Archive | Splash Mountain RSS feed for this section

Best Splash Mountain Picture Ever

30 Aug

Good sirs, my hat is off to you. Super Splash Bros. at livercirrhosis.tumblr.com

DL Splash Mountain Front Seats 60″ Height Requirement?

18 Jan

ThemeParkInsider posted this last night, to explain a new height requirement for the front seats on Disneyland’s Splash Mountain:

Disneyland’s been having problems with Splash Mountain ever since it changed out the logs during a previous rehab. All other Splash Mountains have a two-by-two seating arrangement, with relatively low height requirements. Disneyland’s Splash Mountain, which was the original version of the ride, was built with a narrower flume and a traditional single-file log. That meant really lousy ride capacity (since you could get only half as many people in a typical ride unit, compared with the Orlando version).

Trouble is, you can’t just slap a wider log on to the ride without pretty much rebuilding the whole thing. So Disney tried a new seating arrangement, with two seats in the back row and individual seating wells for all other rows, as opposed to the benches it had before. But parents can control their kids easier when they are sitting between your legs on a log flume bench. It’s hard to have any control over them when they are in a separate seating well. That’s led to multiple guest complains and cast members having to deal with squirrelly kids sliding around in their seats.

There’s a lot of discussion and a bit more information in the comments on that page.

Same-sex Partner Foiled in WDW Injury Lawsuit

3 Nov

Sometimes people wonder why same-sex couples want marriage rights so badly. Why can’t they just make wills, give each other power of attorney, etc? Or isn’t domestic partnership enough? Well . . . there are some rights that you just can’t get without having your relationship recognized by the state, and the varying levels of recognition come with varying rights and responsibilities.

Here’s an example, from GayCityNews:

A federal judge ruled on October 23 that the same-sex partner of a New Jersey woman injured on a Walt Disney World theme park ride in Florida may not recover damages for “loss of consortium,” defined by New Jersey courts as the “right of a husband or wife to receive compensation for loss of affection, comfort, companionship, society, assistance, and sexual relations as a result of the other’s personal injuries.”

Loss of consortium is a legal concept recognizing that when somebody is injured, their spouse may also be harmed through deprivation of their normal relationship due to hospitalization or physical or mental restrictions that result.

The New Jersey Civil Union Act, which went into effect in February 2007, provides that civil union partners may sue for loss of consortium, but this case involves an incident that took place in June 2004, at which time the couple did not have any legal relationship to each other. The state provided no such recognition then.

Notice that the question decided by the court here is not whether the injured woman had the right to sue (which she most certainly does . . . though I haven’t found any details on that part of the lawsuit). The question here is whether her partner has the right to sue for “loss of consortium,” which her partner could have sued for had they been married.

I know Disney’s a for-profit corporation, so it shouldn’t be surprising that they’d defend themselves against personal injury lawsuits using whatever legal defense is available and effective. I kinda wish they hadn’t. But even more, I wish the laws in every state protected the rights and responsibilities of same-sex couples to the same degree they protect those of us in opposite-sex marriages.

%d bloggers like this: