What Is Going On With The Legal System?

Ok… I am a firm believer that if someone gets hurt in a legitimate fashion that they should be taken care of.  No… Not taken care of like that.  I think that they should have their medical, etc. bills covered.  Here is where the problem comes… Why hasn’t the government thought up any way to stop people from filing all of their money hungry, greed oriented lawsuits?

Here is what I put together on the following matter…

Fact:The child is 4.  Fact:The child was in Disney World. 

Unknown: Did this happen in Disney?  Did they see Disney personell when this happened?

Parents don’t watch their children when they are in Disney World, Disneyland, or most places for the most part.  Most parents are irresponsible, uncaring, and for the most part just as ignorant as the children.  Why was a 4 year old grabbing a tray?  Yes, I know about the whole growing up process, but I am sure that they weren’t paying attention, and he got it on him.  Was it as hot as they claim?  I honestly doubt it.  If it was, then why weren’t there more people complaining, and why weren’t there more lawsuits?

Here is why I make this comment…

The parents of a 4-year-old California boy are suing Walt Disney Parks and Resorts claiming hot nacho cheese scalded and scarred their son during a visit to Walt Disney World.
Isaiah Harris suffered “permanent scarring, pain and suffering” as a result of the burns, according to the suit, which seeks medical cost and punitive damages for emotional distress.
The boy’s parent, Michael and Maria Harris of Chula Vista. Calif., are also seeking damages saying they suffered “serious emotional distress.”
The family says the incident occured in March at Cosmic Ray’s Starlite Cafe in Tomorrowland at Disney’s Magic Kingdom theme park in Florida. They claim a paper cup with scalding cheese splashed on the child’s face when he grabbed a food tray.
“The cheese should not have been that hot,” says Sean Cahill, the family’s attorney.
Disney released a statement saying that the company is reviewing the lawsuit but is saddened by the child’s injuries. “It is unfortunate when any child is hurt.”

This is the second suit against a Disney park this week. In the other case, a quadriplegic man claims that he was stuck in the “It’s a Small World” ride for 40 minutes at Disneyland in California, and that there was no way to evacuate him in his wheelchair. He is suing for negligence and emotional distress.

People have been suing Disney, and many hundreds/thousands of other companies for things that fall into the “For What?” category for years.  I know that it won’t happen anytime soon, but I would for one understand if companies started having us sign waivers prior to entry clearing them of any “Non Related”, or “For What?” claims.

I guess I should be suing my cell phone company because the Samsung cell phones that we have don’t have warnings about using them while driving.

Let’s think of some real off the wall lawsuits… (Keep in mind that the signs for rides don’t encompass these scenarios.)

I got wet on Splash Mountain and I react badly to water., I went on Tomorrowland Speedway and got rear ended now I am cripple forever., a wheelchair ran over my foot.  Now I can’t walk.

My wife tripped and fell in Disney last year because she was looking up at the characters in the train station when she was leaving.  We didn’t sue, but if we had we probably could have won with the reason… “No caution sign at the edge of the sidewalks.”

My daughter was traumatized after almost being trampled after a show in the Magic Kingdom.  We didn’t sue for trauma.

Look back in time…(Being this is a Disney related site I will site Disney situations…)

Disney has been sued…employee headscarf ban, people falling in the parks, “Chemical release” in California, man allegedly having stroke due to “Tower of Terror”

Come on people.  Get a life.  Stop trying to make a quick buck.  These lawsuits are the cause for high prices on admissions, and different things.  Cut the garbage.

Posted in Disney (General) | Tagged , , , , , | 3 Comments

2 Million Vitamins

Did you read about the Disney/Marvel vitamin settlement?  Well apparently marketers of these vitamins were making false claims.  I find this pretty incredible.  I would almost bet that another company wanted to cause some damage to another company, or someone somewhere decided that they wanted to make a few bucks.  Good thing they don’t make mens and womens vitamins, or diet pills because there would probably be lots of lawsuits brought on for not performing to their expectation.

Here is an exerpt…

As part of its ongoing efforts to stop bogus health claims, the Federal Trade Commission has reached asettlement requiring major marketers of children’s vitamins to stop making false and unproven claims that their supplements promote healthy brain and eye development in children.  The companies have agreed to pay $2.1 million to provide refunds to consumers who purchased certain multivitamins in their Disney and Marvel Heroes line.

The FTC charged NBTY, Inc. and two subsidiaries, NatureSmart LLC andRexall Sundown, Inc., with making deceptive claims about the amount of DHA – an Omega-3 fatty acid – used in their line of Disney- and Marvel Heroes-licensed children’s multivitamin gummies and tablets.  The companies also made unsupported claims that a daily serving of the products promotes healthy brain and eye development in children, according to the FTC administrative complaint.

Sold by major retailers such as CVS Pharmacy, Wal-Mart, Target, Walgreens, Kroger, Kmart, Meijer, and Rite Aid, as well as online, the multivitamins featured characters such as the Disney Princesses, Winnie the Pooh, Finding Nemo, and Spider-Man.  Product packaging and print ads promoting the vitamins had bold graphics highlighting that theproducts contained DHA, but in reality, the products allegedly had only a trace amount of DHA.  While the vitamins’ packaging touted the purported health benefits of 100 milligrams of DHA, a daily serving of the Disney and Marvel multivitamins for children ages four years and older contained only one thousandth of that amount (0.1 mg or 100 mcg), according to the FTC’s complaint.

