The Interpreter Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Some (of many, many) ways INTAMIN *COULD* be held liable: * If it could be proven that a design defect allowed this incident to happen and that it was foreseeable that it could, but designing and building the ride as it did was done for cost reasons. Especially if there were a smoking gun memo that said "If a cable frays, under some circumstances, though it is highly unlikely, a cable could wrap around a passenger's legs and the results could be disastrous. This is highly unlikely, and the fix to make this impossible would add to the cost of the ride, meaning at least some parks would not buy it." * If it could be proven that the manufacturer knew how long cables could reasonably be expected to last, and at first devised a maintenance schedule, but then for marketing reasons, slightly, ever so slightly lengthened the intervals for replacement, and the old limits were just slightly exceeded at a certain midwest Six Flags park. * If it could be shown there was in existence a safety interlock system that could shut down the ride without ride operator intervention when a cable snapped, and INTAMIN knew that and chose not to use it, again for cost reasons.... Now, mind you, none of those suppositions appear to be true at this point. But, they cannot be totally discounted. Products liability law does not have a statute of limitations. Just because the ride was as old as it was/is, doesn't mean INTAMIN can't be held liable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Darn.... Too Fast for me Interp. Ya see boys and girls, it's all a bit more difficult than taking a cursory look and saying "Intamin is free and clear." They are not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
welchce Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 Well that sounds like a lot of ifs. I guess we'll just have to wait around and see 'if' any of them are true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 And here in the real world we settle "if's" all day long. It's all about lowest ultimate cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaggy Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 I reside and work in Louisville with someone who is good friends/neighbors with the Lasitters. My co-worker's daughter goes to school with Kaitlyn. He recently had a conversation with Kaitlyn's father. Obviously Kaitlyn's family cannot discuss details, but did indicate that the amputation happened after the carriage dropped. Now, that totally goes against what the callers were saying on the 911 call. Kaitlyn was not the person originally intended to sit in that specific seat. It's been confirmed in the local news that another rider backed out because they didn't want to sit on the "end." Kaitlyn and her family had apparently ridden just prior and had gotten back in line for a second ride when the accident occurred. Kaitlyn volunteered to trade places with a girl that was afraid of the outside seat. (The paragraph that follows is second hand info obtained by associates I know that are affiliated with the fairgrounds.) I have heard that when the ride reached the bottom, Kaitlyn was in shock. A nurse in line immediately jumped in, called 911 was instructed on what to do. Oddly enough, she was not bleeding profusely. However the nurse, at the instruction of the 911 operator, acted quickly to help prevent Kaitlyn from bleeding to death. There's floating rumors among Fairgrounds personnell (SFKK is on KFEC property) that once the investigation is completed the park plans on scrapping the ride. That would coincide with the statement of concern that the family has issued (referenced in the article in this thread) that the park will remove or destroy the ride or mechanical parts associated with it before the lawsuit is settled. I digress... Irregardless of who is at fault... SF or Intamin etc etc etc, the Lasitters are struggling teribly with bills etc. The mother has lost her job (she was the main breadwinner) and the father is trying to maintain an income. Kaitlyn was flown to Vanderbuilt (Nashville) after the accident and the parents wracked up hospital and travel bills. There are various benefits and fundraising events being planned to assist the family. The horrible thing about all of this is that it's not only crippled Kaitlyn, but crippled her family's finacial well being as well. I'm a layman who knows little to nothing about such insurance claims. But as such I am concerned to think of the time and anguish the family will have to endure in order to receive compensation of all of this. A lawsuit or settlement could take years. I hope for the family's sake that some form of retribution comes quickly to relieve their financial burdens. BTW, apparently Kaitlyn has handled this whole thing like a champ. Her parents are obviously distraught. But her Dad said that Kaitlyn has prooved to him how strong and wonderful a person she is. I have a feeling Kaitlyn is not the kind of girl to let something like this hold her back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 It's quite likely that the ride could be ordered to be maintained as evidence through any litigation process.... ie - no destruction of the ride until it's over. And true, there are very few situations in which an insurer will agree to pay or compensate for medical bill pre settlment. Medical providers generally do not take "I'm waiting for a settlment" in order to satisfy their medical bills. It's likely that the family will be suffering (unfortunately) for some time into the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoddaH1994 Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 I suppose we see so many cases of death an injury from people just not following the rules that we loose site of things when innocent people get really hurt. No one should have to fear for their lives or safety at a park so whoever is responsible for such a thing. Well, they should pay.