The ADA is a federal law. It applies in all 50 states, and a state law cannot trump it.

I have continued looking and still have found no published court decisions regarding this specific issue. I strongly suspect that parks settle these cases because the plaintiffs' damages are very small (maybe a refund of what they paid for their tickets, gas, hotel rooms, etc.) and the legal fees required to defend the lawsuits would cost far, far more!

Or they are dropped because the cases have little to no merit.

I wonder what they will consider "expert"?

That, my friend, is a question that attorneys ask every day!

I was always taught an expert carries a leather briefcase, is paid, and comes from at least 50 miles away!

I was always taught an expert carries a leather briefcase, is paid, and comes from at least 50 miles away!

The one I always liked was: An expert is someone who knows very, very much about very, very little.

I guess that rules out Browntggrr - he's shown us in the past that he knows something about almost everything

...which is most certainly not to be confused with a know-it-all.

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

Some lady sued a themepark because she fell off of a park bench.

The best tort reform would be for the person bringing legal action to pay all of the legal expenses if the other side prevails. This is how it is done over across the pond in England. This is why the other side being sued settles out of court due to the huge legal expenses they will ring up. This would had prevented the person that brought the lawsuit against McDonald's when they spilled the hot coffee on their groin while driving. The suit would had gone to the jury and the jury would had ruled in favor of McDonald's and told the other side to pay up.

Sigh.

The plaintiff in the McDonald's suit wasn't driving.

The case did go to trial, got a very large verdict AGAINST McDonald's, THEN settled out of court for far less as McDonald's intended to appeal and appeal, and the plaintiff was very elderly and needed the medical bills paid, she was being hounded by creditors.

What was your point again?

I had forgotten about that one. The main thing is that the lady got hurt, which is a terrible thing.

If I remember correctly, that case hinged on the idea that McD's coffee was too hot…still not sure about that one, with so many places that serve hot coffee…would that situation ended the same way if it was a small donut shop (for example)?

McDonald's served coffee at temperatures 15 degrees higher than the rest of the industry. The woman suffered third degree burns, which testimony showed would not have happened at a normal serving temperature. Moreover, McDonald's knew of the risk, but chose to serve the hotter coffee for taste reasons.

McDonald's served coffee at temperatures 15 degrees higher than the rest of the industry. The woman suffered third degree burns, which testimony showed would not have happened at a normal serving temperature. Moreover, McDonald's knew of the risk, but chose to serve the hotter coffee for taste reasons.

And I may be incorrect (never wrong hehe) but didnt that particular McDonalds' coffee machine have a broken thermostat which caused the coffee to be even hotter?

That would be a convenient enough reason for McDonalds, won't it? Rather have one machine misreading temperatures than for word to spread that your policy is to serve coffee at a temperature that can cause third degree burns?

McDonald's served coffee at temperatures 15 degrees higher than the rest of the industry. The woman suffered third degree burns, which testimony showed would not have happened at a normal serving temperature. Moreover, McDonald's knew of the risk, but chose to serve the hotter coffee for taste reasons.

And I had been burned several times from it. This is one case I was glad to see.

I'll just stick to drinking water.

Great article on lawsuit myths:

http://www.jerebeasleyreport.com/2008/01/the-lawsuit-myth-put-out-by-the-tort-reformers-must-be-exposed/