Cortney Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 http://www.kentucky.com/471/story/122285.html Just found this about the girl who's feet were severed, parents are sueing on behalf of the lil girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnarkiller Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 haha six flags suck they should tear it down make a new Kings Island. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kimmy Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 haha six flags suck they should tear it down make a new Kings Island. I don't think anything about this situation warrants a "haha." It's awful such a thing happend to that girl. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 haha six flags suck they should tear it down make a new Kings Island. What do you base your statement one? Why would there be a need to build a new Kings Island. Have you read the TOS as far as posting? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying eagles Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 All rides at every park are inspected every morning before the park is even open, and even the park has to record that they inspected the ride. what strange about it is that every ticket and season pass that i have ever had says ALL SEASON PASS OR TICKET HOLDERS ASSUMS ALL RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF PROPERTY. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLorean Rider Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Yea but i think its going to be difficult to convince anyone that this was the girls fault. Six Flags isnt going to be able to weasle their way out of this. Personally I dont really want to ever ride a Gen II drop ride again. Partly because I think they're rather anticlimatic, and now because of this. Anyone ever ridden Pitfall at Kennywood? Dont get me wrong, I love Kennywood, but some of their maintainence of rides seems a bit sketchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzarley Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I'm always quick to criticize frivolous lawsuits...but this certainly isn't one. Cases like this are why our civil legal system exists to begin with. Six Flags would be very wise to settle this one out of court, then sue Intamin to try to recoup some of their costs. How do you think a jury will look at a little girl who was doing nothing more than enjoying a day at a theme park and got her feet cut off? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeLorean Rider Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 This is pretty severe, this girl will have incredible difficulty walking again, just because she made the decision to try and enjoy the superman tower of power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
teenageninja Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 It does say on the back that you assume liability for injury, but it would be poor of Six Flags not to reimburse the family for the cost of her surgeries and such, and would make them seem like a poor business. That is not the bad PR that Six Flags wants or needs right now. I think they'll probably settle out of court for a pretty good amount of money. Thank god that girl survived though, that is what is important. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 All rides at every park are inspected every morning before the park is even open, and even the park has to record that they inspected the ride. what strange about it is that every ticket and season pass that i have ever had says ALL SEASON PASS OR TICKET HOLDERS ASSUMS ALL RISK OF PERSONAL INJURY AND LOSS OF PROPERTY. You must be joking. Do you actually think that just because it has some words like this on anything it absolves the owner/ operator of negligence? Or another question; If one of your appendages happened do be ripped off, FROM RIDING AN INSPECTED RIDE, you would just walk (sorry you can't walk anymore), have someone push you away and the park would not be held responsible because you assumed personal risk? On top of that; If those words meant anything, why do parks pay for insurance when, in your idea of what is right, they cannot be held responsible due to some words on a ticket? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 I'm always quick to criticize frivolous lawsuits...but this certainly isn't one. Cases like this are why our civil legal system exists to begin with. Six Flags would be very wise to settle this one out of court, then sue Intamin to try to recoup some of their costs. How do you think a jury will look at a little girl who was doing nothing more than enjoying a day at a theme park and got her feet cut off? I'd imagine this one is going to settle out of court. Six Flags insurance carrier will then likely subrogate against Intamin's insurance carrier for a portion of the damages. You're good jz. <G> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JjAmSaOnN Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 ^ Brown that is exactly correct. Just because they put it in writing like that does not mean they can still be neglegent. Really the only reason they put this on is for things like, you get sick on the ride or you injure your back, or anything of normal riding circumstances. There are probably at least 50 people a day that get bruised or cut, minor of course, but because of lawsuits today, they have to state this or people would think they can sue left and right. This is not a frivolous lawsuit by any means. The girl has every right to compensation and Six Flags is certainly liable even if it was an accident. Even if it passes inspection, it doesn't excuse an accident to this degree. You can site poor inspection, but even if they did everything humanly possible in inspection, accidents can still happen. That is the risk Six Flags takes by operating any ride, and that is why they have to have insurance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welchce Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Six Flags would be very wise to settle this one out of court, then sue Intamin to try to recoup some of their costs. How can they sue Intamin? In case you didn't know or didn't read this... "The manufacturer of the Superman Tower of Power says it did not supply the cable that sliced off a girl's feet at Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom on Thursday. The ride's cables and wire ropes would have had the need for replacement at least several times since the ride opened in 1995, but those replacement parts did not come from Intamin. The company says it has not supplied