Legal Journals

Disney World Not Required to Allow Segway Use

By Ashley Balestrieri

In 2004, the Walt Disney Company officially banned Segway Personal Transporter vehicles from their theme parks. [1] These upright, two-wheel scooters allow those who can stand but not walk an easier method of navigation and greater degree of freedom than that afforded by wheelchairs. [2] They also permit visitors able to traverse short distances but not those required to satisfactorily enjoy a theme park the ability to experience things like the lengthy World Showcase at Epcot. [3] The company received widespread criticism for their decision, particularly from disabled park attendants. But, considered from a rational and legal rather than emotional or personal perspective, the decision makes a great degree of sense.

Epcot and the Fort Wilderness campground used to offer paid, guided Segway tours of portions of the Walt Disney grounds, and had allowed many of its employees to use the machines. [4] But Disney officials maintain a valid concern about the potential for serious safety issues if untrained visitors use the vehicles.

Although Epcot is considered by some the least child-oriented of the six Disney World parks and the Fort Wilderness Lodge (with its rugged terrain) is perhaps the least traversable of the complex's hotels, the entire Disney World complex is renowned as a family-oriented establishment. For all the wonder and delight they inspire in adults, children lack a certain degree of caution that would prevent them from exuberantly approaching Segways (which most have never seen up close) and inadvertently slipping their tiny toes beneath the wheels. Further, allowing untrained drivers to navigate Segways on the same classically crowded walkways as toddlers people with sight, hearing or mental disabilities makes the devices a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Obviously, disabled persons wish and deserve to be treated and have access to attractions like everyone else, as the common parlance of the Americans with Disabilities Act requires. But some have pointed out that allowing Segway rentals to anyone who enters the parks could pose a problem of identification. It is easier for the rushed and overloaded Disney personnel to distinguish between park attendees who legitimately need enhanced accommodation due to real disabilities and those who are attempting to abuse the system and take advantage of these accommodations for the disabled if the people who actually require assistance are in wheelchairs. [5] Again the classic problem of prevention versus accommodation arises: by banning the vehicles altogether, the company is effectively avoiding a litany of lawsuits and complaints about fully-functioning people clogging the system, but at the expense of allowing increased enjoyment by people who legitimately need the assistance.

In protest, three individuals filed a lawsuit seeking to force a revocation of Disney World?s decision, alleging that the ban violates the Americans with Disabilities Act. Last month, however, United States District Judge Gregory A. Presnell dismissed the suit from the District Court for the Middle District of Florida, agreeing with Disney?s contention that none of the parties had any standing to do so. Although all three rely on Segways for mobility due to either Lou Gehrig?s disease, multiple sclerosis or an amputated foot, none of them demonstrated any intention to visit the resort in the near future. [6]

Obviously, such people should have the right to use any device that could render their visits to the parks more enjoyable and provide them with the same experience as non-disabled patrons. But dismissal for a lack of standing is an absolutely legitimate reason to dismiss a suit. The three parties may have filed on behalf of others like them who wish to visit the parks, but the already excessively clogged court systems are not designed to accommodate or provide for possibilities or potential problems. They exist to fix the current wrongs and injustices that parties experience. If season passholders or habitual frequenters of the World wish to file a suit, they would certainly be entitled to court time and most definitely have a case to merit, at the very least, a court proceeding. But just as society disapproves those who live vicariously, the courts frown on those who complain vicariously. The ruling is not indicative of prejudice against the disabled and does not enjoin others in the same position from filing a similar suit, if indeed they intend to visit the parks. It is simply an example of the courts following their standard protocol and dismissing suits that do not involve people with immediate, legitimate, personal claims from taking court time from those who do.