Orlando Personal Injury Lawyer - All Topics - Most Popular

Proposed STANDUP Federal Act Driving to Save Lives

Sandy Grinnell — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:22:39 GMT

Just as high school prom season is about to start, the Safe Teen and Novice Driver Uniform Protection (STANDUP) Act and the SafeRoads4Teens campaign were announced in Washington DC yesterday. U.S. Senator Chris Dodd and U.S. Representatives Tim Bishop and Michael Castle were chief sponsors of the bill which will push states to adopt the Graduated Driver Licensing (GDL) program. The importance of the bill was emphasized with the display of two vehicles that had been totalled in a car crash where teenagers were killed.

The main focus of this campaign and proposed federal act is to save the lives of our teenagers. Auto accident-related death is the number one killer of young people between the ages of 15 and 20. On average, 10 teenagers are killed in car crashes, either as drivers or passengers, each and every day in the U.S.

Statistics have proven that the Graduated Driving License (GDL) for new drivers saves lives. The proposed STANDUP federal act would establish the following minimum requirements for states' GDL programs:

• A 3-stage licensing process (learner’s permit and intermediate stage before unrestricted driver’s license);

• A prohibition on unsupervised nighttime driving during the learner’s permit and intermediate stages;

• A passenger restriction during the learner’s permit and intermediate stage (no more than 1 non-familial passenger under the age of 21 unless a licensed driver over 21 years of age is in the vehicle);

• A prohibition on non-emergency use of cell phones and other communication devices, including text messaging, during the learner’s permit and intermediate stages;

• Age 16 for issuance of learner’s permit and full licensure at age 18;

• Any other requirement adopted by the Secretary of Transportation, including learner’s permit holding period at least 6 months; intermediate stage at least 6 months; at least 30 hours behind-the-wheel, supervised driving by licensed driver 21 years of age or older; automatic delay of full licensure if permit holder commits an offense, such as DWI, misrepresentation of true age, reckless driving, unbelted driving, speeding, or other violations as determined by the Secretary.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Officials Find "Total Collapse" of Care at Local Assisted Living Facility

Sandy Grinnell — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 17:21:15 GMT

According to the Orlando Sentinel, after seven complaints, officials from the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration inspected an Emeritus Properties' assisted living facility called Emeritius at Crossing Pointe. As a result of the inspection, they placed an immediate stop to any and all new admissions at this facility.

Inspectors found dozens of violations over a two week period and reported conditions such as:

A patient who died of heart failure after staff members failed for four days to give her the heart medicine she had been prescribed.

Another patient who was given a blood thinner — a medicine she had not been prescribed — that made her so sick, she went to the hospital for an emergency blood transfusion.

An employee who had falsified medication and nurse's orders.

Three Alzheimer's patients with toenails so long they curled around their toes.

Managers who, over several days, could not give an accurate resident count. One day, they were off by more than 30 people.

Emeritus owns four other facilities in Orange County and have fully complied with the Agency's requests, submitting a corrective action plan in writing to address the current problems as well as preventative measures so these conditions will not occur in the future.

It is because of horror stories like these that it is imperative that caregivers fully inspect facilities prior to placing their loved ones in a facility, make unannounced visits, and visit often. Do not let this happen to your loved one!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Disney Replaces Crashed Monorail

Ed Normand — Fri, 06 Nov 2009 12:40:54 GMT

Recently, Disney announced that a “new” monorail train, named Teal, is now up and running at Walt Disney World in Orlando, Florida. The monorail at Disney received heightened media attention over the summer, as two trains were involved in a deadly crash which killed 21-year-old Disney employee Austin Wuennenberg. According to reports, Disney decided to use the undamaged, leftover parts from the two trains involved in the crash to build the new Teal train.

