Jump to content

KINGS ISLAND TRIAL updates and discussion


The Interpreter
 Share

Recommended Posts

well sadly its always an accident or a freak accident that can doom a ride... but it also leads to better ride designs in the future..... and hip injuries can develop..... sometimes a bone does not break but can bruise... it may take a few days for symptoms to appear, then awkward limping can result to permanent damage.... and then hip replacement.... I am not a doctor but just have been hurt a few times and your body over compensates... so its possible.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 184
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But that misses the point. This accident was NOT the result of something that should have been inspected. As stated in the state report, there was a design flaw that ultimately led to the failure. No degree of inspection thoroughness could have prevented this unforeseen accident from occurring. And I believe that KI and amusement parks in general are extremely critical with ensuring the safety of their rides for the general public. Their reputation with the general public depends on offering a fun yet safe environment.

Rides that are deemed unsafe or have extensive maintenance issues are generally removed. Look at Flight Commander. The result of the accident back in 1991 was the result, in part of a design flaw. No degree of inspection on Kings Island`s part would have likely prevented that incident. While a design adjustment was made to the ride to prevent similar incidents from occurring, the ride had a short tenure at the park after the accident.

That beam did not just break due to one particular train going over the track, but after numerous trains.

And you said it yourself, the accident was NOT the result of something that should have been inspected. Well obviously it should be inspected since it did fail.

The park should have exceeded the inspection regulations, not meet the inspection regulations.

No degree of inspection on Kings Island`s part would have likely prevented that incident.

I personally do not believe this to be true. And this is the reason why:

The amusement park giant on Wednesday sued the three companies involved in building the $15 million coaster in Warren County Court, claiming the design contained insufficient support structures and other de fects that required Paramount Parks Inc. to hire other workers to correct. Paramount has asked for unspecified damages.
http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/11/2...sland_sues.html

They sued over design flaws in 2000 centering around "insufficient support structures". If they can do an investigation and sue for a design flaw, they can perform adequate safety checks.

Now I am not saying KI is unsafe. But my point is, SoB is a unique ride that has had numerous issues and for that reason it should also have unique safety inspections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By all indications from the first day's reporting, it was an open trial (which nearly all trials in this country are). A settlement would not be conducted in public view, however, but the fact the matter was over would have been announced. It is also possible the media reporter(s) covering this simply had other priorities or did not work Friday.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

wow

"Finke also rolled footage of a private investigator’s surreptitious film of Wright in May, showing her shopping and putting her 5-year-old son into her car, her left leg lifting up as she buckled him in. She also was seen carrying a box of what appears to be groceries into a house. In one clip is looked like she may be wearing healed sandals."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gotta love the media. Healed sandals. I wonder what illness they had before they were healed....

See also the references to tort reform in the article, and the limits on compensation if she should win. . .

yea , 250,000.00

dang, she gets that for exaggerating her injuries. guess we will see monday

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do note that claims made in a lawsuit may establish one side of a case. And the limit is not that simple, and is a limit, not an entitlement. Even if a jury verdict is reached and is for the plaintiff, the park can and may appeal. Even if the park wins and the jury gives the plaintiff nothing, the plaintiff can and may appeal. This could go on for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do note that claims made in a lawsuit may establish one side of a case. And the limit is not that simple, and is a limit, not an entitlement. Even if a jury verdict is reached and is for the plaintiff, the park can and may appeal. Even if the park wins and the jury gives the plaintiff nothing, the plaintiff can and may appeal. This could go on for years.

if the jury decides to award only medical bills paid and no pain and suffering based on the video evidence. she can appeal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^Correct. But there is only so much you can feasibly do to "inspect" a ride. I'm not sure who decides what needs to be inspected at what intervals (i'm assuming the ride designer or the state of Ohio), but they have to essentially pick their battles in that regard. It's just not practical to check the torque on every bolt, or check every support board one-by-one every day.

What is a practical during an inspection, and what is not is not the issue here IMO. It is the parks responsibility to be sure that rides are safe. If that means checking every single bolt, then so be it. The other option is to close the ride down, which seems inevitable at this point.

