The Interpreter Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 From the 2008 10-K (the most recent annual one): ...Self-Insurance Reserves Reserves are recorded for the estimated amounts of guest and employee claims and expenses incurred each period that are not covered by insurance. Reserves are established for both identified claims and incurred but not reported (IBNR) claims. Such amounts are accrued for when claim amounts become probable and estimable. Reserves for identified claims are based upon our own historical claims experience and third-party estimates of settlement costs. Reserves for IBNR claims, which are not material to our consolidated financial statements, are based upon our own claims data history, as well as industry averages. All reserves are periodically reviewed for changes in facts and circumstances and adjustments are made as necessary. At December 31, 2008 and 2007 the accrued reserves totaled $20.7 million and $21.5 million, respectively... http://www.cedarfair.com/_upload/pressrele...d%20version.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Picard Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I remember reading something about a very large deductible years ago. I think it was back when the ride collapsed one winter and could have be insurance on the ride. I am thinking it said 250k deductible but it's been too long to remember what it was about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coaster Kid Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 When is the trial suposed to end? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 It is slated to go to the jury tomorrow. If it does, the trial will end when the jury returns with a verdict...or doesn't. That could take minutes, hours, days...depending on the jury and what the judge is or is not willing to put up with. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coaster Kid Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Or YEARS bum bum buuuuummmmmmmm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 Nope. Dockets won't allow that to happen. And the case could still settle, right up until it goes to the jury (and even after trial...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coaster Kid Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Does it have to go before a jury or can the judge decide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windshawne Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 You know, one thing about all this still puzzles me-and maybe I am reading too much into it. If a park sues the company that built the coaster due to structural design flaw, doesn't that show a jury they KNEW the ride is not completely safe? If it was me, I would CYA-and would have never allowed the thing to run after the purchase-I would have bulldozed it.It's like adding on to a historical house-it can never be completely "right". Another example-I sat on a jury in Cali-was a domestic abuse case. There were 3 counts against the husband-1 we found guilty, 1 not guilty, the 3rd was "hung". Guess what? I was the lone juror who would not agree to convict him on the 3rd count. Reason being, the police waited 3 days to take pics of her bruises. Their reasoning was it would show up better. I held out because they did not prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that he did it. Three days is a long time, and I could see the possibility someone was paid to do that to her to darn the defendant. Chances are he did do it-but I was not completely sold on it. I would love to sit on the jury of this case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 Does it have to go before a jury or can the judge decide. Juries, when there is one, decide the facts. The judge can only decide the case if, taking all the facts in favor of the opposite party, there is no way that can win. That would be called a "summary judgment." So, yes, the judge can decide the matter at the conclusion of either side's evidence, but it is unlikely. In some states, when a summary judgment is entered that late in the case, the jury is "directed" to return such and such a verdict, but that is far more common in criminal than civil cases. As for windshawne, parties with special knowledge of the facts of a case are normally either not allowed to serve on a jury or are stricken by one side or the other using one their "pre-emptory" challenges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
windshawne Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Does it have to go before a jury or can the judge decide. Juries, when there is one, decide the facts. The judge can only decide the case if, taking all the facts in favor of the opposite party, there is no way that can win. That would be called a "summary judgment." So, yes, the judge can decide the matter at the conclusion of either side's evidence, but it is unlikely. In some states, when a summary judgment is entered that late in the case, the jury is "directed" to return such and such a verdict, but that is far more common in criminal than civil cases. As for windshawne, parties with special knowledge of the facts of a case are normally either not allowed to serve on a jury or are stricken by one side or the other using one their "pre-emptory" challenges. Exactly. I know it would never be allowed-however, I just think this particular case is very interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Does it have to go before a jury or can the judge decide. Juries, when there is one, decide the facts. The judge can only decide the case if, taking all the facts in favor of the opposite party, there is no way that can win. That would be called a "summary judgment." So, yes, the judge can decide the matter at the conclusion of either side's evidence, but it is unlikely. In some states, when a summary judgment is entered that late in the case, the jury is "directed" to return such and such a verdict, but that is far more common in criminal than civil cases. As for windshawne, parties with special knowledge of the facts of a case are normally either not allowed to serve on a jury or are stricken by one side or the other using one their "pre-emptory" challenges. Exactly. I know it would never be allowed-however, I just think this particular case is very interesting. i think its a crock!! just like the balloon boy!!! http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/colorado....tion/index.