For my blog posting over the summer about the crash, please see Disney Accident.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

Dangers of Driving While Texting

Ed Normand — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 18:18:14 GMT

Recent studies have confirmed what most of us know already: that driving while using a cell phone is highly dangerous. In fact, after just 3 minutes of driving and talking on a cell phone there is a higher risk of an auto accident than when the driver is legally impaired with a .08 percent blood alcohol level. The theory is that one has to concentrate to such a degree when talking on the phone that they lose the ability to remain safely alert to traffic conditions. The tests put drivers in a simulator and engaged in cell phone conversations. The same drivers then became legally drunk and drove the same simulator without a cell phone. The results were dramatic. The cell phone users had multiple accidents and the alcohol impaired drivers had none. Testing also showed that the result was the same even when a hands free unit was used.

One can only imagine the number of car accidents that happen when people text while they drive. Some have advocated laws to prevent driving while texting. In a civil court a jury can evaluate the negligence of a driver based on the use of a cell phone. Texting while driving is so reckless that it should subject the offender to liability for punitive damages. Laws already subject alcohol impaired drivers to liability for punitive damages. Driving and using a cell phone, based on these test results, it is possible that similar liability may result from driving and using a cell phone.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand

"Ask - Referral Services"

Mike Damaso — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 09:49:52 GMT

"1-800-Ask-Gary." "Ask-Dave." "Ask-Kobe." It seems that more and more TV commercials for these lawyer referral services are becoming commonplace. But, who is behind these services? Dave, Gary, and Kobe do not appear in their own commercials. Usually, the commercials are composed of testimonials given by people who claim to have been injured, and then called these numbers, and everything was OK. What kind of services do they provide? Their television ads claim that, if you are injured in an accident, they can provide you with everything you need for your case. The ads assume there is a case.

According to a 2006 article in St. Pete Times, most of those behind these "Ask-Whomever" ads are not attorneys. Dave is actually an attorney with a firm in Polk County. However, Gary and Jerry are actually chiropractors. Kobe, actually Leonard, is also a chiropractor. So, these doctors lure achy people into their clinic and bill the injureds' PIP carriers.

The Wall Street Journal reported in 2006 that Trial lawyer J. Steele Olmstead of Tampa claimed that a Florida personal injury law firm solicited accident victims through Ask Gary chiropractor, Gary Kompothecras. Olmstead claimed he called 1-800-ASK-GARY posing as an accident victim. Then, one hour later he received a call from a paralegal at the firm. The law firm denied wrongdoing.

Bar regulation of attorney advertisements is a hot topic in recent times and has been for years. But, who regulates these non-lawyer advertisers to make sure there is no wrongdoing?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mike Damaso

Did You Know Next Week Is Dog Bite Prevention Week?

Sandy Grinnell — Sat, 16 May 2009 16:57:00 GMT

Dogs may be man's best friend, but according to the CDC over 4.5 million people are the victims of a dog bite every year. In 2006, 885,000 victims had injuries serious enough that they needed medical attention and 35,000 of those required surgery by a plastic surgeon.

Dog bites are a huge public safety issue that the CDC feels could easily be prevented. As a result, CDC officials, in conjunction with the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA), the American Association of Plastic Surgeons and local public health departments, take one week each year to focus on the prevention of dog bites.

While a lot of people have a fear of being bitten by someone elses dog, the greater number of dog bites are from dogs in your own home, particularly if you have 2 or more. The CDC and AVMA both recommend studying dog breeds before you select a dog as a pet. They also stress the importance of training, socializing, and keeping your dog healthy. It was also suggested that neutering your dog may be less agressive and therefore unlikely to bite.

For dogs that you are unfamiliar with the AVMA suggests:

Don't run past a dog.
Dogs naturally love to chase and catch things. Don't give them a reason to be come excited or aggressive.

Never disturb a dog that's caring for puppies, sleeping or eating.

Never reach through or over a fence to pet a dog.
Dogs can be protective of their territory, and may interpret your action as a threat.

If a dog approaches to sniff you, stay still.
In most cases, the dog will go away when it determines you are not a threat.