Inspections are the result of what some piece of equipment does, what it means to the ride, ride safety, the probability of failure, the failure modes, etc. Engineers are responsible for recommending what should be inspected based on as many factors as possible. To say that every single bolt should be checked is ludicrous. Such a ride would never be open, it would always be under inspection. Following inspection policies that are above and beyond those which the strictest governing body requires should be applauded, but it's simply beyond realistic to check everything. Under your logic, should the park then inspect the structures of all its coasters to prevent something like this happening? I don't think so. Does Enterprise take each rental car entirely apart and inspect it to ensure absolutely safe mechanical operation before renting it out to another customer? I doubt it.

Should this woman be compensated? Yes, but reasonably. Unfortunately, ambulance-chasing lawyers compete to promise you the world. If you give a mouse a cookie, it'll ask for a glass of milk. I never want to be involved in an amusement park accident, but I just can't see myself demanding anything past reasonable compensation if I was. I hope the result of this trial is a deal that helps this woman live as normal a life as she would have led if she never visited the park.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the whole KI defense of the case is from one video? Saying she was carrying a bag of groceries, no idea what was in there-could have been cereal and bread, and she lifted her leg up while buckling in her son? Some people can still try to live a normal life 2 years after an injury. The fact remains she may be in pain and she has learned to "deal with the pain." So if I am wrong the lady's lawyer have an "orthopedic surgeon who no longer performs surgery but is an expert on the discipline" while KI has "a former emergency room doctor who works with various agencies on determining when injured people are able to return to work." This does not seem to be a very good person to have in your corner. Thats similar to have a transmission problem on your care and having the tire guy saying you should be fine........

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inspections are the result of what some piece of equipment does, what it means to the ride, ride safety, the probability of failure, the failure modes, etc. Engineers are responsible for recommending what should be inspected based on as many factors as possible. To say that every single bolt should be checked is ludicrous. Such a ride would never be open, it would always be under inspection. Following inspection policies that are above and beyond those which the strictest governing body requires should be applauded, but it's simply beyond realistic to check everything. Under your logic, should the park then inspect the structures of all its coasters to prevent something like this happening? I don't think so. Does Enterprise take each rental car entirely apart and inspect it to ensure absolutely safe mechanical operation before renting it out to another customer? I doubt it.

Should this woman be compensated? Yes, but reasonably. Unfortunately, ambulance-chasing lawyers compete to promise you the world. If you give a mouse a cookie, it'll ask for a glass of milk. I never want to be involved in an amusement park accident, but I just can't see myself demanding anything past reasonable compensation if I was. I hope the result of this trial is a deal that helps this woman live as normal a life as she would have led if she never visited the park.

You really need to read the whole thread, you missed this:

Now I am not saying KI is unsafe. But my point is, SoB is a unique ride that has had numerous issues and for that reason it should also have unique safety inspections.

While you think it is "ludicrous" to check every single bolt, I think it is "ludicrous" to not guarantee ride safety. And if the only way to guarantee safety is to go over everything with a fine tooth comb, then so be it.

And since you brought up Enterprise Rent-a-Car, do they have a car that has a poor history like SoB? If so, then yes, it should be inspected daily, or taken off the road.

Engineers are responsible for recommending what should be inspected based on as many factors as possible.

What engineers? The same ones that KI sued back in 2000? Yeah, that gives me warm fuzzy feelings to use the same engineers that built SoB to what it has become and have them come up with a safety procedure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the whole KI defense of the case is from one video? Saying she was carrying a bag of groceries, no idea what was in there-could have been cereal and bread, and she lifted her leg up while buckling in her son?

It's a good thing that the maximum amount she can receive in $250,000.

Because I tell you what, if the park does not believe she should be able to do those everyday things, she deserves more. Now if the video showed her doing extracurricular activites like: volleyball, basketball, running, excercising then they would have good evidence. But if that's the best they got with a PI taking hidden video, it is not much.

I think the park lost the case right with their own video. Like Dr. Paley said:

After examining Wright, X-rays and medical records, he said her condition is worsening.

Paley had Wright lie on a courtroom table so he could perform an examination. As he manipulated her right leg, to test her hip, she grimaced and looked about ready to cry. When she returned to the plaintiff’s table she was gripping the arms of her chair in apparent pain and took some Motrin.