parts for the ride for 13 years." I think SFKK is responsible for all damages in this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzarley Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Six Flags would be very wise to settle this one out of court, then sue Intamin to try to recoup some of their costs. How can they sue Intamin? In case you didn't know or didn't read this... "The manufacturer of the Superman Tower of Power says it did not supply the cable that sliced off a girl's feet at Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom on Thursday. The ride's cables and wire ropes would have had the need for replacement at least several times since the ride opened in 1995, but those replacement parts did not come from Intamin. The company says it has not supplied parts for the ride for 13 years." I think SFKK is responsible for all damages in this case. Yeah, you're right...I hadn't read that mentioned before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 ^ I am not sure that SF could make a case against Intamin. Unless SF could prove that Intamin did not supply enough information as to the safety inspection, or the correct maintenance for the ride, I would have to think that after a couple years, or 13 years in this case, the manufacturer could not be held responsible. But the statment that Intamin came out with about not suppling the cable is laughable. Intamin did not manufacture the cable themselves, they purchased it from a supplier. How many possible suppliers could their be in the world for the exact cable specifications/ dimensions needed for this ride? Chances are, SF purchased the cable from the same supplier that Intamin uses. That statement was only to try and deflect any possible finger pointing away from Intamin. And as most enthusiasts know, Intamin does not have a very good track record when it comes to safety. The company needs to try and look as good as possible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Six Flags would be very wise to settle this one out of court, then sue Intamin to try to recoup some of their costs. How can they sue Intamin? In case you didn't know or didn't read this... "The manufacturer of the Superman Tower of Power says it did not supply the cable that sliced off a girl's feet at Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom on Thursday. The ride's cables and wire ropes would have had the need for replacement at least several times since the ride opened in 1995, but those replacement parts did not come from Intamin. The company says it has not supplied parts for the ride for 13 years." I think SFKK is responsible for all damages in this case. Yeah, you're right...I hadn't read that mentioned before. That will not limit Intamin's culpability or liability, per sey. They are the maufacturers of the ride. As it is wise and prudent for Six Flag's carrier to settle this claim out of court; it also will be wise for Intamin to negotiate damages for which Six Flags's carrier will ultimately pay. Just a way of the world boys and girls. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lin Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 This is by no means a "let's just sue to get some cash" lawsuit. That poor girl was just sitting there, obeying the rules, minding her own business when this happened. Those words on the ticket really mean nothing beyond some minor injury due to your own stupidity as people who are severely hurt because of breaking the rules will often get compensated. Though I will say, the part about her ability to earn money being impaired is a bit....over the top. There's plenty of people who are missing one or both of their feet and still earn a nice living. Heck, they even run track in the Special Olympics. So...i don't agree with that. And truthfully, if the cables didn't come from the manufacturer, they are in no way liable for this. ESP since, shoot don't remember where I read it, that they specifically tell them to get parts from THEM, as most manufacturers will say. I can't see them giving into SF's suit so easily. Guess we'll find out soon enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 This is by no means a "let's just sue to get some cash" lawsuit. That poor girl was just sitting there, obeying the rules, minding her own business when this happened. Those words on the ticket really mean nothing beyond some minor injury due to your own stupidity as people who are severely hurt because of breaking the rules will often get compensated. Though I will say, the part about her ability to earn money being impaired is a bit....over the top. There's plenty of people who are missing one or both of their feet and still earn a nice living. Heck, they even run track in the Special Olympics. So...i don't agree with that. And truthfully, if the cables didn't come from the manufacturer, they are in no way liable for this. ESP since, shoot don't remember where I read it, that they specifically tell them to get parts from THEM, as most manufacturers will say. I can't see them giving into SF's suit so easily. Guess we'll find out soon enough. - True the disclaimer has very little to no affect. - False the affect that this will have on future ability to earn or the amount to earn will place value on the loss - The fact that she "can" do other jobs has no bearing on the fact that this will have an affect on value - False - Whether the cables came from Intiman or Another Manufacturer - Intamin still has an exposure - There exposure may be limited by any instructions that may have been given, but an exposure they still do have. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lin Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Well, those are, as mine, just your opinions. Which I don't agree with. Trying to seek damages for that type of "loss" in this instance is, I'm sorry, utterly ridiculous. She wasn't maimed to the extent of say....not being able move. The fact remains, millions of people confined to wheelchairs are able to work and make just as much as a person that walks. Granting damages for that would be like you going back and seeking damages from a gun company if someone shot you in the leg. The other things, yes, by all means. I'm not saying they don't deserve it or trying to place value on her injury, just simply that doing that is not the just thing. And again, their ride or not, if the cables didn't come from them, they ARE NOT liable. For all we know, SF could have went and got a used cable from a completely different ride. Does that make it Intiman's fault? No. The cable was faulty, not the ride. Thus, there is not any liability. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changmanky Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 what will end up happening is SF will settle the case out of court. then they will meet with Intamin to discuss if its in theirt best interest to fix the ride so it doesnt happen again or get rid of it for something else. If i know the personnel that runs the park--Superman/tower of Power/Hellevator is gone. Honestly, It was one of the first drop rides that Intamin made. its old and outdated. get rid of it for something far more safer, better and something that the SFKK maintenance people can handle. Hell ,they could'nt keep Vampire or Starchaser going and they got rid of them. they were old and barely ran when they were working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Changmanky Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Intamin should'nt or won't claim responsibility. but Intamin stands behind all of their rides. even though it wasnt their fault, they will help SF anyway they can so it doesnt tarnish their reputation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 This may or may not explain in part why the suit: http://www.lex18.com/Global/story.asp?S=6787267&nav=EQlp Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jzarley Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 Well, those are, as mine, just your opinions. Which I don't agree with.. Actually, in Woofer's case it goes a little beyond just opinion, since he's actually in the insurance industry and routinely works with these types of claim settlements. Of course, if you have a similar legal or insurance background, I'm sure your expertise and experience with the nuances of these types of cases would be appreciated... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted July 13, 2007 Share Posted July 13, 2007 No lawyer worth his or her fee would ever make flat-out statements that so and so is or is not liable. Only a court of law can make that determination. Parties can and often do agree to settle, to avoid the expense and pain of litigation (and yes, it is a pain). But no one can predict with certainty what a court or jury (or arbitrator, as the case may be) will do. That's fools' work. That being said, I agree with Woofer, this is a case that Six Flags will want to settle as quickly as possible, and seek some compensation from INTAMIN. There are many ways INTAMIN could be held liable for at least a portion of the damages. And INTAMIN will probably realize that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scooby_Doo Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Who didnt see this coming from a mile away when I seen this on the news everyone around me screamed LAWSUIT but still I do feel sorry for that little girl but I know every park has to inspect and walk coasters tracks before the parks even open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Well, those are, as mine, just your opinions. Which I don't agree with. Trying to seek damages for that type of "loss" in this instance is, I'm sorry, utterly ridiculous. She wasn't maimed to the extent of say....not being able move. The fact remains, millions of people confined to wheelchairs are able to work and make just as much as a person that walks. Granting damages for that would be like you going back and seeking damages from a gun company if someone shot you in the leg. The other things, yes, by all means. I'm not saying they don't deserve it or trying to place value on her injury, just simply that doing that is not the just thing. And again, their ride or not, if the cables didn't come from them, they ARE NOT liable. For all we know, SF could have went and got a used cable from a completely different ride. Does that make it Intiman's fault? No. The cable was faulty, not the ride. Thus, there is not any liability. Mine are not just opinions. Mine are handling claims of various forms and shapes over the last 8 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 Well, those are, as mine, just your opinions. Which I don't agree with.. Actually, in Woofer's case it goes a little beyond just opinion, since he's actually in the insurance industry and routinely works with these types of claim settlements. Of course, if you have a similar legal or insurance background, I'm sure your expertise and experience with the nuances of these types of cases would be appreciated... Thank You jz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 14, 2007 Share Posted July 14, 2007 No lawyer worth his or her fee would ever make flat-out statements that so and so is or is not liable. Only a court of law can make that determination. Parties can and often do agree to settle, to avoid the expense and pain of litigation (and yes, it is a pain). But no one can predict with certainty what a court or jury (or arbitrator, as the case may be) will do. That's fools' work. That being said, I agree with Woofer, this is a case that Six Flags will want to settle as quickly as possible, and seek some compensation from INTAMIN. There are many ways INTAMIN could be held liable for at least a portion of the damages. And INTAMIN will probably realize that. Ahhhhhh, it's good to be backed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Well, those are, as mine, just your opinions. Which I don't agree with. Trying to seek damages for that type of "loss" in this instance is, I'm sorry, utterly ridiculous. You are correct. Everyone has opinions. Even cold- hearted idiots. It's too bad some people with opinions just can't seem to grasp the ramifications of this incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welchce Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 That being said, I agree with Woofer, this is a case that Six Flags will want to settle as quickly as possible, and seek some compensation from INTAMIN. There are many ways INTAMIN could be held liable for at least a portion of the damages. And INTAMIN will probably realize that. I would like to hear some of these ways that INTAMIN could be held liable. The way I see it, this would be like a person getting injured while driving a car because the tires are faulty. The person has had the car for a while and has obviously bought tires other than what came from the manufacturer of the car. The person sues the tire company because the tires were faulty. But I have never heard of a tire company (of person) going to the manufacturer of the car for compensation when it was the tire. Maybe I just don't see the entire picture. 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.