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Also, realize that this woman is suing under the pretense that her injury is causing her not to be able to perform everyday tasks (thus, the pain and suffering part.) Where did you read that? I have only seen that she is suing for current medical & potential medical bills. I have not seen any claims of not being able to perform everyday duties. http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/crime/...day-346078.html Jennifer Wright of Defiance, Ohio allegedly suffered a hip injury that her attorney claims will require several replacements over her lifetime. She is asking the jury to force Kings Island to pay for punitive damages. The jury first has to find Kings Island caused Wright’s injuries, then it will consider if the park should be punished. Wright’s case was originally coupled with five other cases relating to the same incident, but the other plaintiffs have all settled. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BavarianBeatle Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Punitive Damages!!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CedarPointer Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 i think its a crock!! just like the balloon boy!!! http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/colorado....tion/index.html I wonder, one day, if you are injured or worse by a KI ride and sue, if half of KIC would call your case a crock. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast1979 Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 Who are we to decide whether she's faking or not? How many people on here are judges, or lawyers? Let the courts decide what's what. That's their jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 19, 2009 Author Share Posted October 19, 2009 And even if there were/are judges and lawyers here, how many of them have heard the evidence presented to the jury? Media accounts are, by their very nature, brief summaries, and are sometimes wildly inaccurate and/or slanted, intentionally or otherwise... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 19, 2009 Share Posted October 19, 2009 i think its a crock!! just like the balloon boy!!! http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/10/18/colorado....tion/index.html I wonder, one day, if you are injured or worse by a KI ride and sue, if half of KIC would call your case a crock. ok...lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juror13 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Hey, I was actually a juror on the case and since wasnt allowed to read anything bout the case while happening stumbled upon this thread. Basically it was a very difficult case to decide. We didnt feel that either the plaintiff or the defense counsel was very effective. Plaintiffs counsel did not do a great job of tying the coaster event to the current injury and the defense didnt do much to refute any of the allegations by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that she would require hip replacement surgeries in the future based on injuries sustained in the accident(allegedly a torn labrum and ascetabular fracture in hip). The problem with the case was the majority of the medical records showed no injury beyond sprain/strain of the hip and low back. there were several mri's taken which were negative. It was not until 2008 that an mri with contrast was done and a partial tear of the labrum was found. THere was a record of a fall in 2008 that the defense said could have caused the labrum tear but the testimony from plaintiff said really didnt even fall and generally a labrum tear takes something beyond a normal fall. There was also an issue of no medical treatment at all in 2007. why was this? Did she not have the resources or was she truly ok? Basically we compromised and decided to pay for her medical bills from 2006 and 2008 but none in 2009. we then allowed funds for 16 weeks of pain and suffering at 1000/wk and then gave her money(7000) for arthroscopic surgery to clean up labrum and then 33000 for one hip replacement(present value of what would take to cover cost in 15 yrs). Worked out to about 20000 in med bills and 56000ish in non economic damages. We were going to hear evidence of the punitory damages case but after about 25 mins the bailiff came in and advised that that portion had settled after trial. that nbr was confidential. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 If you truly were a juror in this matter, and I take you at your word, thanks for your service. People like you are what make the American legal system work. It is largely a thankless job, but it is a very important one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juror13 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 You're welcome. Was my first trial. I am now reading online about different treatments from labral tears to see what medical community thinks about hip replacement. I really dont see that listed as an option anywhere. Most just go to the arthroscopy to debride the wound as last resort. Sometimes they get relief from this and sometimes patients experience other tears down the road. Guess looking back, think that maybe allowing one hip surgery may not have been needed but again the defense did not address this at all and left a lot of questions in our mind. THink could have done a much better job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 One can assume that they read this forum...and perhaps will learn from your words... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juror13 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Yeah they asked us if we wanted to stick around and have the attys and possibly the media talk with us be we werent in any mood to be grilled after 5 hrs of deliberations. Hopefully they are reading. I was actually kinda disappointed we didnt get the punitive case. we werent overly sympathetic to either side but i guess our award may have scared the defense into settling?? Was kinda suprised they gave punitive damage in excess of our verdict though. who knows what woulda come out in testimony and ki may not have wanted that public knowledge? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shark6495 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 juror13, awesome job thanks for doing your civic duty. I second Terpy (the interpreter) by saying many thanks for a job well done, meaning your civic job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Hey, I was actually a juror on the case and since wasnt allowed to read anything bout the case while happening stumbled upon this thread. Basically it was a very difficult case to decide. We didnt feel that either the plaintiff or the defense counsel was very effective. Plaintiffs counsel did not do a great job of tying the coaster event to the current injury and the defense didnt do much to refute any of the allegations by the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that she would require hip replacement surgeries in the future based on injuries sustained in the accident(allegedly a torn labrum and ascetabular fracture in hip). The problem with the case was the majority of the medical records showed no injury beyond sprain/strain of the hip and low back. there were several mri's taken which were negative. It was not until 2008 that an mri with contrast was done and a partial tear of the labrum was found. THere was a record of a fall in 2008 that the defense said could have caused the labrum tear but the testimony from plaintiff said really didnt even fall and generally a labrum tear takes something beyond a normal fall. There was also an issue of no medical treatment at all in 2007. why was this? Did she not have the resources or was she truly ok? Basically we compromised and decided to pay for her medical bills from 2006 and 2008 but none in 2009. we then allowed funds for 16 weeks of pain and suffering at 1000/wk and then gave her money(7000) for arthroscopic surgery to clean up labrum and then 33000 for one hip replacement(present value of what would take to cover cost in 15 yrs). Worked out to about 20000 in med bills and 56000ish in non economic damages. We were going to hear evidence of the punitory damages case but after about 25 mins the bailiff came in and advised that that portion had settled after trial. that nbr was confidential. WOW!!!!! great report , now that it is all over....did she have any ongoing workers comp claim that was ever brought up in court? i over heard co-workes talking about this case and just wanted to comfirm it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 That was covered in some of the news accounts...yes, the defense tried to claim some of the injury was caused by an on the job injury. Apparently, the jury did not buy it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 That was covered in some of the news accounts...yes, the defense tried to claim some of the injury was caused by an on the job injury. Apparently, the jury did not buy it. ok Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juror13 Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yeah, there was one record of a "fall" at work but the way that she made it sound, she fell on the outside of her foot and didnt even really fall?? Said she left a voicemail for the dr and they copied the vm note down wrong. seemed a bit odd but This trial was full of weird inconsistencies that there were never any solid answers for. As to the workers comp, She really didnt seek any treatment for that fall and the type of labrum tear that showed up on the one mri seemed to be of the type that would not occur with a simple fall or even a hard fall. The mechanism of this type of tear required some type of force pushing on the knee towards the body and the pelvic area being held in place or vice versa, pelvis going forward while knee is held steady. Basically it pushes the ball of your hip back and tears the ligament around the back of the hip. This was the type of action the evidence showed could have occurred in accid and reason i wanted to give her something even though there was an allegation of another fall. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Yeah, there was one record of a "fall" at work but the way that she made it sound, she fell on the outside of her foot and didnt even really fall?? Said she left a voicemail for the dr and they copied the vm note down wrong. seemed a bit odd but This trial was full of weird inconsistencies that there were never any solid answers for. As to the workers comp, She really didnt seek any treatment for that fall and the type of labrum tear that showed up on the one mri seemed to be of the type that would not occur with a simple fall or even a hard fall. The mechanism of this type of tear required some type of force pushing on the knee towards the body and the pelvic area being held in place or vice versa, pelvis going forward while knee is held steady. Basically it pushes the ball of your hip back and tears the ligament around the back of the hip. This was the type of action the evidence showed could have occurred in accid and reason i wanted to give her something even though there was an allegation of another fall. i see....... but i am sure the jury was like.....wha?!?!?! workers comp claim ...fall ...hmmmmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CedarPointer Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The mechanism of this type of tear required some type of force pushing on the knee towards the body and the pelvic area being held in place or vice versa, pelvis going forward while knee is held steady. Basically it pushes the ball of your hip back and tears the ligament around the back of the hip. In other words, being flung forward while being held in place by a lapbar... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dvo Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 ^Nice avatar update CPer. I wish I had known this was happening last time I was up there. Would have gotten one more ride... 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.