Video can't determine the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the whole KI defense of the case is from one video? Saying she was carrying a bag of groceries, no idea what was in there-could have been cereal and bread, and she lifted her leg up while buckling in her son? Some people can still try to live a normal life 2 years after an injury. The fact remains she may be in pain and she has learned to "deal with the pain." So if I am wrong the lady's lawyer have an "orthopedic surgeon who no longer performs surgery but is an expert on the discipline" while KI has "a former emergency room doctor who works with various agencies on determining when injured people are able to return to work." This does not seem to be a very good person to have in your corner. Thats similar to have a transmission problem on your care and having the tire guy saying you should be fine........

good thing she wasnt jogging, running, doing the stanky leg, jumping jacks, or arobics that day.....if that was on video she would have been torn apart in the court room.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the whole KI defense of the case is from one video? Saying she was carrying a bag of groceries, no idea what was in there-could have been cereal and bread, and she lifted her leg up while buckling in her son? Some people can still try to live a normal life 2 years after an injury. The fact remains she may be in pain and she has learned to "deal with the pain." So if I am wrong the lady's lawyer have an "orthopedic surgeon who no longer performs surgery but is an expert on the discipline" while KI has "a former emergency room doctor who works with various agencies on determining when injured people are able to return to work." This does not seem to be a very good person to have in your corner. Thats similar to have a transmission problem on your care and having the tire guy saying you should be fine........

good thing she wasnt jogging, running, doing the stanky leg, jumping jacks, or arobics that day.....if that was on video she would have been torn apart in the court room.

well some orthopedic physicians suggest walking to keep joints movable, and some places have under water jogging/swimming as post operation rehab..... Now I have no idea what the stanky leg is.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shark, the stanky leg is a dance move.

Also, realize that this woman is suing under the pretense that her injury is causing her not to be able to perform everyday tasks (thus, the pain and suffering part.) What KI proved with that video is that her hip is not acting as though it needs a transplant. Example: My father is in dire need of a hip transplant, but is inelegible for one for another 5 years. He has to walk around with a cane, cannot stand on one leg, and struggles getting out of chairs, up stairs, into cars, and carrying things. The video KI showed proves that this woman is exaggerating her injuries. Even I can make myself seem like I am in pain on cue, so her being examined means nothing to me.

Also, the testimony from KI's other witness is to dispute the claim that she is having difficulties at her part time job at Campbells Soup Factory. By bringing in an expert at determining when someone is ready to return to work, and having that person dispute the fact that she cannot keep her job, again its forcing the jury to see that she is exaggerating her injuries.

One more point, you cannot predict the future when it comes to joints. I have a 25% arthritic knee at age of 24, and I know eventually I will need a knee replacement, however my doc could not give me a date, or how long I would need between replacements. So this woman saying "I have to have 3 in my lifetime," is a bunch of bull.

If I was on the jury, I would award her for initial cost for the hospital not to exceed $50,000 in medical (which she would have to produce all records for,) and that would be it.

Then I would see if the judge could rule that the jury gets $12,000 to split evenly for listening to this woman and her lawyer tell stories in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shark, the stanky leg is a dance move.

Also, realize that this woman is suing under the pretense that her injury is causing her not to be able to perform everyday tasks (thus, the pain and suffering part.) What KI proved with that video is that her hip is not acting as though it needs a transplant. Example: My father is in dire need of a hip transplant, but is inelegible for one for another 5 years. He has to walk around with a cane, cannot stand on one leg, and struggles getting out of chairs, up stairs, into cars, and carrying things. The video KI showed proves that this woman is exaggerating her injuries. Even I can make myself seem like I am in pain on cue, so her being examined means nothing to me.

Also, the testimony from KI's other witness is to dispute the claim that she is having difficulties at her part time job at Campbells Soup Factory. By bringing in an expert at determining when someone is ready to return to work, and having that person dispute the fact that she cannot keep her job, again its forcing the jury to see that she is exaggerating her injuries.

One more point, you cannot predict the future when it comes to joints. I have a 25% arthritic knee at age of 24, and I know eventually I will need a knee replacement, however my doc could not give me a date, or how long I would need between replacements. So this woman saying "I have to have 3 in my lifetime," is a bunch of bull.

If I was on the jury, I would award her for initial cost for the hospital not to exceed $50,000 in medical (which she would have to produce all records for,) and that would be it.

Then I would see if the judge could rule that the jury gets $12,000 to split evenly for listening to this woman and her lawyer tell stories in court.

I understand what you are saying, but there is a small problem with only one part. Lets say, just for a case of argument, the lady does have some sort of degrading hip injury. This injury was caused by the ride, and in an extension the park. How is it fair for the lady to only get initial costs of the hospital visits and not further medical damage caused by the ride/park. I understand if she is faking, and as they say it will all come out in the wash, she deserves nothing, but if she is in as much pain as she says she is then the park should be held responsible to the fullest extent possible. Now some doctors can say "if you have to have your hip replaced now, the average life span of a joint is X amount of years. They can then take the expected life expectancy of this woman and subtract the life expectancy of the hip joint and get an average guess on how many hip replacements she may need. Think brakes on a car. Life expectancy is on average 30-45 thousand miles. But if you brake hard then they wear out much quicker, brake softer last much longer.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shark, the stanky leg is a dance move.

Also, realize that this woman is suing under the pretense that her injury is causing her not to be able to perform everyday tasks (thus, the pain and suffering part.) What KI proved with that video is that her hip is not acting as though it needs a transplant. Example: My father is in dire need of a hip transplant, but is inelegible for one for another 5 years. He has to walk around with a cane, cannot stand on one leg, and struggles getting out of chairs, up stairs, into cars, and carrying things. The video KI showed proves that this woman is exaggerating her injuries. Even I can make myself seem like I am in pain on cue, so her being examined means nothing to me.

Also, the testimony from KI's other witness is to dispute the claim that she is having difficulties at her part time job at Campbells Soup Factory. By bringing in an expert at determining when someone is ready to return to work, and having that person dispute the fact that she cannot keep her job, again its forcing the jury to see that she is exaggerating her injuries.

One more point, you cannot predict the future when it comes to joints. I have a 25% arthritic knee at age of 24, and I know eventually I will need a knee replacement, however my doc could not give me a date, or how long I would need between replacements. So this woman saying "I have to have 3 in my lifetime," is a bunch of bull.

If I was on the jury, I would award her for initial cost for the hospital not to exceed $50,000 in medical (which she would have to produce all records for,) and that would be it.

Then I would see if the judge could rule that the jury gets $12,000 to split evenly for listening to this woman and her lawyer tell stories in court.

I understand what you are saying, but there is a small problem with only one part. Lets say, just for a case of argument, the lady does have some sort of degrading hip injury. This injury was caused by the ride, and in an extension the park. How is it fair for the lady to only get initial costs of the hospital visits and not further medical damage caused by the ride/park. I understand if she is faking, and as they say it will all come out in the wash, she deserves nothing, but if she is in as much pain as she says she is then the park should be held responsible to the fullest extent possible. Now some doctors can say "if you have to have your hip replaced now, the average life span of a joint is X amount of years. They can then take the expected life expectancy of this woman and subtract the life expectancy of the hip joint and get an average guess on how many hip replacements she may need. Think brakes on a car. Life expectancy is on average 30-45 thousand miles. But if you brake hard then they wear out much quicker, brake softer last much longer.....

what were the 26 other ppls injuries?? Also didnt that lady have a prior workers comp case for a work related injury? i heard a few co workers talking about the case at work and over heard them talking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Shark, the stanky leg is a dance move.

Also, realize that this woman is suing under the pretense that her injury is causing her not to be able to perform everyday tasks (thus, the pain and suffering part.) What KI proved with that video is that her hip is not acting as though it needs a transplant. Example: My father is in dire need of a hip transplant, but is inelegible for one for another 5 years. He has to walk around with a cane, cannot stand on one leg, and struggles getting out of chairs, up stairs, into cars, and carrying things. The video KI showed proves that this woman is exaggerating her injuries. Even I can make myself seem like I am in pain on cue, so her being examined means nothing to me.

