Beast1979 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 A. If you're counting the 2006 incident, it's hard to say that was under Cedar Fair considering they took the reins only 2 weeks before. B. If you're talking about the lady who was injured in May that sparked this entire craziness, I hardly call that an "Extreme Accident" considering that even after nearly 8 months there's still very little light on what happened.
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 The fact remains that it was Cedar Fair operating and maintaining the ride on the day in question in July of 2006. The company had had every opportunity to examine what it was buying and operating and was responsible for the safety of the rides it chose to operate. To say otherwise is to say the public cannot rely on the safety of a park that has just changed hands. That is not the case.
coaster_junky Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Yes, the case was settled out of court, but only after the issue of liability WAS decided by the jury involved. Why you seem to think Son of Beast was not determined to be the cause of the injuries is beyond me. i'm talking about the woman who reported bursting a blood vessel in her head after riding Son of Beast, the case that was settled in court (the one left over from the '06 accident), i understand was caused by Son of Beast.
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 My point is both the cases of which you speak happened under Cedar Fair, not Paramount.
shark6495 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 A. If you're counting the 2006 incident, it's hard to say that was under Cedar Fair considering they took the reins only 2 weeks before. B. If you're talking about the lady who was injured in May that sparked this entire craziness, I hardly call that an "Extreme Accident" considering that even after nearly 8 months there's still very little light on what happened. If I am not mistaken didnt court prove that it was because of the ride that the vessel popped in her head? Plus as Don H said back in June/July the ride was to remain closed because they were not happy with the ride experience (see the Cincy.com article about SOB being cleared but sitting idle.)
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 No, there has been no trial, to my knowledge, of the 2009 incident. The trial was a result of the 2006 incident.
coaster_junky Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 ^^but with that, Son of Beast was tested and cleared to see if there was any part of the ride that could have caused such a force that would have caused a blood vessel to burst. so i don't see how they can use that as evidence that Son of Beast was the cause of the burst vessel.
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 IF there is a trial, both sides will have an opportunity to present evidence. The fact a state has permitted a ride to operate does not necessarily mean it should. There is, in fact, the fact it has not operated since. There must be a reason. Otherwise, it would have.
shark6495 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 ^^ actually any extra force on the human head could cause a blood vessel to burst... even a rapid change in air pressure can cause a vessel to burst. Its all about timing, and thanks terp about the court case of blood vessel lady..... and was SOB tested for force educed trauma or was it tested to make sure nothing had broken causing the injury. Just because the ride is operating the way it should be does not make it safe....
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 One of the difficulties the plaintiff would have in a lawsuit over the burst blood vessel, were there a trial, is proving that it would not have happened had she not ridden Son of Beast. Causation, if you will. The park would doubtless argue the same injury would have occurred had she not ridden. The plaintiff would have the burden of proof of proving that the park's negligence somehow caused her injury. This would seem to be a very difficult burden.
hausty1983 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I think everyone should really wait and see what the details about its future will be. I don't think the image of SOB is going to get any better with everyone talking negative about it all the time.
coaster_junky Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 don't those signs at the front of the rides que pretty much the parks way of a waver, without signing anything?
shark6495 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 well would previous court cases have any barring on this one? Meaning the jury has found KI to be at fault (in one way shape or form) from the previous law suit... wouldnt a simple force test show that at any one point of the ride, there would be excessive force on the skull? or is it a much more indepth conversation/lawsuit than that.... Coaster: goose? What ?
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 don't those signs at the front of the rides que pretty much the parks way of a waver, without signing anything? A sign is a sign. Signs at WalMart say the company is not responsible for baskart damage. Yeah, right. Signs at the body shop say the shop is not responsible for fire or theft. Uh huh. And signs at an amusement park ride can attempt to disclaim liability. To some extent, they can be effective...but rides still need to be safe to the average user...the park cannot have foreseen the ride is apt to cause a healthy patron injury. As a ride gets more and more of a record of causing injuries, it is more and more likely to be removed, as a rule. As to coaster, goose, what? See Fabio and Apollo's Chariot... http://www.ultimater...040199_01.shtml Graphic image: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_3KIJt17keOY/SYa99Zrm5pI/AAAAAAAABZM/fhDhOJbxzcg/s400/Fabio+goose.jpg
TylerRider Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I don't understand how it could be determine if Sob caused the blood vessel t break. She was the only one who was injured. Maby it was just the extreme ride?
shark6495 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 totally missed on the goose one... now if we were talking about broken noses and he mentioned goose, I would have gotten that. Now wasnt the park able to shift the blame to the riders, the gentleman who broke his back, because he had some sort of disease and should have known better than ride the ride? Doesnt that allow them the same defense in this situation (Terp I know you dont have the perfect answer for this and if you did you cant answer it. Im just more asking it as a general question to think about)... and Hausty we can talk negatively about the ride if we want too.... lol
coaster_junky Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 well would previous court cases have any barring on this one? Meaning the jury has found KI to be at fault (in one way shape or form) from the previous law suit... wouldnt a simple force test show that at any one point of the ride, there would be excessive force on the skull? or is it a much more indepth conversation/lawsuit than that.... Coaster: goose? What ? well, i doubt that would work, expecially since Cedar Fair redesigned and rebuild one whole section of the ride and the goose was about when fabio got hit in the face while riding apollo's chariot, and you referring to the different things that could cause a blood vessel to burst. edit: terpy beat me to explaining the goose.