If you are threatened by a dog, remain calm.
Don't scream or yell. If you say anything, speak calmly and firmly. Avoid eye contact. Try to stay still until the dog leaves, or back away slowly until the dog is out of sight. Don't turn and run.

If you fall or are knocked to the ground, curl into a ball with your hands over your head and neck. Protect your face.

If you are bitten by a dog, you should seek immediate medical attention. You should also get the name of the dog's veterinarian so your doctor's will know if the pet is up to date on all its shots and can treat you accordingly. Florida Statutes state that a dog owner is strictly liable for any injuries from a dog bite. And since most homeowners insurance companies cover dog bites, it is important that you get the name of the pet owner's homeowners insurance company so you can file a claim to cover your medical expenses.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Zicam Warning Issued by FDA

Diego Madrigal — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 10:46:49 GMT

Zicam nasal gel can destroy or severely damage your sense of smell according to a warning issued by the Food and Drug Administration. The warning only applies to the nasal products, which I actually use. The warning was based on 130 complaints received by the FDA from people and their doctors stating that following use of those products people suffered a condition called "ansomia," which is a loss of the sense of smell.

Since 1999, the maker of Zicam has payed $12 million to settle over 300 lawsuits. However, they have never recalled the drug. In fact, even after this FDA warning, the maker of Zicam refuses to recall the drug. Nevertheless, before Zicam markets their drug again they will have to gain FDA approval.

Like I have said, I used this exact product and have not noticed any problems- but then again, I have not been looking. I wonder how many people have not noticed and are suffering from loss of smell. Hopefully the makers of Zicam recall their product and find a way to issue it again in a safe form.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Diego Madrigal

Orlando/Kissimmee Tops List of Deadliest Metro Areas for Pedestrians

Sandy Grinnell — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 17:04:44 GMT

According to the Transportation for America (TFA) latest report, Central Florida has the worst ranking in the number of pedestrian deaths for 2007 and 2008 among metro areas that have a million plus residents. 16.9% of all our traffic fatalities involved a pedestrian.

For every 100,000 residents in the Orlando/Kissimmee area, there was an average of 2.86 pedestrians killed on our streets in 2007 and 2008 putting us at the top of the list. However, Orlando was not the only Florida city to rate poorly for the safety of pedestrians. The next top three spots went to Tampa/St.Pete/Clearwater, Miami/Ft.Lauderdale/Pompano Beach and then Jacksonville.

The TFA report was aptly named Dangerous by Design as the report attributes these preventable deaths to very roads that most commuters have begged for to make their drive to work more bearable. It's the thoroughfares, or "arterial roads", like Semoran Blvd, Colonial Ave and Silver Star Road that have been widened to six lanes with a turn lane in the middle that are the most dangerous for pedestrians as they seldom come with pedestrian crosswalks.

The TFA also cites a lack of funding as a contributing factor in the high number of pedestrian deaths. The report states that although 11.8% of all traffic fatalities involve pedestrians, only 1.5% of transportation funds are aimed at improving the safety conditions for pedestrians.

These deaths are preventable and the officials at Transportation for America are asking for your help in making our streets safer for those who walk, try to cross or bike on our city streets. Let your voices be heard in Washington by contacting Transportation Secretary LaHood and requesting that pedestrian safety become a national transportation priority.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Sandy Grinnell

Dram Shop Laws - Effective Elements for Reponsible Alcohol Retailing

Mark Willingham — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 16:08:37 GMT

A foreseeable and preventable tragedy unfolds several times a day somewhere in the United States. Over fifteen thousand people are killed and thousands more are seriously injured in impaired driving crashes in the United Sates each year. Even more shocking is that half of these deaths and injuries can be attributed to drivers who were coming directly from a beverage license premises where they were over-served or allowed to over-consume alcohol.

Beverage alcohol is the only universally available consumer product that has the capacity to cause changes in the consumer’s emotional state, his or her cognitive ability, gross and fine motor skills, and can diminish the drinker’s ability to make rational decisions. Beverage alcohol is widely sold and consumed in businesses that are primarily accessible through the use of personally operated vehicles creating a reasonable expectation that many customers will also drive those vehicles away from the bar or restaurant. Many will be under the influence of the intoxicating effect of the product and unable to safely operate those vehicles. At least 80 million trips are made annually in the United Sates by drivers with a BAC over .08.

The business model under which the alcoholic beverage industry operates can be antithetical to the elements of responsible retailing. In many cases tips; a significant part of servers’ income, come from “good service” which often equates to heavy pours of alcohol, frequent replenishment, and a wink and a nod at increasing intoxication levels. Beverage retailers often utilize questionable promotions, two for one or all you can drink specials, for example, to gain a competitive advantage or to maintain marketing parity with other retailers. The choices bar owners and bartenders make in over-serving their guests often eliminate the choices their guests might have in moderating their drinking behavior.

The decision to have the first, second or perhaps the third drink rests solely with the drinker. At a certain point, however, the drinker loses his or her ability to make rational decisions about further alcohol consumption. The drinker’s ability to engage in appropriate behavior and make rational decisions is diminished. It is a truism worthy of a scientific designation; the more alcohol one consumes, the lower one’s ability to assess their own intoxication and assess their own ability to safely operate a motor vehicle. This most certainly creates a “Catch 22” logic model in which the person the retailer often believes responsible for determining whether their faculties are impaired becomes more and more impaired with each drink the retailer serves.

A beverage license is a privilege issued by the government. Its issue and retention is conditioned on the licensee’s agreement to act in the public’s interest. Responsible retailers provide an inviting and enjoyable hospitality experience with alcohol service as an adjunct to that experience. A responsible retailer’s obligation under that mantle is to prevent patron intoxication. Unfortunately, not all beverage retailers act in a responsible manner. Not all beverage retailers serve alcoholic beverages with the goal of providing hospitality while preventing patron intoxication.

Laws exist in every state except Florida and Nevada that place criminal and/or administrative responsibility on the bar or the bartender/server to monitor the behavior of the drinker and their consumption of alcohol. Once a drinker reaches the point where he or she reaches various levels of intoxication, and therefore, loses the ability to make rational decisions, responsibility for insuring the drinker’s safety and those the drinker may harm, shifts to the retailer through criminal and/or administrative prohibitions.

Thirty-eight states and the District of Columbia have determined that their public policy interests are better served by placing some responsibility for over-service or over-consumption on the alcohol server or the licensee through the civil justice system. These dram shop laws provide a plaintiff legal standing to bring an action against a tort feasor for an alcohol related injury or death. Most instances that bring rise to a civil dram shop lawsuit stem from a traffic crash. Other causes of action, however, relate to homicide, sexual assault, and other incidents where the intoxicated patron loses the ability of self-regulation.

Standards for dram shop lawsuits vary widely among states. Those standards include prohibitions of service to intoxicated, visibly intoxicated or obviously intoxicated patrons or when it should have been known that the patron was intoxicated. One state prohibits service to a drunken person in a criminally negligent manner. Another allows a civil action when the service was to a person clearly intoxicated. Several states require proof that the alcohol service was done in a reckless manner or that the alcohol was provided with reckless disregard to the rights of others. Other states require proof that the patron was intoxicated to the extent he or she presented a clear and present danger to self or other. Florida allows a dram shop action only when the alcohol service was to someone habitually addicted to alcohol. This standard is particularly difficult because alcoholics do not carry or present identification cards identifying them as such and rarely make self-admissions to bartenders.

