jcgoble3

Thanks, Jesse. PM me if you need my number, or you can probably get it from Brad if he still has it from Haunt opening night last year. I'm going out for fast food lunch here within the next few minutes, but should be available to talk after about 2:30 today.

LongLiveTheSmurfRide has a great "About Me" section on his profile page.

Muppet and GYK, thanks for the tips so far. I'll look over that stuff over the next few days. I know. I figure he'll see this and respond before too long. I might poke him on Facebook as well.

As you can see in my signature, I have a huge trip to Orlando coming up in August and September. I'll be looking for a lot of tips as we get closer, but right now I want to focus on dining options at Disney World, where I will be from Sept. 3 (Labor Day) to Sept. 9, leaving on the morning on Sept. 10. I have purchased the Deluxe Dining Plan and would like to make the most of it, but I simply don't know what's available, what the can't-miss places are, etc. I'm willing to try almost anything, but it has to be on the Dining Plan. For those of you who have been to Disney World, what are your recommendations and suggestions? I'm flying blind here and would really appreciate any advice you can give me.

Paging BavarianBeatle, paging BavarianBeatle...

^Hence why I pay no attention to the Golden Ticket Awards.

I might be interested in that. Or just widen the existing stairs slightly (which wouldn't even be necessary on the Zoom Flume) and add a railing splitting the stairs. One side of the railing is for the regular line, the other is for Splash Lane. (And yes, I do kinda like that name, but then again, I like "Dragster H2O" and I know what you guys think of that. So don't ask me to name anything. )

Everyone has the right to occasional stupidity. Just as long as it remains purely occasional. On a more serious note, I like how the employees responded to the storm damage, getting you guys out and being right on top of getting rid of that big limb.

Me too. Apparently when it gets this hot, people would rather stay inside in the air conditioning.

I thought the plan was a Haunt attraction "for years to come"...

Yes! I would have LOVED to ride Vortex by myself!

Good point. Actually, I think it would be best if we just drop it and agree to disagree here. I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other anytime soon, and I think we both have better things to do than continue to argue a matter that neither of us is an expert in (at least I assume Brown isn't a lawyer).

And to respond to your edit: As to the first, I'm more inclined to trust Wikipedia, where the collaborative editing process helps weed out errors, over any user-generated answers site, where a single person answers a question and many people don't bother to look at answered questions. As to the second, a close reading reveals that it is discussing motions at the trial itself and, more importantly, is dealing with criminal cases, not civil cases.

First, that's not a civil lawsuit being discussed, but rather a traffic ticket. Second, my interpretation of what was asked there is that the (short) period for discovery was over and that the motion was made at the trial right before it starts, which backs up rather than refuting my previous post.

Uh... what?

The page linked in post #9 above indicates that participants can purchase discounted tickets to KI. And besides, we're dealing with 10- to 14-year-olds here. They're going to want to relax and have fun when not playing, and KI is the obvious choice. Also, don't forget that there are teams coming from as far away as Georgia for this tournament. The kids will want to see the local attractions, and that naturally includes KI.

In any lawsuit, sufficient evidence is necessary to even get close to a jury trial, and all evidence needs to be presented to the defense prior to said trial. Any defense attorney will file a motion to dismiss due to insufficient evidence, and at the motion hearing (only in front of a judge) if there is insufficient evidence presented, the lawsuit will be quickly thrown out without the defense having to "defend" itself. If motion hearings did not happen for these types of things, out judicial system would be backed up 100x worse than it presently is. A "motion to dismiss" is an assertion that the claim for which the plaintiff is suing is not one that the law provides a remedy for (e.g. failure of the defendant to greet the plaintiff on the street). If the plaintiff makes a claim for which remedy is available under the law (e.g. injury), then a motion to dismiss will be declined. What you refer to as a "motion to dismiss due to insufficient evidence" is what is technically called a "motion for summary judgment". According to Wikipedia (I know, not the best source) a motion for summary judgment "is usually only made when sufficient time for discovering all evidence has expired." I interpret that to mean that such a motion must wait until after the discovery phase is concluded. Therefore, abuse of the discovery process to run up the defendant's costs (as I mentioned earlier) can still force the defendant to settle before a motion for summary judgment becomes possible without having sufficient evidence to actually win. The defendant would have to absorb all of the costs associated with fully completing discovery in order to move for summary judgment and may not be able to afford that, while a structured settlement early on in the process may be far easier on the defendant's wallet.

Where is Silver Dollar City? I've never heard of it before I saw this thread.

^^That was just my understanding of how the process works. I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV. I'll concede that some evidence is needed, but I'll maintain that you don't need sufficient evidence to actually prove your case to the jury to drag things out and force a settlement; you just need enough to answer discovery requests and keep the case from getting thrown out. As for the attorney willing to take the case, I'm well aware that it would have to be the "worst of the bottom feeders", as you put it. The fact is they're out there, and people looking to file frivolous lawsuits will find them.

Fixed.

And then what happens if they then reach capacity again, shut down the gates again, and one of those guests that left comes back with his handstamp? Is he not allowed back in? If so, what if he had something in a locker that he needs to retrieve?

^And for the accusing attorney, the solution to making an income is simple: require your client to pay the costs as they are incurred or even in advance. A plaintiff gambling on making a quick buck off a frivolous lawsuit will pay those costs because the potential settlement can easily surpass what they paid in legal fees. As for evidence, none is required to be presented at the initial filing of the lawsuit, only a list of allegations, and as for the discovery process, that can be easily abused to force the defendant to settle without actually presenting a valid case.

^It can be expensive just to fight a lawsuit even when you know you're in the clear, and some people may bank on that, hoping that the defendant will offer them a settlement (possibly "without admission of wrongdoing") to avoid the expense of going to trial. In that way, they can still "win" even if their case is shaky at best, and the park loses money either way (either by the settlement or by lawyer expenses).

^They could, probably among other things, sue for emotional distress. No telling how much they can get from that claim. Also, even sadder is that there are people and lawyers who will try to pull a fast one on the park by claiming there was some more serious internal injury that KI's medics didn't find. Or there could even be such an injury; depending on how hard his head smacked the restraint, it's at least plausible there could have been a concussion, and a six-year-old might not know to tell the medics about such symptoms. Whiplash might also be possible (I'm not a doctor and so don't know the details of what that would entail). As for defensive riding, that statement from the safety guide is exactly that. If you have to be instructed to ride in any certain position other than basic position which the restraint forces you into (i.e. sitting in most cases), then IMO you are being instructed to ride defensively. And a lawyer can plausibly say that a six-year-old isn't old enough to understand that and therefore can't be at fault. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is simply that in this day and age, many people will sue for anything at all and quite possibly for far more than you expect them to. I'm not such a person, but the park needs to be careful here, lest a kid of such a sue-happy parent get hurt.

Ah. This tournament and Spirit Song on the same weekend and right before the 4th of July? Man is KI going to be packed. I wouldn't be surprised if they hit capacity on Saturday.