Coaster Kid Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 So I read everything and still don't understand what's going to happen to SoB no where does it say what will happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beast1979 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Because as far as the future of Son of Beast, nothing new has been said. Does this trial mean it will be removed? No. Does this even play a factor in the future of the ride? Not necessarily, but I would imagine so. It's for the park to decide, and they said they would do so in the O__S_____. You can wait two weeks can't ya? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coaster Kid Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 not really I don't like that time period but hey I'm going to orland during January so at least I will get to ride coasters then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cedarAfairs Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 KI was found responsible. Get over it. Tell us how you really feel CedarPointer, haha. No need to be rude. Although I don't agree with everything involved in this case, I'm happy to see the lady wasn't awarded anything monetarily that would of been over the top, as in a 6 figure settlement. It could of been a lot worse. for whom? Worse for you the average park goer? worse for the park that it would have to pay her money for riding a ride at their park that broke? worse for the lady who, may or may not, be able to continue a 100% normal life? remember folks there are still a few people out of the 28 people who have not settled...... Personally I think she got about what she deserved, money to pay her bills and heaven forbid, if she needs a hip replacement she has the money to do it, even if someone posted earlier that she may not need it - arthroscopic may be all she needs. Either way be glad you were not on that train when it all went down.... Not sure what your trying to say, as I was just typing a general blanket statement that it could of been worse for the lady of topic, and for the park, or any other under lying synonym I may have missed. Usually, the average park goer doesn't surf fan sites such as KICentral, pointbuzz, or anywhere else for that matter, IMO. I beleive you may have taken my post the wrong way. To each his/her own I suppose. Although, I do wish her the best of luck, hopefully she will lead a 100% normal life, or anyone else injured for that matter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shark6495 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 KI was found responsible. Get over it. Tell us how you really feel CedarPointer, haha. No need to be rude. Although I don't agree with everything involved in this case, I'm happy to see the lady wasn't awarded anything monetarily that would of been over the top, as in a 6 figure settlement. It could of been a lot worse. for whom? Worse for you the average park goer? worse for the park that it would have to pay her money for riding a ride at their park that broke? worse for the lady who, may or may not, be able to continue a 100% normal life? remember folks there are still a few people out of the 28 people who have not settled...... Personally I think she got about what she deserved, money to pay her bills and heaven forbid, if she needs a hip replacement she has the money to do it, even if someone posted earlier that she may not need it - arthroscopic may be all she needs. Either way be glad you were not on that train when it all went down.... Not sure what your trying to say, as I was just typing a general blanket statement that it could of been worse for the lady of topic, and for the park, or any other under lying synonym I may have missed. Usually, the average park goer doesn't surf fan sites such as KICentral, pointbuzz, or anywhere else for that matter, IMO. I beleive you may have taken my post the wrong way. To each his/her own I suppose. Although, I do wish her the best of luck, hopefully she will lead a 100% normal life, or anyone else injured for that matter. No I didnt take it the wrong way, I meant it more as in subtle sarcasm, of who it could have been worse for.... I mean I wouldnt want to be anyone involved with this case or were involved with this case. Too many variables and the park paid, the lady paid, the average park goer will pay or has paid..... and the "be glad you were not on the train.." comment, I meant more for everyone, as in "Hey at least you wernt on the ride that day or it could be bad for you" type thing. No harm bro.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dakota2112 Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I don't think this instances would have any bearing on SOB's future. This has been ongoing and likely has already been taken into consideration. The injury from May 2009- different story. True, this instance is traced back to the 2006 incident... but regardless, it certainly doesn't improve the ride's reputation among KI's biggest customer (the general public). And it may very well be considered an additional expense as a result of the previous incident, which could impact insurance... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TopThrill Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 Well I hope it closes forever, so It can't hurt anyone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted October 20, 2009 Share Posted October 20, 2009 I'm calling B.S. on both statements from her. First off, she had nothing but dollar signs in her eyes ever since the accident. I bet you she could care less what happens to SOB. Secondly, three years of agony? If she was in that much pain, I almost guarantee that her doctors would have had her in the hospital admitted, because she would have something else wrong than a bum hip. To her I say this, get over it. Several thousands of people live with much worse than what you are explaining, and they live normal lives. Take my dad for one example. A bad hip, two bad knees, and he can't get the required treatment because the insurance company will not cover it till he is 55, so he has 5 more years of "pain and suffering." Does that stop him from doing his job? No. Does that stop him from enjoying life? No. He grins and bears it until he can get the treatment. I do not wish death upon anyone, nor accident. However, I almost guarantee that she is going to blow this money on pointless stuff, and then be trying to sue KI again in the future for more medical (I know I know she can't, but this is what I think will happen.) If she really wanted no one else to suffer from this ride, she would have immediately turned around and told KI to donate her "pain and suffering" money to a charity. Is it so hard to acknowledge she was actually injured? And not in an isolated incident, but in an accident that injured over 20 others as well. This isn't the normal "I slipped on your sidewalk and am going to sue for millions" type of case. I am astonished that you can claim all she has is a bum hip? You are not a doctor, nor were you in the courtroom to hear/ see all the evidence. If her claim was meritless, the jury