The FTC alleged that the packaging and ads for the Disney and Marvel multivitamins misrepresented that they contained a significant amount of DHA, and that NBTY, NatureSmart, and Rexall Sundown made unsubstantiated claims that the amount of DHA provided by the multivitamins promotes healthy brain and eye development in children.

The settlement:

  • bars NBTY, NatureSmart, and Rexall Sundown from misrepresenting the amount of any ingredient contained in any product.
  • bars them from misrepresenting that any ingredient, including DHA, promotes brain or eye health or provides any other health benefit, unless the claim is true and backed by competent and reliable scientific evidence.
  • specifies that any violations could subject the NBTY, NatureSmart, and Rexall Sundown to civil penalties.

A refund program to distribute the $2.1 million to purchasers of the Disney and Marvel multivitamins will be administered by the FTC.  The agency will reach out to affected consumers in the coming months.

The FTC vote to approve the administrative complaint and proposed consent order was 5-0.  The FTC will publish an announcement regarding the proposed consent order in the Federal Register shortly.  The proposed consent order will be subject to public comment for 30 days, beginning today and continuing through January 14, 2011, after which the FTC will decide whether to make it final.  Consumers can file a public comment online.  Copies of the complaint, the proposed consent agreement, and an analysis of the agreement to aid in public comment are available from both the FTC’s website at http://www.ftc.gov and the FTC’s Consumer Response Center, Room 130, 600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.,Washington, DC 20580.

NOTE: The Commission issues an administrative complaint when it has reason to believethat the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest.  The complaint is not a finding or ruling that therespondents have actually violated the law.  A consent order is for settlement purposes only and does not constitute an admission by the respondents of a law violation.  When the Commission issues a consent order on a final basis, it carries the force of law with respect to future actions.  Each violation of such an order may result in a civil penalty of up to $16,000.

The Federal Trade Commission works for consumers to prevent fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair business practices and to provide information to help spot, stop, and avoid them.  To file a complaint in English or Spanish, visit the FTC’s online Complaint Assistant or call 1-877-FTC-HELP (1-877-382-4357).  The FTC enters complaints into Consumer Sentinel, a secure, online database available to more than 1,800 civil and criminal law enforcement agencies in the U.S. and abroad.  The FTC’s website provides free information on a variety of consumer topics.

Posted in Disney (General) | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Time To Turn Out The Light On The Lamp?

I just read this on one of the Disney news sites that I visit often…

What’s next?  Someone created a doll in East Jabip, and doesn’t want Disney to run It’s A Small World?

Here is the text of the article…

A Norwegian company that invented the inspiration for cinema’s best-loved light fixture is suing The Walt Disney Company and animator Pixar for alleged trade mark infringement.

Luxo makes swivel table lamps that Pixar founder John Lasseter has said were the inspiration for his company’s logo. A pair of Luxo lookalike lamps appeared in Pixar’s first film in 1986, Luxo Jr.

Luxo has filed a US trade mark infringement suit over a replica lamp called the Luxo Jr that is being sold by Disney, now the owner of Pixar. It says that it was not consulted about this and is not being paid for the sale of the lamps.

Luxo said that it has a trade mark in the name Luxo and that Disney is infringing its trade marks by selling the lamp under its name without its permission.

“[Disney is] now advertising for sale and/or selling and distributing in the US and elsewhere a lamp product namely the ‘Limited Edition Luxo Jr Lamp Collectible Pack’ which comprises a DVD of a Disney/Pixar film and includes a small actual lamp bearing ‘Luxo Jr’ on its base, which lamp itself simulates the Luxo [lamp],” said Luxo’s lawsuit, filed in New York.

The suit acknowledged the previous use to which Pixar had put lamps in the same shape as its own. “However, [Pixar’s] logo made no express reference to the name ‘Luxo’, and heretofore, other than [Luxo’s] lamps, there existed no actual lamps which used the Luxo trademark,” the suit said.

The suit said that the sale of the lamps and the creation of a six-foot-tall animatronic version of ‘Luxo Jr’ at Disney World were happening “with no compensation to [Luxo] and without its consent”.

Luxo said that the lamps being sold are of an inferior quality to its own and that the use of the Luxo trade mark would confuse consumers into thinking that Disney’s lamp has been made by Luxo. It also said that the Disney lamps would, by their allegedly inferior quality, damage Luxo’s reputation.

Luxo said that it wanted the court to give it control of all the materials created by Disney for it to destroy, to prevent any more being made and award it damages or Disney’s profits from selling the material.

Amazon.com currently lists ‘Up – Limited Edition Luxo Jr. Collectible Lamp Pack [Blu-ray]’ for $120.99. The product image shows a small lamp in a box containing a disc of the film Up, saying that it will be available on 10 November. See: The item for sale on Amazon.com.

Posted in Disney News | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment