momtojoshcanpark Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Post can be removed, person told me misunderstood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iChase Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I think you read this wrong. No one under 18 can operate rides, not ride them. AP Article Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momtojoshcanpark Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 Someone told me that, I didn't read it. They emailed me about it. They are from Ky themselves. Let me look it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iChase Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 All I did was a quick Google, there's several articles talking about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erosarrow05 Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Had it been your own child, perhaps your opinion would be somewhat different. There is a difference between getting "injured" and having a life altering and potentially fatal accident. It sounds as though you are lumping the people who get scrapes and cuts that sue, with this family. Furthermore, if by "taking SFKK for a ride" you mean, ensuring that this young lady has the finances available to cover all her medical expenses and pain/suffering, then that is a ride id be taking SFKK for as well. Until I have my feet severed by a dull steel cable I wont be passing judgement because I have no idea what the girl felt and boycotting seems somewhat silly... just my 2 cents... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hendrick Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 You didn't by change get the email yesterday, did you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12309 Sigh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momtojoshcanpark Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 Had it been your own child, perhaps your opinion would be somewhat different. There is a difference between getting "injured" and having a life altering and potentially fatal accident. It sounds as though you are lumping the people who get scrapes and cuts that sue, with this family. Furthermore, if by "taking SFKK for a ride" you mean, ensuring that this young lady has the finances available to cover all her medical expenses and pain/suffering, then that is a ride id be taking SFKK for as well. Until I have my feet severed by a dull steel cable I wont be passing judgement because I have no idea what the girl felt just my 2 cents... No, my opinion would not change. I did not say what you are saying, I said I DO think KK should pay for anything she needs from here on out, I do not believe they should be held liable. It is a risk we all take everytime we get on a ride. I also do believe KK was wrong about how they went about things regarding when it happened, after it happened and etc. Someone from KK should of been at the hospital asking what they can do, instead they blew them off which is wrong. But again, in my opinion I do not think they should be made rich from this and they probably will be. I do believe they are entitle to something just not millions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momtojoshcanpark Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 You didn't by change get the email yesterday, did you? No, got it around 5:30, I just read an article and she didn't understand what they meant, I told her all is fine you just as a teen can't get a job there operating thrill rides. Which I don't see how the operator had anything to do with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Momtojoshcanpark: and just how much do you think would make this young girl whole? How much would we have to pay you to willingly give up your feet? And how can Kentucky Kingdom be responsible but not liable. Do you even know what liable means? How could the young girl have prevented the accident? What could Kentucky Kingdom have done? What superior knowledge do you have about this incident such that you know who should pay what? I, for one, will let the legal system take its course.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 You didn't by change get the email yesterday, did you? No, got it around 5:30, I just read an article and she didn't understand what they meant, I told her all is fine you just as a teen can't get a job there operating thrill rides. Which I don't see how the operator had anything to do with it. When was it written? Yesterday was April Fool's Day, by the way... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momtojoshcanpark Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 No, she said she just saw it on the news, do you not understand when I said she didn't understand what it meant??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momtojoshcanpark Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 Momtojoshcanpark: and just how much do you think would make this young girl whole? How much would we have to pay you to willingly give up your feet? And how can Kentucky Kingdom be responsible but not liable. Do you even know what liable means? How could the young girl have prevented the accident? What could Kentucky Kingdom have done? What superior knowledge do you have about this incident such that you know who should pay what? I, for one, will let the legal system take its course.... No amount of money will ever make her whole. Do you not understand when you step on any ride you are putting your life in danger? Do you continue to ride? Do you allow yourself to put your childrens lives in danger, if you ride then the answer is yes. Each one of us ever day do something to put our lives in danger but do we sue everyone? No because it isn't appropriate. When a plane crashes, it is someone elses fault, you sue, but you are the one that got on that plane. It is the same thing. What happens when you are driving on an interstate and you lose controll of your car and you have a limb amputated, are you going to sue the state?? Will you win, no! Why, because you were the one that put yourself in that car and you are the one that has to take the chance of something going wrong. Have you not heard when it is your time to die, you die. Maybe this is just what was meant for her life, yes, that sounds grim, but the way it is. I am disabled, I am not whole, did I sue the homeowner that caused it, no, because it was an accident. Has it broke us, yes it has. But an accident is an accident, this is the samething that happened on that ride that day. KK did not mean for anyone to get hurt, Kaitlyn did not mean to get hurt and her parents did not mean to put her in harms way, but they did. When my 19 year old brother was killed in the Vietnam war did my parents sue Vietnam or the United States Army? No, why because they all knew you step into that world and you may get injured, well he got more than injured he got KILLED! When you go to a store and slip and fall due to water or something, yes, then the store is liable, because that could of been prevented. But a breaking cable, well it is just unknown, have you heard of a freak accident?? That is what it was, something that does not happen all the time. No ride is immune to 24/7 safety, period. And yes, I do know what liable means. And no I do not feel they are liable. The only way the girl could of prevented it is to not go on it. Tell me how KK could have prevented it. If they were truely at fault I feel the test would of came back by now of negligence on their part, it hasn't yet. I just don't believe the family should get millions off of it, it was an ACCIDENT, KK did not do it on purpose. As I said earlier, I do feel Kaitly should not have to worry about any medical bills, from here on out. Nor should she worrry about any other finances that will come along with this. But no amount of money will put her other foot on, no amount of money will fix the problem. Nothing will ever make her whole again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 If I were a plaintiff's attorney in these types of cases, I'd pray to the good Lord that people like you never served on a jury of any case I tried. And if I were insurance counsel or the defendant's counsel, I'd pray that you did... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iChase Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I can understand what you were saying. But speaking from more of a legal point of view they didn't sign a waiver to release the park and did the park do all that it could do to prevent the accident? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 And if they HAD signed a waiver, it would doubtless be held void as against public policy. Again, as between the park and the riders, who best can ensure the safety of the rides? And do we, as public policy, want to allow parks to do less than their level best to ensure riders' safety? I think not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 This topic is like religion and politics. No one is gonna be satisfied in the end it is useless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 One thing is for sure...that young woman and her family would doubtless trade every penny they may receive for the opportunity not to have had her on that ride that morning...a ride they trusted to be safe. Accidents DO happen. Insurance is carried for that very reason. Parks can spread that cost to all guests...it is unfair to expect an injured guest to bear the burden alone of having been injured by a park ride through no fault of their own. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Especially the injuries she received. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iChase Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Absolutely not. For the record, I was just playing devil's advocate. The park is completely at fault for the accident. People go to amusement parks trusting that they will leave in the same condition as which they entered. If we didn't get on these rides then there would be no reason for an amusement park. The park exists to amuse and to do so safely. The park holds more responsibility here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momtojoshcanpark Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 I can understand what you were saying. But speaking from more of a legal point of view they didn't sign a waiver to release the park and did the park do all that it could do to prevent the accident? As of right now, it seems to be that the park has done all they could do. It has been almost a year and it still has not come back to be their fault. And I feel that since Six Flags is such a large corporation they are going to do anything they can to prevent losing money. You find these types of things at carnivals and things like that. Not companies that intend to stay in business and I am sure Six Flags does everything they feel is most important to prevent any disasters happening. That is why this has always been called a Fluke, because it is so rare amoung places like this, Kings Island and Disney. Disney even had a child die on a ride. Was it deemed their fault, no it wasn't. Come to find out the child had a heart condition that the family never knew of. And yes, I do understand the 2 are totally different, but if you put yourself in harms way, you can't expect to sue. I just feel if you put yourself in front of a semi and the semi runs you down the semi is not responsible. Samething here, you sit in that sit and you waive all rights to any lawsuits above medical needs, comfort needs. An accident on a ride should never make you a millionaire. And no I am not saying it may not take a million for kaitlyns bills, and needs, KK should help out with that and not think anything of it and anything else she needs to live a comfortable life, but should not make her a millionaire over that cost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I love arguing all sides of an issue. How do we know the park was totally at fault? Hellevator aka Superman: Tower of Power was a prototype. It could be a drop ride of later design would not have produced these injuries under similar circumstances. There could be many other factors involved here, not just any negligence by the park. From manufacturer's liability to perhaps even the state's failure to adequately inspect. We just don't know all the facts yet, and probably never will. The Commonwealth's report on the incident has not yet issued. It is expected soon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momtojoshcanpark Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 I love arguing all sides of an issue. How do we know the park was totally at fault? Hellevator aka Superman: Tower of Power was a prototype. It could be a drop ride of later design would not have produced these injuries under similar circumstances. There could be many other factors involved here, not just any negligence by the park. From manufacturer's liability to perhaps even the state's failure to adequately inspect. We just don't know all the facts yet, and probably never will. The Commonwealth's report on the incident has not yet issued. It is expected soon. In my opinion, the only thing that could of prevented this is not to allow the feet to hang freely. That is just an accident in the making as it was. I ride rides like that, but I feel that those are endangering more than car rides. Would a "car" type ride prevented this? Yes, so then maybe the maker of the ride should be held liable, not the rider, not the park that bought the ride. If you want to look at it like that, it was a faulty design. So sue the manufacturer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iChase Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I can understand what you were saying. But speaking from more of a legal point of view they didn't sign a waiver to release the park and did the park do all that it could do to prevent the accident? Disney even had a child die on a ride. Was it deemed their fault, no it wasn't. Come to find out the child had a heart condition that the family never knew of. And yes, I do understand the 2 are totally different, but if you put yourself in harms way, you can't expect to sue. I just feel if you put yourself in front of a semi and the semi runs you down the semi is not responsible. Samething here, you sit in that sit and you waive all rights to any lawsuits above medical needs, comfort needs. An accident on a ride should never make you a millionaire. And no I am not saying it may not take a million for kaitlyns bills, and needs, KK should help out with that and not think anything of it and anything else she needs to live a comfortable life, but should not make her a millionaire over that cost. The child's situation couldn't be helped. They were unaware of the issue and Disney was just running the ride as they always do. There's no reason to sue. The semi issue is a common sense thing though. That's an accident on the trucker's fault, the moron jumped out in front of the semi. When we get on a ride we expect not to die. Sure there's always a chance but that chance is extremely slim. In RE to Interp: It very well may be a manufacturer's issue. KK most likely did everything right. And as you said, it was a prototype. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
momtojoshcanpark Posted April 2, 2008 Author Share Posted April 2, 2008 The semi issue is a common sense thing though. That's an accident on the trucker's fault, the moron jumped out in front of the semi. When we get on a ride we expect not to die. Sure there's always a chance but that chance is extremely slim. So is getting on a ride! Common sense, you know something can go wrong at ANY TIME. If you put yourself outthere for danger you take a chance to get hurt. And it is the same thing. If you get on a plane, if you ride in car, if you walk down the street. It is a chance you take and you are sure you will come out safe, but why assume that??? Anything can go wrong with the best of intentions and that is why I do not feel that they are liable. They had my kids safety in mind, they had her safety in mind as well as everyone else on the ride that day. It was an accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iChase Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 It was an accident but if I were her parents I would be darned if I was going to pay for those hospital bills. The park has the money and the park holds more responsibility in this case. I'm saying sue for the hospital bills, don't sue for any of that mental damage crap. Get the money that's necessary, not frivolous money. They're shouldn't sue for profit but for their inconveniences. So why do amusement parks exist? Why do they purchase insurance? They exist for us to go enjoy ourselves on their rides with the expectation that their rides will not maim us. They have insurance in case of this kind of accident. It shows that they're taking the liability. That insurance is there to provide the money needed to the injured parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 Anytime you mix flesh with very fast moving metal there is a chance you could die for sure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 iChase....she also has lost very significant future income potential, and HAS had to endure incredible pain and suffering. You are saying none of that should be compensated? Can you just imagine how much that young lady's life has changed (and that of her parents?)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 I have not followed up on this story. Has the girl lost both feet or just one? I feel so bad for her and her family! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purplehaze Posted April 2, 2008 Share Posted April 2, 2008 The semi issue is a common sense thing though. That's an accident on the trucker's fault, the moron jumped out in front of the semi. When we get on a ride we expect not to die. Sure there's always a chance but that chance is extremely slim. So is getting on a ride! Common sense, you know something can go wrong at ANY TIME. If you put yourself outthere for danger you take a chance to get hurt. And it is the same thing. If you get on a plane, if you ride in car, if you walk down the street. It is a chance you take and you are sure you will come out safe, but why assume that??? Anything can go wrong with the best of intentions and that is why I do not feel that they are liable. They had my kids safety in mind, they had her safety in mind as well as everyone else on the ride that day. It was an accident. let that happen to your kids and see if you dont feel different. I have 3 kids and if anything happened remotely like that i would be so distraught I would be out for blood no matter who's fault it was. 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.