maverick2007 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 ^ Yes that is the lawsuit. They were riding SOB when a piece of lumber snapped and injured a trainload of riders. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Her claims of needing these hip replacements are based on KI's inability to safely maintain the ride. Since KI followed OSHA and state regulations when performing the maintenance checks, and have the sheets to prove it, this suit has no merit. Her claims of hip replacement are completely based on her injury. Her injury was on a KI ride. If the ride malfunctioned enough to cause an injury, then KI was not safely maintaining the ride. KI can use their maintenance history as evidence, but the ride still caused an injury. Also, maintenance catalogs should be kept for the life of the ride. Those are extremely important resources that can show consistant failures/ repairs over the lifetime of the ride. A park like KI has to show continuous improvment. If they are constantly repairing the same thing, that is not proper CI. If KI only keeps the catalogs for 7 years, then shame on them. New maintenance personnel can use that history to improve ride operations. And yes, ODoA did approve operation the ride. Even though they gave a stamp of approval, that does not absolve KI in any way. And let me ask this question in response to an earlier post: What you stated was that the maintenance practices at theme parks within the state of Ohio are not up to standards due to this incident. It is easy to point out problems, however, solutions are normally hard to come by. What is yours? Ultrasound every beam of a coaster every day? Every month? Once a year, like it is done already? I work in a manufacturing facility, safety is # 1, and I would find it hard to believe that KI is any different (ok, put the jokes aside for a moment ). If someone is injured, the incident/ accident is thoroughly investigated, and steps have to be taken to be sure that the same thing does not happen twice. For instance, one of my employees was installing overhead ceiling tiles and had the dust fall into their hair, and when they stepped off the ladder, the dust went behind their safety glasses. This cause severe irritation to their eye which required a hospital visit to clean the eye out, and antibiotics to prevent infection. To prevent this from happening again, now the guys must wear Tyvek suits and full face shields when installing tiles. So yes, if it takes an ultrasound everyday for the coaster to be safe, then so be it. If once a year was good enough, then they would have seen the damaged beam prior to the accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris_2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 ^ They have to wear full suits? Why not just wear water proof goggles? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastersRZ Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Well, I read the report on the 2006 accident that was issued by the state. It clears up some matters that have been discussed in here. Primarily, the piece of wood failed not because of a defect in the wood, but because it could not safely handle the load that was applied to it. Most engineering things have a factor of safety built into the design. However, per the state investigation, subsequent alterations to the ride made the structure stiffer, which may have accelerated the event but did not directly cause the event. Ultimately, it was a design flaw and inherently would not have been detectable during routine daily inspections. In fact, the failure of one piece of wood led to the immediate failure of two other pieces of wood which could not handle the additional loads that were placed on them. Granted, I am not a structural engineer, nor am I privy to maintenance related issues at Kings Island. But based on the report issued by the state, and knowing what I know, I would say that Kings Island was operating what they believed to be a safe ride at the time of the incident. At any rate, I bet that this thing will settle and we will never really know much more about it than what we presently do. Of course, I have been proven wrong before... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 ^ They have to wear full suits? Why not just wear water proof goggles? Because there is not any water being used. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kris_2009 Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 ^ They have to wear full suits? Why not just wear water proof goggles? Because there is not any water being used. Yes but regular goggles have holes in them, Chemisty or water proof goggles can prevent particles going behind the lens. Seems a lot cheaper then wearing a full suit... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 ^ Tyvek suits cost around $6.00. And the full face shield, as mentioned, will be more effective than goggles since it covers the full face and not just the eyes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 Trial is scheduled to last three days: http://www.kypost.com/content/wcposhared/s...Rq9Lf4T6xQ.cspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamondback96 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 That same article also says another case will start November 2nd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 And so did the article I cited in post 1, as I quoted it in post 5! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 http://www.fox59.com/news/sns-ap-oh--rolle...0,5827209.story Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota2112 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 And let me ask this question in response to an earlier post: What you stated was that the maintenance practices at theme parks within the state of Ohio are not up to standards due to this incident. It is easy to point out problems, however, solutions are normally hard to come by. What is yours? Ultrasound every beam of a coaster every day? Every month? Once a year, like it is done already? My point is simply that if KI did execute proper inspections to ensure the ride's safety, then it is obvious that those inspections did not adequately fulfill their intended purpose. Yes, I realize that there may have been no visible indication of a pending failure on the ride that day. But the fact remains, something failed on a ride that was deemed to be safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dvo Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 ^Correct. But there is only so much you can feasibly do to "inspect" a ride. I'm not sure who decides what needs to be inspected at what intervals (i'm assuming the ride designer or the state of Ohio), but they have to essentially pick their battles in that regard. It's just not practical to check the torque on every bolt, or check every support board one-by-one every day. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIfan1980 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 This is a good example of the equation that businesses (and government) must evaluate between Safety and Cost all the time. There are no easy answers, but don't expect things to stay the same. See Browntggr example above - people had been doing the task with just glasses for a while, but an incident caused a change. If we don't learn from history we are doomed to repeat it. On SOB incident, I bet the learnings were incorporated in 2007 before it reopened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaoskat Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 When Cedar Fair took over the park in 2006, they tried to do everything but tear down SOB to fix the problems it has had. As far as i know from what the park has said, when the last thing with that lady happened with the brain injury claim, the park has said that they will talk about what to do with SOB over the winter. And for a lawyer to say that the lady with the hip injury needs to have more surgerys over her life time is just claims. The lawyer has to have the medical records of the lady that states this. With the way they do surgerys now, alot of people with hip injurys are getting more advanced replacements. I know that because i work for a hospital in surgery. I think SOB's fate was bad when the 2006 accident happened. The park just needs to get rid of it all together rather then it being SBNO. From what i heard, the signs stating that its the tallest and fastest wooden coaster have been removed. As an attorney I can state that I would be calling in several medical experts as witnesses to testify as to how many hip replacement surgeries this woman is going to need over the remaining course of her life. From personal experience, I can tell you that replacements of joints only have a specific life to them. For instance, if you have your knee joint replaced, it only has an expected life of 15 years. That is one of the reasons they do not want to do them on younger people, because they have to have future replacements. According to this site, a hip replacement has a life of 10-15 years. So, every 10-15 years this individual is going to have to undergo hip replacement surgery again along with all the associated physical therapy. To get how long this individual will live they look at actuarial tables (yes, my spelling sucks of this). so, if she is 30 and has a life expectancy of 80 years, that is 50 years in which she will have to undergo anywhere from 3-5 hip replacement surgeries. http://www.hipsandknees.com/hip/hipimplants.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 LEBANON - Kings Island officials don't deny that a structural problem with the Son of Beast rollercoaster in July 2006 caused 28 riders to get hurt. But, one of those riders - a single mother of four from Defiance - is exaggerating her hip injury and doesn't deserve to get paid for the possibility of future joint replacements, the amusement park's attorney contended in Warren County Common Pleas Court Thursday. That is the approach park owners were taking as Kings Island went on trial for the first time over the incident that was caused when wooden timbers in the rollercoaster's frame snapped, causing the rollercoaster track to buckle, knocking riders in three trains around.... Much more at the link: http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2009101...+trial+underway ...Kings Island's attorney Harry "Chip" Finke acknowledged Wright suffered minor injuries from the coaster. But, he promised to show a video of Wright — filmed by a private investigator — moving around seemingly pain-free, even standing on her right foot with her left leg outstretched. "I ask you to award her reasonable damages, which she is entitled to" Finke said. "But nothing more and nothing less." Scaccia called Doug Morr, a biomechanical engineer, to the stand to explain how Wright, who stands five feet one inches tall and weighed 105 pounds, received her injuries. Using medical records and reports from the investigation into the accident, he said a normal ride on the Son of Beast puts a G-force of about 2.7 on a person. The fateful ride on the failed track threw a G-force of almost 10 at Wright and fellow riders... http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton...ial-349818.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tomkatt7 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Chip? Really? LOL. How about Chip, Skip, and Buffy just sit down and talk things out? I can't tell you why this strikes me so funny, but it does. Oh well, on with the reporting, sorry to interrupt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jasper Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 So I'm assuming from Terpy's post that the woman did not win the lawsuit and did not get additional money for her so called, "Injuries." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 Uh, it's a three day trial. The first day is concluded. Neither side has won or lost. Both sides are presenting their evidence. If the case goes to the jury, they will decide the facts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastersRZ Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 If you read any of the two stories that were linked to, you would know that the trial is not yet over. If everything goes according to plan, the trial should wrap up on Monday with jury deliberations. ^Looks like Interpreter beat me by a couple of seconds! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 Also, the park concedes the woman was injured, it is the extent of the injury which the park contests... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coaster Kid Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Is it just me or does anyone else think the women just hates Either the ride or the park and is just trying to cause troble and steal money from it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hausty1983 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I don't understand what is going to happen if they do try agian with RCCA and file a lawsuit against them? What happened to the money that they were trying to get over design issues?This is a big mess really I would hate to deal with all of this but its their job to do what is best for the park though really what we all know really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markr Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 From my own experience on the ride ( severe chest pain, headaches ) and the fact that I am not the only one who has complained and the fact that 25 other people in addition to the woman were hurt, I doubt very much that she is making this all up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 I don't understand what is going to happen if they do try agian with RCCA and file a lawsuit against them? What happened to the money that they were trying to get over design issues?This is a big mess really I would hate to deal with all of this but its their job to do what is best for the park though really what we all know really. RCCA is judgment proof. The park already has a judgment it can't collect from them. Why bother to sue someone who has no assets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SOB_TOM Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Didn't RCCA go bankrupt because of that suit?, and didn't that suit only net roughly $200K? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 16, 2009 Author Share Posted October 16, 2009 Your answer is here: http://www.western-star.com/n/content/oh/s...sislandweb.html http://www.KICentral.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12482 See also: http://www.thrillnetwork.com/news/2176/kin...beast_case.html An appeals court has ruled an insurance company for the defunct Roller Coaster Corporation of America does not have to pay Kings Island $20 million. The ruling stems from a 2005 case over an accident on Son of Beast. Kings Island sought the money from Admiral Insurance since RCCA had went out of business. RCCA's commercial liability policy did not include "coverage for harm to the project itself". It is unknown whether Kings Island will try to appeal the ruling to the Ohio Supreme Court. The Cincinnati Enquirer article referenced is no longer on the web. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windshawne Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 I thought the injuries involved cracked sternums, not injured hips. You thought all 20+ people had broken sternums and no other injuries? its like ppl that drink too much and get a bad liver......"oh lets sue the maker of the drink, cause it tore up my liver" Knowing the risks of drinking :S Please tell me this comment was a lame attempt at humor. This will end up being a case of "he said, she said." What I mean by that is: since RCCA started the original construction that was later taken over by Paramount, who is going to be accountable if the plaintiff claims the accident is due to faulty construction/ design/ materials. Then add is the lawsuit that KI filed in 2000 http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2000/11/2...sland_sues.html This case is going to get very messy, and everyone will be getting involved. My recollection of the incident was 2 broken sternums and the rest were minor injuries involving treating and releasing. I dont remember reading about any hip injuries. I am not minimizing what the woman claims, I am just recalling what I have read. Look at the track record of this coaster. I wouldn't want to be in the defense position right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 ^Correct. But there is only so much you can feasibly do to "inspect" a ride. I'm not sure who decides what needs to be inspected at what intervals (i'm assuming the ride designer or the state of Ohio), but they have to essentially pick their battles in that regard. It's just not practical to check the torque on every bolt, or check every support board one-by-one every day. What is a practical during an inspection, and what is not is not the issue here IMO. It is the parks responsibility to be sure that rides are safe. If that means checking every single bolt, then so be it. The other option is to close the ride down, which seems inevitable at this point. Can you imagine if the attorney for the injured women asked the question about what is the safety procedure of what is inspected or not inspected? If a KI representative's answer would even come close to: "We inspect this, but we don't inspect that because it is not practical." That would be the end of the case. KI would be writing a blank check to the injured people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastersRZ Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 But that misses the point. This accident was NOT the result of something that should have been inspected. As stated in the state report, there was a design flaw that ultimately led to the failure. No degree of inspection thoroughness could have prevented this unforeseen accident from occurring. And I believe that KI and amusement parks in general are extremely critical with ensuring the safety of their rides for the general public. Their reputation with the general public depends on offering a fun yet safe environment. Rides that are deemed unsafe or have extensive maintenance issues are generally removed. Look at Flight Commander. The result of the accident back in 1991 was the result, in part of a design flaw. No degree of inspection on Kings Island`s part would have likely prevented that incident. While a design adjustment was made to the ride to prevent similar incidents from occurring, the ride had a short tenure at the park after the accident. 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.