[T11WALKER]

I thought this was a interesting article in the Sacramento Bee.

http://www.sacbee.co...ry/2425347.html

Any thoughts?

Steve

[greybeard]

There's something terribly wrong here. The girl gets $50,000 and her lawyer gets $140,000 ? WTF?

WHY?

Surely just forcing compliance from the theatre would have been sufficient without awarding damages. Nobody got hurt, the place was accessible, but the girl wanted to view the performance from front row. Why did she (and the court, apparently) think that she should be entitled to do that simply because she was in a chair? I just don't see how justice, or the lives of disabled people have been enhanced by this case.

This post has been edited by greybeard: 29 December 2009 - 04:38 PM

[mcferguson]

I agree with you, greybeard, something is amiss with the damage awards.

Also, couldn't the theater have installed some kind of ramp to the first rows to allow wheelchair access? Then, wheelchair users could transfer out of their chairs. I don't see the need to remove all those other seats. Maybe it was unavoidable with the layout of the theater, but it seemed a bit much.

[allis53ca]

i'm involved in accessibility compliance here, and although i'm no expert, it seems they were in compliance...i mean shit, 54 seats?...thats alot, a whole lot..i can't imagine that in the 35 years its been open, they've ever sold those seats out...and accessible restrooms on both levels is not very common either at any venue....this sounds alot like an entitlement case to me...i want better seats so i'll sue...well, i want cheaper start/finish seats at the racetrack, should i sue?......and as for the lawyer, (and no, i have not much love for lawyers) he worked on this for 18 months w/admin costs, filing, and time in arb/court etc., its more work than it seems....having been thru this many times, i'm sure the kid and her mom went thru maybe two arbs and a few lunches w/lawyer...50k cash, couple grand in season tiks and 80k worth of what amounts to personal seating sounds pretty good to me for a few hours of inconvenience and free lunches spread out over 18 months...and lets remember, in 35 years not one other crip felt inconvenienced enough to sue...and also, just because the theatre settled doesn't mean they were wrong..it cost them 300k just to go this far, and before the even economy tanked most local arts venues were strapped already...imagine if they'd kept fighting?

[guido]

As ever the confrontational system of law benefits one group.... the lawyers! And of course it's a great story for the media, as it's so uneven. How many stories are there that have satisfactory and rational results but that we don't hear about?

[oldwheelz]

She said " it's not fair " Someone once said " only kids say that " Most of us on this site have felt that way at times but life isn't fair.

[greybeard]

oldwheelz, on Dec 29 2009, 10:27 PM, said:

She said " it's not fair " Someone once said " only kids say that " Most of us on this site have felt that way at times but life isn't fair.

I think that must depend on your lawyer

[edlee]

After enough of these types of cases, juries will eventually become immune to the "needy cripples" who come in asking for special status, ( you have to admit what it is), and start finding in favor of the defendants. Once that happens, lawyers will begin avoiding any cases for access,, because there won't be enough money in them.

There are and will be legitimate cases, and one hopes they won't suffer a backlash caused by ones like the above.

What's next,,, lawsuits from fatties who aren't comfortable in those little theater seats,,, or shorties who can't see well because of the " normal " people in front of them,,, maybe the tall people because they are subjected to abuse by the shorties?

The fact is, that there already existed access,,, it just wasn't good enough access for her and her mother. Maybe I better sue somebody, too,, before the well runs dry.
ed