darque Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I was just telling some co-workers about the guy who sued Kings Island way back in 2001, because he wasn't warned that going into a parkinglot during a thunderstorm could be dangerous. His car blew up or something while standing beside it. I can't find anything on the net that talks about the outcome. Does anyone know anything about it? I figure this has to be the best place to look. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Um maybe that guy got what he deserved, he was blown up also, some people are just plain ole greedy and stupid! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Butcher Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Here is a good article about our Boy Shawn Perkins who was struck by the lightening! http://www.cincypost.com/2003/06/17/suit061703.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Um maybe that guy got what he deserved, he was blown up also, some people are just plain ole greedy and stupid! Now I don't think he should have sued PKI, but saying he got what he deserved is terrible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darque Posted April 13, 2007 Author Share Posted April 13, 2007 Yeah, I found the article, I was just curious if anyone knows if he won or not... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Sometimes life isn't pretty! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoddaH1994 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I want to say it was thrown out of court... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bear295 Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Yeah, I found the article, I was just curious if anyone knows if he won or not... The case was transferred from Hamilton County Common Pleas to Warren County Common Pleas. According to the online Clerk of Courts for Warren County: "Disposition: DISMISSED PRIOR TO TRIAL/SETTLED". If it was settled, there is no way of finding out what the settlement was unless someone knows Shawn Perkins and he is willing to divulge. Usually though, settlements bind that neither party can divulge the terms of the settlement. My guess is, KI settled for an out-of-court amount to avoid legal fees and bad publicity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Butcher Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 I think that it was dismissed prior to when it was settled! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Butcher Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Here you guys go... http://www.courtclerk.org/case_summary.asp...ber=A%200304502 and when it moved to Warren County... http://www.co.warren.oh.us/clerkofcourt/se...5CRCD=03CV61452 and the appeal... http://www.co.warren.oh.us/clerkofcourt/se...RCD=2004-01-005 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 Family sues Kings Island Father struck by lightning -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Kimball Perry Post staff reporter Yes, Cincinnati lawyer Drake Ebner admits, cynics will believe he is suing Paramount's Kings Island because the amusement park makes lots of money. And yes, the cynics will wonder snidely how the park can be held responsible for Ebner's client being struck by lightning on the park grounds. "That would be a lot of people's knee-jerk reaction in these types of situations, frankly," Ebner acknowledged. But they should hold the park accountable, for not telling his client and thousands of others about an impending lightning storm, Edner said Monday. "They could have told the people not to go to their cars, which are large metal objects that can attract lightning." He filed the suit late last week in Hamilton County Common Pleas Court on behalf of Shawn Perkins, of Laurel, Ind., Perkins' wife and two children. The family was at the park June 12, 2001, unaware of an approaching electrical storm, the suit notes. When they went to the parking lot, Perkins was struck by lightning, suffering significant brain damage. "The car he (Perkins) was touching was blown apart," Ebner said. Park spokesman Bill Mefford said Monday he'd not seen the suit and needed time to research it before he could comment. Ebner noted that the law is clear -- the park has "a duty of ordinary care" to warn visitors about such dangers. Even if park officials weren't aware of the impending storm, Ebner insisted, they should have been and taken steps to protect patrons. The suit accuses the park of negligence by not warning park-goers. "We believe that the weather system was predictable. Therefore, the risk and injury to Mr. Perkins was predictable and therefore avoidable," Ebner said. Tornado warnings are routinely issued, he noted, and there are services the park can subscribe to that will warn it of imminent severe weather that could harm patrons. "If you are a multimillion-dollar business, wouldn't you (pay for such a service)?" Ebner asked. "I'm just not mentioning that (the park earns millions) for the concept of deep pockets for the suit." Instead, Ebner insists, the big bucks the park rakes in should make it able to afford steps to better protect its patrons. "Think of the amount of money Kings Island spends to get people to the park," he said. "Safety is not common sense. You and I don't run amusement parks. Because they are in the unique situation they are in -- that says they need to do things that you and I don't do." There is a similar suit, he added, in which a theater owner ignored tornado warnings and was successfully sued by movie-goers who weren't told of the warning and were injured when they walked out of the theater into the storm. Publication Date: 06-17-200 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Seed Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Lawyers......that's about all that needs to be said. Even if he was "warned," he would have still sued. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalefan Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Lawyers need to take notice at the Duke case when suing now. I have been seeing alot now that they are in it for the money and not the outcome. This lighting case should of been ruled by the parks insurance company a act of god and not parks fault. Even with the storm half of all park goers go to there cars to leave or take cover. I have seen this. They wouldnt be able to tell or predict a lighting strike even with all the dopplers and stuff. People need to take notice that when suing the park you are not only hurting the parks but the people who go to because when you sue for alot of money we as park goers have to pay alot more when they raise prices all over. Nuff said lol. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Butcher Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 I personally dont blame the guy or his family, I really have no clue what I or my family would do in that situation and whether or not we would have pursued the same course. It is extremely hard to say. I for one would not go touching metal in a storm, but your car is supposed to be the safest place in lightning, so I don't know. Its funny, you can always trash lawyers...until you need one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoddaH1994 Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 ^ So if you were walking out of your best friend's house, or your grandmother's house and got struck by lightning would you sue them too? It's easy to think of large corperations as being faceless, but it is NOT their responsibility to hold your hand and tell you what's safe or not when common sense should be at bat. I highly doubt that it was a bright sunny day and all of a sudden his car got struck out of nowhere. It was probably pouring down raining with lighting all over the place. He made a poor decision and paid the price... then tried to get Paramount Parks to pay the price for him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 OK, on the surface, this seems like a frivolous lawsuit. But there are probably many reasons that the suit came about. One very possible reason is medical expenses. Chances are his insurance (if he had insurance) did not cover all his expenses. His insurance company could have also forced him to sue PKI so their expenses could be covered. Also- PKI has insurance for this type of things, just like some of you that have home owner's or renters insurance. Please let me make this very clear- I would hate to sue KI, but if it came down to my family's well being or suing KI, the choice is easy. What is the lesser of two evils- suing the park you love, or losing your family's house? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 First of all, yes family comes first. Second of all KI's insurance would have paid this probably and his insurance did not make him sue anyone. Maybe if it was his house insurance but it wasnt. It would have been his medical insurance. It was a act of mother nature and its a pitty someone like this sued someone like KI. It was not their fault what so ever. If someone came to my house in a storm and soon as they got out of their car lightning struck it would not be my fault. Just cause they have money does not make it right to sue them, there is other means to recover and you would not loose your house. This I know for a fact! So that is not an issue whatsoever! I have read different articles on the net about this case. He claims it was KI's fault they did not warn him it was dangerous to be out in a storm moreless. KI paid unspecified damages on this suit just to make it go away. But you better believe me if someone sued me personaly over something so stupid I would turn around and take them to the cleaners. Number 7: Shawn Perkins of Laurel, Ind. Perkins was hit by lightning in the parking lot Paramount's Kings Island amusement park in Mason, Ohio. A classic "act of God", right? No, says Perkins' lawyer. "That would be a lot of people's knee-jerk reaction in these types of situations." The lawyer has filed suit against the amuse- ment park asking unspecified damages, arguing the park should have "warned" people not to be outside during a thunder- storm. OMG the park should have warned him it was dangerous. I am pretty sure every adult knows this. Just a waste of time and stupidity of this guy to do this. Like i said before the guy wanted payed! wasnt cause he was loosing his house sheeh come on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Slow down cheetah! There is no reason to get upset. I am speculating just like everyone else here. We are just taking the information that was handed to us from the media and interpreting it the way we want to. The article never mentioned any type of money that was being involved. Perhaps the lawsuit was only for medical expenses, and not for the usual "pain and suffering" payday. He also did not make the staments himself, the lawyer did. And as most, if not all, lawyers will find an arguement about anything. Laywers also make things sound worse than it really is. We don't know if the guy was looking for a payday or not. There are two sides of every story, I just try and keep an open mind for both. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 I am not upset one bit so keep your cheeta comments to your self please.... I also agree everyone has an opinion. however mine is as stated. For this guy to sue over an act of mother nature was absured. Maybe there was a reason he did it but the lawyer said the park should have warned him... That is just retarded in my opinion. And yes they settled out of court on this just so KI could probably move on. Maybe today when I go get my season pass this weekend I will fall on the slippery pavement then sue them cause they didnt tell me it was slippery when wet while raining. There very well could have been other factors in this guys story and why he sued them however I bet there wasnt much more except greed! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Not to mention there are countless law suits filed against KI every year. For example there are over 200 cases on file just in warren county in the court of common pleas. not to mention also all the cases in the county court. Yes, there may be many of these that are real and deserved lawsuits. But i betcha anything most of them are just people wanting a payday and KI mostly just settles on these to make them go away. It is hard to tell cause most of them have been nolled or closed in the acres system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 I am not upset one bit so keep your cheeta comments to your self please.... ! Sorry, I forgot the Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Three things in passing: Insurance companies do NOT decide fault or who is to blame....they do decide if they are going to pay a claim or not...and when they decide not to pay a claim, oftentimes a suit results. MOST insurance policies exclude what are called "acts of God." If the then existing Paramount Parks coverage did so, this may not have been a covered incident. In other words, the insurance company could have denied the act was covered. Lastly, where has anyone seen that the plaintiff was paid? The journal entries listed here are consistent with a dismissal, which was appealed, and affirmed. Settlements are NOT normally appealed. Also, if there HAD been a verdict for the plaintiff, it would have received even more publicity, and set a precedent. A settlement normally does include terms that it will not be disclosed. There are also other permutations that could have applied here, including some small settlement to drop the appeal...but the record is NOT consistent with that...it shows the court below's decision was affirmed. A settlement is not a decision of the court below. A dismissal IS. To sum up, the plaintiff appears to have most likely received nothing. Nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kwindshawne Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Nauseating-that is all I have to say Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 http://www.co.warren.oh.us/clerkofcourt/se...ORDER+BY+A5BHTX It is too bad this does not give more information about the details of the cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Three things in passing: Insurance companies do NOT decide fault or who is to blame....they do decide if they are going to pay a claim or not...and when they decide not to pay a claim, oftentimes a suit results. MOST insurance policies exclude what are called "acts of God." If the then existing Paramount Parks coverage did so, this may not have been a covered incident. In other words, the insurance company could have denied the act was covered. Lastly, where has anyone seen that the plaintiff was paid? The journal entries listed here are consistent with a dismissal, which was appealed, and affirmed. Settlements are NOT normally appealed. Also, if there HAD been a verdict for the plaintiff, it would have received even more publicity, and set a precedent. A settlement normally does include terms that it will not be disclosed. There are also other permutations that could have applied here, including some small settlement to drop the appeal...but the record is NOT consistent with that...it shows the court below's decision was affirmed. A settlement is not a decision of the court below. A dismissal IS. To sum up, the plaintiff appears to have most likely received nothing. Nothing at all. Correct to a point. Insurance companies do decide liability. As a claims rep I do it all day long. Now if there is a disagreement; it often can result in either Arbitration, Mediation or Court. The majority of claims never are filed in court. In fact, very few are ever litigated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 More correctly, insurance companies decide IN THEIR OPINION if their policy holder is apt to be found liable or not. Courts and other judicial systems may determine liability, but insurance companies most decidedly do NOT. No one gave them that right, and they don't have it. But they can certainly decide whether or not they intend to pay a claim, and if so, for how much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Picard Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 I think that what happens with the SOB accident will be more interesting than this lightening strike law suit. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 I think that what happens with the SOB accident will be more interesting than this lightening strike law suit. Settle out of court. The less press coverage the better. I can't see how the park could even fight a lawsuit. What would their arguement be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 More correctly, insurance companies decide IN THEIR OPINION if their policy holder is apt to be found liable or not. Courts and other judicial systems may determine liability, but insurance companies most decidedly do NOT. No one gave them that right, and they don't have it. But they can certainly decide whether or not they intend to pay a claim, and if so, for how much. Sorry to disagree with you Interp and you know I rarely do, but Insurance Companies are vested wtih the responsiblity to determine liability and to protect the interests of their insureds. To do anything other would be to act in bad faith. Most states have very strict laws regarding acting in bad faith and opens the insurance company up to very hefty fines that are often based upon company profits and earnings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darque Posted April 14, 2007 Author Share Posted April 14, 2007 Thank-you very much. At least it clears it up somewhat. My 2 Cents over the whole thing is that unless the dark clouds rushed in to cover up the Clear Blue Sky & he got zapped by lightening all within 3 seconds...then sorry. This was a garbage Lawsuit. I don't know what the weather was like, but the odds of less-then-dark clouds and this guy getting hit by the first bolt o' lightening from the storm is highly unlikely. Like others have mentioned, I'll bet the medical bills were really high, and he figured...why not sue? That doesn't make it right, but I guess it's worth a shot. Thanks again all! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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.