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Let's put it this way for now and leave it at that (at least by me). Anyone can claim anything in a lawsuit. To recover in a personal injury action, they must prove the defendant either did something that caused the injury or failed to do something they were required to do and that failure caused the injury. A recovery can be reduced or even avoided in some cases if the plaintiff was also negligent and contributed to his/her injury. A trial is where such evidence is presented and heard, not the Internets.
shark6495 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 well would previous court cases have any barring on this one? Meaning the jury has found KI to be at fault (in one way shape or form) from the previous law suit... wouldnt a simple force test show that at any one point of the ride, there would be excessive force on the skull? or is it a much more indepth conversation/lawsuit than that.... Coaster: goose? What ? well, i doubt that would work, expecially since Cedar Fair redesigned and rebuild one whole section of the ride and the goose was about when fabio got hit in the face while riding apollo's chariot, and you referring to the different things that could cause a blood vessel to burst. edit: terpy beat me to explaining the goose. Correct me if I am wrong, and I may be, but they did not rebuild and redesign the area where ride failed. I thought they just rebuild it but with "better wood." I know they redesigned the loop area....... Plus a force test could be run to see what kind of forces the "average" rider would suffer during the ride. A doctor should say how much pressure would be needed to caust a vessel to burst. A Stroke is only caused by a weak area of a blood vessel being pushed on by a hard force. EDIT: true terp, the internet is not where all of the evidence is presented as such. However the internet is where we get together and discuss over the imaginary water cooler, with out the boss yelling at us..... no harm, unless future jury members stumble upon this web site and have a set mindset before trial....
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 ..but we are missing the elements necessary to evaluate, much less decide, the case. That is the function of the discovery phase of litigation, where both sides can discover as much evidence as possible in order to best present their case to the trier of fact. Endless speculation without the necessary facts is rather pointless...though it can be educational and occasionally even entertaining (unless it is about business, then Jackson gets bored! )
shark6495 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 who knows maybe we are encouraging some young member on this board to be a roller coaster/theme park lawyer.... or the complete obvious, giving someone ideas either way we may have created something lol
Cory Butcher Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 I think the last two pages of this topic have gone to my head, and subsequently caused at least a headache...now, who do I sue? lol In all seriousness though there is a lot of wisdom here...and there. This really reads like the first chapter of a law textbook, with discovery and causation, etc. Terpy, I hope you don't feel like you are repeating yourself, but it's beginning to seem like you are! I guess it's just one of those concepts that some grasp and some don't. Try not to burst a blood vessel explaining it to the masses!
Beast1979 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 ..but we are missing the elements necessary to evaluate, much less decide, the case. That is the function of the discovery phase of litigation, where both sides can discover as much evidence as possible in order to best present their case to the trier of fact. Endless speculation without the necessary facts is rather pointless...though it can be educational and occasionally even entertaining (unless it is about business, then Jackson gets bored! ) Oh come now Terpy, this isn't boring (The boring topic is lying around here somewhere, it's got Apollo in the name) it's just long. And really complicated for 9 at night. I can only imagine the reaction when the park map is released, or on opening day. I think there's a very good chance that Son of Beast will or will not open on April 17. Good. Now there's my contribution to this last 2 pages of logic.
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 And Son of Beast could be on the map but never open again. Or Son of Beast could be not on the map, yet open opening day. All remains to be seen. As of this writing. (Dare I say a map is a map? And there's an app for that!)
shark6495 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Now I dont see whats so bad about the last two pages, it was just a group of people having a discussion about a topic that included no name calling or mud flinging...... however we did have one bloody nose and a dead (possible) goose
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 Oh, the goose most decidedly was dead. Terpy, who knows these things...
shark6495 Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 haha read the news clipping you put up, they said they ASSUMED it was the same dead goose lol.....
coaster_junky Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 ^lol, a goose can take down a plane, but nothing can take down fabio. kinda reminds me of a chuck norris joke.
The Interpreter Posted February 3, 2010 Posted February 3, 2010 That goose almost certainly hit the coaster train first then bounced off into Fabio's face. Otherwise, Fabio probably would not have lived to talk about the goose's tail. Or something.
Recommended Posts