The phase dram shop is based on a unit of measure popular in Victorian times; approximately 1/8^th of an ounce in our vernacular, and has become synonymous with a prohibition on the over-service of beverage alcohol to a patron or guest. The principal purpose of dram shop laws is to protect the public; and even the drinker himself, from the over-service or over-consumption of beverage alcohol and from the service of alcohol to persons under 21 years of age. This law calls upon beverage licensees and their employees to play a significant role in the enforcement of this important public policy. No other business type comes to mind where the holder of a government license; by acceptance of that license, is required to act as an agent of the state in taking affirmative action to monitor and intercede in the behavior of a citizen/business invitee.

Responsible retailing involves the development and implementation of effective alcohol service policies, practices, employee training and management systems. These elements are the keys to responsible retailing and the prevention of acts and situations leading to a dram shop lawsuit. Conversely, irresponsible beverage retailers do not employ these elements or they have developed ineffective policies, practices, training and management systems that fall below a reasonable standard of care.

Dram shop cases involve an examination of two elements; the fact situation involving the alleged service to an intoxicated patron or service to a minor and an examination of the premise’s alcohol service practices, polices, training and management systems, which allowed the beverage service to occur. In fact, findings related to the insufficiency of practices, policies, training and management also serve as the basis for punitive damages in many states. Beverage retailers simply cannot ignore the dangerous nature of these products and sell them as those the danger did not exist.

Examination of the fact situation can demonstrate that the retailer served an intoxicated patron. The drinker’s self-admission and/or witnesses describing the condition of the patron at the time of alcohol service can be illustrative. Over-service of alcoholic beverages can also be determined through receipts, credit card charge slips and extrapolation of the drinker’s BAC based on his or her personal characteristics such as gender, weight, and the elapsed time. Elapsed time can be determined through witnesses, charge slips, crash reports, and even triangulation of the drinker's cell phone position.

Examination of the business policies, practices, employee training and management systems can support the testimony of the fact witnesses. It can also illustrate the businesses’ alcohol service pattern and practice serving to support a finding of benign neglect or intent. This examination can be done through an assessment of written policies and training curriculum, through depositions of current and past employees, and through observations of current business practices.

Beverage retailers should have written policies that address, at a minimum, the prevention of the sale of alcoholic beverages to persons under the age of 21, including an apparent age that triggers an ID request, acceptable forms of identification, and how to properly examine and verify an ID; and policies to prevent over-service and service to an intoxicated patron including identification of an intoxicated patron, identification of a patron habitually addicted to alcohol, discontinuance of alcohol service and the provision of alternate transportation. When a beverage retailer does not have written policies, application of responsible retailing practices will be inconsistent and will be subject to the interpretation of the individual employees. Servers and bartenders will have no point of consistent reference guiding their actions and behavior. In fact, their interpretation may even vary from day to day without the consistency provided by a written policy. The lack of written policies also limits the licensee's ability to provide effective and consistent oversight and employee training.

The business practices of bars and restaurants should be designed to mitigate the risks presented by the business model, clientele, location, and environment. Beverage licensees have an obligation to prevent law violations regardless of the size of their establishment or their success. For example, happy hour and other gender, price, time, or quantity based drink specials and promotions are legal, however, they contribute significantly to the probability of patron over-service and service to minors. The court will look at these practices to determine if the beverage retailer appropriately scaled their intervention and prevention practices in response to the risks at their business. While many beverage retailers will seek to explain that they were unable to adequately control consumption by minors or over-consumption in their establishment because they had 1000 patrons going to 5 internal bars, dram shop liability does not diminish simply because the business is financially successful. Responsible retailing practices are scalable to meet the risks, if the retailer chooses to utilize them.

A responsible retailer will provide appropriate training to his or her employees and will ensure that the employees understand what is being taught and can apply the information. Training is not a one-time practice. It is unreasonable for a beverage retailer to believe that an hour or two of instruction on responsible retailing practices on the employee’s first day will serve that employee well for the next 5 or 10 years. Training must be ongoing. At the very least, beverage retailers should provide a structured training program to employees two or three times a year and provide mini-courses or shift reminders on a daily basis.

