Ok, there are too many people to reply to, so I’m just going to make this its own comment. Loss of consortium is a long recognized and valid tort. It doesn’t just refer to sex, but it does include that. And it’s a real damage. If you suffer such a debilitating injury that you can no longer function sexually, that’s a real loss to both members of a couple and they deserve compensation for that loss. I understand everyone finds it odd, but it really isn’t if you stop and think about it. It’s not like only the husband is asking for compensation here. The wife is as well. And their lawyers are going to ask for all the damages they can, as they should.
Damn right. That bothers me as well. She didn’t get a wedgie, dammit. That’s an offensive headline.
ETA: I’m taggin @jlw about the headline, because the more I think about this, the more referring to her injuries as a wedgie is pissing me off.
Yeah, BB and Jason playing right into Disney’s PR/damage control-hands by keeping on calling it a “wedgie” in this case. Just like that woman who “only” spilled some hot coffee on her…
Thank you! Disney is trying to minimize this incident by calling it a wedgie, so people will laugh at the plaintiff. They should just settle, because $50,000 is not a huge amount, but the downplaying makes me think they are going to fight. Does any of this fall under Ron DeSantis’s new regime? Because HE certainly doesn’t care who gets hurt.
No, DeathSantis and his lick-spittles has nothing to do with Disney’s normal business affairs. This falls under Disney corporate, not Reedy Creek/WTF ever Ronnie changed the name to.
FWIW the term “wedgie” seems to come from the court complaint, not from Disney. Obviously the press isn’t helping by focusing on that part instead of the serious injury that ensued.
It is absolutely a real tort. The problem I have is that petition only argues loss of consortium for the man. A whole list of physical injuries and emotional/mental anguish for the injured woman. But nothing about her loss of sexual pleasure and closeness.
Just his.
Given how the attorney did list everything else she has suffered- why not list her loss of consortium? I haven’t read any loss of consortium cases since law school but I do remember all the text book cases were only the men’s loss.
Edits: damn you autoincorrect
Second edit: @danimagoo is correct. Loss of consortium is a tort for the spouse of the injured party.
Her losses are direct. Her actual injuries, and mental anguish/distress, and her loss of sexual function is included in that. Loss of consortium is always a loss suffered by someone other than the injured party. It’s just the definition of consortium. So the injured party can never have loss of consortium. And consortium isn’t, as I said earlier, just about sex. It covers all the intangible benefits of a close relationship. I think a few states even allow other family members besides the spouse to claim loss of consortium, but mostly it’s just the spouse. And it’s the spouse, by the way, not just a husband. So if the husband had been injured in this case, the wife would have a claim for loss of consortium. This isn’t a bad or unfair thing.
I meant all of the serious injuries, including loss of consortium. Perforated bowels and such are not the results of a “wedgie”. By no means did I mean to downplay loss of sexual enjoyment as less serious.
That is correct, but it’s important to note that the complaint is using that term to specifically talk about the flaw in the ride. It is not characterizing what happened to the woman here as a wedgie. Her injuries were caused by clothing violently being pulled up against and into her body, similar to a wedgie, but the complaint makes it clear that what happened to her was much more severe than a wedgie. So I stand by my objection to characterizing what happened to her as a wedgie. It minimizes the incident, as @BakerB above pointed out, in a similar way to the infamous McDonald’s coffee case, even though the minimization is coming from the media and not Disney.
(excerpt) The survey respondents included singles, people in a committed relationship, and married couples. Interestingly, the responses were nearly identical on every question among respondents, regardless of relationship status. …humor can be a powerful aphrodisiac! 87% of men and 74% of women say that humorous flirtation can get them in the mood for sex.
I’ve have colleagues who have worked on oil platforms at sea. Before they were allowed to travel to a platform, they had to complete their HUET (Helicopter Underwater Escape Training), which also included Platform Escape: how to hit the water really hard from a great height and live.
The water impact is pretty simple: remain vertical during the fall, if possible, fold your arms across your chest and hold your upper arms, and cross your legs. During the course, they emphasize that last point, and describe what bowel perforation injuries do.