Also, the testimony from KI's other witness is to dispute the claim that she is having difficulties at her part time job at Campbells Soup Factory. By bringing in an expert at determining when someone is ready to return to work, and having that person dispute the fact that she cannot keep her job, again its forcing the jury to see that she is exaggerating her injuries.

One more point, you cannot predict the future when it comes to joints. I have a 25% arthritic knee at age of 24, and I know eventually I will need a knee replacement, however my doc could not give me a date, or how long I would need between replacements. So this woman saying "I have to have 3 in my lifetime," is a bunch of bull.

If I was on the jury, I would award her for initial cost for the hospital not to exceed $50,000 in medical (which she would have to produce all records for,) and that would be it.

Then I would see if the judge could rule that the jury gets $12,000 to split evenly for listening to this woman and her lawyer tell stories in court.

I understand what you are saying, but there is a small problem with only one part. Lets say, just for a case of argument, the lady does have some sort of degrading hip injury. This injury was caused by the ride, and in an extension the park. How is it fair for the lady to only get initial costs of the hospital visits and not further medical damage caused by the ride/park. I understand if she is faking, and as they say it will all come out in the wash, she deserves nothing, but if she is in as much pain as she says she is then the park should be held responsible to the fullest extent possible. Now some doctors can say "if you have to have your hip replaced now, the average life span of a joint is X amount of years. They can then take the expected life expectancy of this woman and subtract the life expectancy of the hip joint and get an average guess on how many hip replacements she may need. Think brakes on a car. Life expectancy is on average 30-45 thousand miles. But if you brake hard then they wear out much quicker, brake softer last much longer.....

what were the 26 other ppls injuries?? Also didnt that lady have a prior workers comp case for a work related injury? i heard a few co workers talking about the case at work and over heard them talking about it.

Hey I am not defending her... just giving an opposing view point, trying to keep things equal... Now if she has a current workers comp case going, well thats not good for her. How can you prove one injury was from what cause, work or ride. About the other injuries.... weird things happen. You could be in a car crash driver and have no injuries while your passenger in the front seat has three broken ribs, but the 2 passengers in the back have head injuries.... so who knows....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe this was not settled before going to court.

Either this attorney has very poor client control or the park was not wise.

Either way, this is a matter that should have never reached the court.

Or Cedar Fair has a policy that it does not settle any case that it feels is not totally meritorious. Or the insurance company, and not Cedar Fair, is calling the shots. In bad publicity alone, the park may end up paying far more than any recovery the plaintiff may get. On the other hand, if the plaintiff loses her case, the remaining case from the noted 2006 incident may very quickly settle...or not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can't believe this was not settled before going to court.

Either this attorney has very poor client control or the park was not wise.

Either way, this is a matter that should have never reached the court.

Or Cedar Fair has a policy that it does not settle any case that it feels is not totally meritorious. Or the insurance company, and not Cedar Fair, is calling the shots. In bad publicity alone, the park may end up paying far more than any recovery the plaintiff may get. On the other hand, if the plaintiff loses her case, the remaining case from the noted 2006 incident may very quickly settle...or not.

I've not been able to track down who insures CF. I can't imagine they are self insured. (That would be very unwise.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

According to this article, Cedar Fair at the time of its writing, was indeed self insured, at least as to a portion of its liability?

http://www.allbusiness.com/business-financ...e/220454-1.html

Page 10:

...For example, Cedar Fair, LP, owner of 11 amusement parks and waterparks throughout the country, has a self-insurance reserve of $11.3 million. But the $822 million company has the financial ability to do so....

Interesting, as the article on page also says on page 9:

...In 2002, a New York jury awarded $10 million to the family of a 14-year-old boy who died during a school field trip to Allentown's Dorney Park and Wildwater Kingdom....

This would mean the company's insurance policy has a very large deductible, if it is not totally self insured. In addition, note this article precedes the Paramount Parks acquisition. I cannot imagine the lenders would be happy with anything less than totally adequate coverage.

See also this interesting article about Cedar Point and other Sandusky attractions and defending claims:

http://www.sanduskyregister.com/articles/2...ront/385667.txt

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...