It is critical that bartenders and servers be trained using objective standards to determine if a patron exhibiting signs of intoxication. Beverage retailers will instruct their bartenders and servers not to serve alcohol to an intoxicated patron and then provide the server with outrageous examples of behavior to use as a guide, behaviors that would only emerge when a person’s BAC was already twice the legal limit. Even when the retailer tells the server to watch what they serve the patrons, the licensee will not provide the employees with BAC calculators or BAC charts or even information about standard drink units to help the bartender or server determine the maximum amount of alcohol that could be safely served to that employee in a given period.

Training should include role-play exercises so that servers and bartenders become accustomed to interacting with patrons and asking questions to help them determine whether the patron is of legal age or becoming intoxicated. Unfortunately, many bars and restaurants, including national casual dining chains, invest extensive resources and time in training their employees about menu items and the alcoholic beverages available for purchase and almost no time training a bartender or server to be a responsible alcohol server. Many retailers operate under the false economy that “telling” is easier and less expensive than training.

Management systems, may in fact be the most important aspect of responsible retailing. Without active and knowledgeable management, a beverage premises may be nothing more than a collection of independent contractors serving alcoholic beverages. Servers and bartenders stress those things they perceive to be important to management. If management believes that responsible retailing is important and continually stresses compliance with the law prohibiting service to a minor or service to an intoxicated patron, the servers will stress this as well through their actions. Conversely, if this is not important to management, it will not be important to the servers, regardless of potential criminal penalties.

How can the jury determine if a beverage licensee acted in good faith and exercised the appropriate standards of care to ensure safe service and consumption of alcohol? The jury will look at many issues concerning the operation of the business in making their determination. Did the business utilize appropriate policies, practices and training? Did the manager overrule a server’s assessment of intoxication and subsequently require the server to provide alcohol to intoxicated patrons? Did the manager downplay the importance of appropriate service standards? Did the business value repeat customer visits and high alcohol sales over responsible alcohol service?

The jury will look to see if the business attempted to comply with the law. Did the beverage licensee simply tell his or her employees not to violate the law or did they provide encouragement, knowledge, and tools to empower compliance? Did the beverage licensee provide BAC calculators to assist the bartenders and servers do their job? Did the beverage licensee or manager remind his or her employees what to look for to determine the subtle signs of intoxication before the person was a risk to themselves or others? Did the licensee employ mystery-shopping programs and video surveillance systems to ensure the bartenders and servers were not over-pouring alcohol, and were not ignoring signs of obvious and visible intoxication? These, and many more practices are indicative of responsible alcoholic beverage service.

Dram shop laws provide greater benefits than simply being the basis for civil lawsuits. Dram shop laws contribute to responsible retailing in a way that criminal and administrative penalties prohibiting over-serve and service to minors often cannot. It is an unfortunate fact that many beverage retailers look at misdemeanor criminal charges brought against their servers and administrative action brought against their alcoholic beverage license as a cost of doing business. To many, it is a cost benefit-risk analysis. In fact, these penalties are generally quite modest when they are actually imposed. Criminal and administrative laws against over-serving, when they even exist, are among the most disregarded laws in the country. Even though the bars and restaurants that over-serve and usher their intoxicated patrons out the door and into vehicles represent fewer than 10% of the beverage premises in any community, law enforcement and regulatory agencies either do not have the resources to adequately investigate and prevent these occurrences or do not give over-serving sufficient priority.

At least one large national beverage retailer has determined that their bottom line is better served by settling several wrongful death lawsuits per year rather than implementing effective alcohol policies and employee training which may offend some patrons and cause those patrons not to return. This bean-counter approach to the sale and service of alcoholic beverages is reminiscent of Ford Motor Co.'s decision to weigh the cost of correcting deficient fuel tanks in Ford Pintos against the cost of wrongful death lawsuits. Ford valued each potential death at $200,000 and determined that wrongful death settlements would cost less than investing $11 to correct the deficiency in each fuel tank. It is unfortunate that some members of the hospitality industry have the same perspective and value repeat and happy customers over responsible service practices.

