In 2005, a guest named David Papa was injured when a bus taking him from the Magic Kingdom to Disney’s Coronado Springs Resort suddenly stopped and he was thrown forward. Papa sued, alleging negligence.
In a motion to have the case dismissed, Disney contended that its bus service was a private carrier, not a common carrier. A common carrier typically offers its service to the general public, while a private carrier does not.
To buttress its case, Disney cited Goldman v. Hollywood Beach Hotel Co., a 53-year-old Florida appellate court ruling that declared a limousine service run by a South Florida hotel to take guests between different buildings at the resort was not a common carrier.
“WDPR [Walt Disney Parks and Resorts] provided a gratuitous service to its guests by transporting the guests from their hotel to the Magic Kingdom and other theme parks while on WDPR property,” Disney’s lawyers wrote. “Like in Goldman, the transportation service operated by WDPR was that of a private carrier and the duty owned to its passengers was that of ordinary care.”
Still, some lawyers say it is a much murkier issue than whether theme-park rides themselves should be classified as common carriers. Unlike with Tower of Terror and other rides, the primary purpose of Disney’s buses is transportation. And while the buses carry only Disney hotel guests, rather than the general public, those hotels rent rooms to the general public.
The judge in the Papa case never ruled on Disney’s motion to dismiss because the two sides settled first.
The common carrier question is a non-factor in a high-profile current case involving a Disney transportation accident: The wrongful death suit brought by the mother of Austin Wuennenberg, the 21-year-old monorail driver who was killed when two trains collided last summer.
Because Wuennenberg was an employee, rather than a guest, the suit is bound by Florida’s worker’s compensation laws, which impose a much higher threshold for winning a negligence verdict. (The rationale behind that is that workers injured or killed in on-the-job accidents already have access to at least some financial remedy through worker’s comp.)
To win that case, lawyers for Wuennenberg’s mother will have to prove, according to state statute, that Disney engaged in conduct that it knew, based on prior similar accidents or explicit warnings, was “virtually certain to result in injury or death.”
Jason Garcia can be reached at jrgarcia@orlandosentinel.com or 407-420-5414.
Print This Post
Tags: Disney World, Disney's Hollywood Studios, Hollywood Studios, monorail, News, transportation
Tweet This
Digg This
Save to delicious
Stumble it
Follow Dewayne on Twitter
8 Comments
But what about the Momorail. It transports people who are just parking and going to the themepark, not WITHIN the theme park. And hasn’t Disney established itself and it’s WDW property as a local government? And, as such, does not the monorail (and the bus) transport persons between privately owned facilities just as the subway would in New York? It seems to me that Disney, in wanting to be a local government but not wanting it’s mass transit system to be considered a common carrier, is wanting to have it’s celebration cake and eat it too.
well there was definite negligence since Disney did not follow Bombiders(the manufacture of the monorails, and other transportation vehicles)in its operating manual advised against operating monorails in reverse
It’s “Bombardier” (pronounced bom-bar-dee-ay), and Disney was operating their monorail system (with Disney/Martin-Marietta trains) for almost 20 years before Bombardier came on the scene. There was negligence, but it wasn’t because Disney didn’t abide by Bombardier’s recommendations.
Failure to adhere to an instruction manual does not definitively demonstrate negligence. Instruction manuals may, in fact, establish duties of care higher than the negligence standard. The court and jury must determine independently whether negligence took place.
No large buses require seat-belts pretty much, including school, Lynx, Mears, and Disney. This is a problem on the large scale versus one company. It’s just easy to sue Disney because it’s a large corporation with a big wallet and a possible chance at settlement.
Apparently, it’s not easy to sue Disney
The Disney buses are subject to DOT (Dept of Transportation) rules and regulations the same as any other bus, such as LYNX, or commercial truck. The bus operator must possess a CDL (Commercial Drivers License) and a DOT Medical Certificate.
I do not know the Florida rules on the monorail but in other states I have been involved in managing two different monorails. One was the same as Disney equipment and the other was similar. Since they both only operated on private property they were inspected and governed by county and state as an amusement ride.
I am guessing since the D.O.T. is famous for a mix mash of laws that disney has been operating in a loophole. It does not mean they are not safe it just means they fall in another category. It may have something to do with compensation. Technically it is just a commuter service provided by disney and riders do not pay the operator and operate within a certain zone. Disney has certified inspectors and mechanics on site to handle any issues with safety.
I dont have a problem with disney at all and think most accidents are caused by logisitcs as with the monorail. All this is speculation on my part.