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JjAmSaOnN Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 He recently had a conversation with Kaitlyn's father. Obviously Kaitlyn's family cannot discuss details, but did indicate that the amputation happened after the carriage dropped. Now, that totally goes against what the callers were saying on the 911 call. maybe the cable did wrap around her legs on the way up, and from a distance may have seemed to amputate her ankles then, but in reality were amputated after the drop with the cable still wrapped around her ankles. Awful story. I would hope SF does do a presettlement. I would suspect they will considering they know they are ultimately liable in direct relation to her accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flying eagles Posted July 16, 2007 Share Posted July 16, 2007 I see it this way It don't matter how safe the ride is, and you could inspect the ride all you want and replace all the parts all you want and over time somthing will fail. hate to say that but its true. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hauntguy Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Well, put it like this... In the haunted attraction industry, any attraction can simply post a sign saying they are not responsible for injury that WILL get out of almost anything scott free!!! There is a case from CA were a family was sueing a haunted attraction because the father had fallen down off of a raised platform and caused him to break his leg. Now, the judge ruled in favor of the haunted attraction because the man went in it with full knowledge/awareness that he was putting himself in a situation were he MAY be injured! It's like this with EVERY haunted attraction... but attractions nationwide all have the same fear; FIRE!! Just put yourself in this situation: -In the middle of a DARK MAZE... all constructed of WOOD! -Thick FOG and moisture from PNEUMATIC ANIMATRONICS -ELECTRONICS from lights, props, sounds, etc. All this spells FIRE! That's why attractions (even EVERY FF house at KI) literally is "hosed down" with fire retardent! So just be carefull, we never know what COULD happen! -Hauntguy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Posting a sign disclaiming responsibility will not be effective in most states. It means simply that a sign has been posted. One of my favorites is the ones at shopping centers and discount stores that say "Not responsible for baskart damage." Yeah, right. And auto shops have ones that say "Not responsible for fire or theft." Any attorney worth his or her fee can almost always get past those signs (and any disclaimers printed on the backs of tickets). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dane Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Posting a sign that says that the attraction is not responsible for injury's is not a get out of lawsuit free card. The injured party will typically always win or get a settlement if they can prove that the attraction did not take the adequate steps to prevent injury. Which by the disorienting effects that make up specifically haunted houses, would be very easy to argue. Disclaimers of liability have also been found to be against public policy as the operator, not the guests, is in the best position to take steps to lessen the possibility of injuries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upstop Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 With Six Flags being the family park that they are, they should have paid all medical costs immediately and given the family whatever they wanted or needed, however it is apparent that since they waited they would rather fight the issue. I hope the family gets every dollar coming to them for pain, suffering and future rehabilitation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollerNut Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Carowinds normally changes the Drop Zone cables twice a season. Which means Hellivator's should have been changes 26 times. I think Six Flags should just pay the medical bills for the injury and hand the little girl a lifetime season pass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 And yet Carowinds reported finding a thin cable on Drop Zone during its inspection? http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9924 Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollerNut Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 Exactly why I say normally. It is still surprise to me that Carowinds had a thin cable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted July 17, 2007 Share Posted July 17, 2007 I think Six Flags should just pay the medical bills for the injury and hand the little girl a lifetime season pass. SF paying for the medical bills is a definite. Lifetime season pass? I am going to shoot from the hip and guess that her family and friends will not be making plans on being guests of SF anytime soon. 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.