Civil judgments can be significant and can cause change in the way in which alcoholic beverages are served both by the beverage retailer against whom the suit was filed and against other beverage retailers in the community. Their appreciation of the financial risk they face from engaging in irresponsible alcoholic beverage service, in many cases, will have an affect on the policies and practices they employ. The utilization of a civil dram shop law can significantly affect impaired driving crash deaths and injuries.

The use of dram shop laws and the civil justice system increases awareness of the negative consequences of over-service and over-consumption of alcohol because of the publicity that is generated about dram shop cases and their verdicts. Dram shop laws decrease excessive and illegal alcohol consumption by both adults and underage persons by reducing the incidence of lower-price drink promotions (like “happy hours”) which encourage excessive consumption in a limited amount of time and are attractive to underage drinkers. States with dram shop liability have more thorough checks of identification reducing the number of underage drinkers who are able to drink illegally in beverage-licensed premises.

Finally, dram shop laws do not decrease personal responsibility as more responsibility is shifted to beverage retailers. Creating a cause of action against an establishment that engages in over-service of alcohol does not mean that the individual is not also held responsible. Rather, punitive damages for both drinking drivers and serving establishments serve similar purposes – to show that penalties come with these actions and to cause the retailer and server to rethink their practices leading to over-service and over-consumption of alcohol.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Mark Willingham

Orlando, Florida Theme Park Injury Reports

Ed Normand — Sat, 07 Nov 2009 16:55:02 GMT

For the second consecutive quarter, Disney World was the only major theme park in Florida to report any guest injuries. None of the other major theme parks - including Universal Studios, Sea World, Wet ‘n Wild, or Busch Gardens in Tampa, reported a single guest being injured in that time period. Disney World reported eight injuries occurring during the third quarter. Neither the Federal Government nor the State of Florida regulate the big theme parks and they are under a Florida based voluntary reporting system that has many loopholes. The lack of reported injuries for the last 6 months at all of the theme parks except Disney shows that the voluntary reporting system is not working and injuries are happening that are not being reported. This is clear from an examination of lawsuits filed against the theme parks. The lawsuits consistently relate to injuries at the parks that the parks never report to the State of Florida or anywhere else.

The injuries at Disney during the third quarter of 2009 include the following:
A 31-year-old woman had a seizure after riding the Rock ‘n Roller Coaster, and a 50-year-old woman experienced chest pains and shortness of breath after riding the same ride. A 54-year-old man had a seizure riding Star Tours, a full-motion flight simulator based on the Star Wars films. A 40-year-old man fell and broke his right wrist while getting off of Test Track, a simulated excursion through the rigorous testing procedures that GM uses to evaluate its cars, culminating in a high-speed drive around the exterior of the attraction. A 52-year-old woman complained of dizziness and memory loss after riding Mission: Space, which boasts that it realistically simulates an astronaut’s trip to Mars. A 66-year-old man felt sick after riding Expedition Everest, a high-altitude, high-speed roller coaster train ride to the “Roof of the World.” A 74-year-old woman lost her balance getting off of Peter Pan’s Flight, fell, and hit her head and broke her wrist. Finally, a 57-year-old woman passed out after riding Splash Mountain, and fractured her skull after collapsing on a concrete floor.

State regulators rely on the big theme parks to voluntarily report any significant injuries to guests. It is clear that many injuries are not being reported. According to these records, Disney is now falling far behind the other big theme parks’s safety records for the second straight quarter. With the lack of regulation it is not clear if this is a sign of safety issues at Disney or, more likely, that other parks are not reporting all the injuries at the parks. It is time that state regulators need to step in. Government oversight is needed as self-policing is clearly not working. For my previous blog on the injuries at the big theme parks for the second quarter of 2009, please check our prior blogs on Disney Accidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Ed Normand