would have seen through it. KI had an attorney, just like she did, to discount her story. I am sorry that your father has physical issues, but why even bring that up? Normal wear and tear on a person's body cannot be compared to suffering an injury that could not have been prevented by the victim. It really sounds as if you are taking the SoB accident personal due to your father's condition. I've done the same thing when I have emotional ties to an incident, everyone has. And how can you "almost guarantee" she is going to blow the money? Do you know her on a personal level? And even if she does blow the money, the only person she hurts is herself in the long run. And do you actually believe that KI would end up settling without a guarantee that she cannot come back after them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 20, 2009 Author Share Posted October 20, 2009 ...Although I don't agree with everything involved in this case, I'm happy to see the lady wasn't awarded anything monetarily that would of been over the top, as in a 6 figure settlement. It could of been a lot worse. The settlement is confidential. It may or may not include even seven figures, not just six. The jury verdict was public...but the next step would have been for it to consider whether or not the plaintiff should be awarded additional compensation as punitive damages and/or attorney's fees. During this stage, evidence as to why, in the opinion of the plaintiff, the park should be punished for its conduct would have been introduced. The park's incentive to settle would include, among other things, not having this evidence, whatever it may be, become public. The park apparently found it worthwhile that it not become public, and doubtless paid a sum of money to prevent that.... Settlements always provide that they are the complete and total compensation for all damages claimed by the plaintiff resulting from the incident. There is no coming back again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 i just got home and hopped on here.....so dont kill me if you talked about this already......will the park shell out the money or the parks insurance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 i just got home and hopped on here.....so dont kill me if you talked about this already......will the park shell out the money or the parks insurance? Yes. Actually, the answer to that question is confidential. The park MAY be totally self-insured. No reference to an insurance policy for this has been seen in public documents in recent years.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 i just got home and hopped on here.....so dont kill me if you talked about this already......will the park shell out the money or the parks insurance? Yes. Actually, the answer to that question is confidential. The park MAY be totally self-insured. No reference to an insurance policy for this has been seen in public documents in recent years.... Yes, but rarely are any insurance companies mentioned in any trials. Usually, the only time the issue comes up is in bad faith matters. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 i just got home and hopped on here.....so dont kill me if you talked about this already......will the park shell out the money or the parks insurance? Yes. Actually, the answer to that question is confidential. The park MAY be totally self-insured. No reference to an insurance policy for this has been seen in public documents in recent years.... ahhhhhh...ok ......even if there was insurance involvement.....holy cow i wonder what the deductable would be per claim? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 i just got home and hopped on here.....so dont kill me if you talked about this already......will the park shell out the money or the parks insurance? Yes. Actually, the answer to that question is confidential. The park MAY be totally self-insured. No reference to an insurance policy for this has been seen in public documents in recent years.... ahhhhhh...ok ......even if there was insurance involvement.....holy cow i wonder what the deductible would be per claim? If the park was insured for such an issue that is not as much of a hit for the insurance company. Now granted, it's not fun to write out a check in those amounts .... but if it's the parks as a whole ... it's a hefty chunk. The one thing that is pretty evident is that this will have an effect on SOB and it's operation or lack there of. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 Common insurance deductibles in the amusement park business for liability include: $100,000 $300,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 The more the deductible, the less expensive the coverage. And some parks are self insured... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 i just got home and hopped on here.....so dont kill me if you talked about this already......will the park shell out the money or the parks insurance? Yes. Actually, the answer to that question is confidential. The park MAY be totally self-insured. No reference to an insurance policy for this has been seen in public documents in recent years.... ahhhhhh...ok ......even if there was insurance involvement.....holy cow i wonder what the deductible would be per claim? If the park was insured for such an issue that is not as much of a hit for the insurance company. Now granted, it's not fun to write out a check in those amounts .... but if it's the parks as a whole ... it's a hefty chunk. The one thing that is pretty evident is that this will have an effect on SOB and it's operation or lack there of. understood......next question......you know how if you have too many tickets, or accident with your auto insurance?....and they can drop tou as a client?......could that happen to CF (KI).? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 Common insurance deductibles in the amusement park business for liability include: $100,000 $300,000 $500,000 $1,000,000 and $5,000,000 The more the deductible, the less expensive the coverage. And some parks are self insured... got it , thanks for schooling me Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The laws vary from state to state as to how an insurance company is or is not able to drop an insured. For the most part, an insurer can not drop someone during a policy term unless there is some sort of material misrepresentation in their taking out the policy. But, at renewal ... rates can be jacked up considerably or the company can choose to not renew a policy. Generally, I can't see a policy for a park not being renewed unless there is a pattern of behavior that increases risk and exposure. As I'd mentioned before ... I can not believe that this one was permitted to go to trial. In the long run, this could ultimately become very expensive for the park and the chain ... something far beyond the monetary damages awarded in this trial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 The laws vary from state to state as to how an insurance company is or is not able to drop an insured. For the most part, an insurer can not drop someone during a policy term unless there is some sort of material misrepresentation in their taking out the policy. But, at renewal ... rates can be jacked up considerably or the company can choose to not renew a policy. Generally, I can't see a policy for a park not being renewed unless there is a pattern of behavior that increases risk and exposure. As I'd mentioned before ... I can not believe that this one was permitted to go to trial. In the long run, this could ultimately become very expensive for the park and the chain ... something far beyond the monetary damages awarded in this trial. Exactly ....i keep asking myself......why wasnt this settled out of court (trial) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 21, 2009 Author Share Posted October 21, 2009 It takes two agreeable parties to settle a case. Apparently one side, the other, or both was certain they could win at trial and was not willing to compromise. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrashOverRided Posted October 21, 2009 Share Posted October 21, 2009 It takes two agreeable parties to settle a case. Apparently one side, the other, or both was certain they could win at trial and was not willing to compromise. understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 22, 2009 Author Share Posted October 22, 2009 Much more on this: http://www.tcnewsnet.com/main.asp?SectionI...rticleID=151312 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shark6495 Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 I am not claiming to be a wealth of knowledge on jury trials and cases but I have a question for anyone who may or may not be one.... does this ruling have any bearing on future cases. The jury ruled that KI was in fact responsible for her injuries, which means in future cases the people who sue just have to prove they have accumulated that much debt over the injuries. So would that mean their cases have become easier? Does this sort of thing make CF want to settle more quickly? or Will this case have no bearing on future cases involving the other people? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted October 23, 2009 Share Posted October 23, 2009 ^ Not necessarily. Settling out of court does not admit any type of guilt. And once a case is settled, it cannot be re-filed. And in this particular case, KI did not deny her injury; they questioned the severity of it. So to answer your question, no, the outcome of this case will not have bering on future cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 23, 2009 Author Share Posted October 23, 2009 Actually, there WAS a jury verdict before the settlement. The evidence used to reach that verdict, and the verdict itself, is what is called res judicata as to the issues decided, literally a thing judged or a thing decided. That testimony, which was public and in open court, can be used in future civil proceedings, at the discretion of the judge in the new action. It can certainly be used to impeach any witnesses who may change their stories in the future. The issues that would have been decided by the jury for punitive damages were coming up next. That portion of the trial was avoided since the parties settled. Having those issues heard in open, public court may have been a strong factor in why the park/plaintiff decided to settle. The settlement itself is NOT public, is not precedential and can't be used as an admission or finding of fault. That is not the case as to the jury verdict before the settlement. This is of course all generally the case and is in no way legal advice for a particular situation. If you have a specific legal question, you should consult a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BavarianBeatle Posted October 24, 2009 Share Posted October 24, 2009 Actually, there WAS a jury verdict before the settlement. The evidence used to reach that verdict, and the verdict itself, is what is called res judicata as to the issues decided, literally a thing judged or a thing decided. That testimony, which was public and in open court, can be used in future civil proceedings, at the discretion of the judge in the new action. It can certainly be used to impeach any witnesses who may change their stories in the future. The issues that would have been decided by the jury for punitive damages were coming up next. That portion of the trial was avoided since the parties settled. Having those issues heard in open, public court may have been a strong factor in why the park/plaintiff decided to settle. The settlement itself is NOT public, is not precedential and can't be used as an admission or finding of fault. That is not the case as to the jury verdict before the settlement. This is of course all generally the case and is in no way legal advice for a particular situation. If you have a specific legal question, you should consult a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction. There are numerous possibilities as to why the settlement was reached.... There have been books written about these kinds of things...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WooferBearATL Posted October 25, 2009 Share Posted October 25, 2009 Interp is correct. The corporation showed very unwise decision making not settling this prior to verdict. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shark6495 Posted October 26, 2009 Share Posted October 26, 2009 Actually, there WAS a jury verdict before the settlement. The evidence used to reach that verdict, and the verdict itself, is what is called res judicata as to the issues decided, literally a thing judged or a thing decided. That testimony, which was public and in open court, can be used in future civil proceedings, at the discretion of the judge in the new action. It can certainly be used to impeach any witnesses who may change their stories in the future. The issues that would have been decided by the jury for punitive damages were coming up next. That portion of the trial was avoided since the parties settled. Having those issues heard in open, public court may have been a strong factor in why the park/plaintiff decided to settle. The settlement itself is NOT public, is not precedential and can't be used as an admission or finding of fault. That is not the case as to the jury verdict before the settlement. This is of course all generally the case and is in no way legal advice for a particular situation. If you have a specific legal question, you should consult a competent lawyer in your jurisdiction. Ask and I shall receive.... thank you very much, and why would I need a lawyer? If I am ever injured on a Roller Coaster expect your phone to be ringing..... thanks again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted October 26, 2009 Author Share Posted October 26, 2009 First of all, you would need a competent lawyer in the jurisdiction where you live and/or where the injury occurred. Second, you would need someone who can zealously represent you against the park industry and/or one of its components. As for his phone ringing, Terpy's been a witness in enough proceedings of that type, for now! Which reminds me of the definition of an expert...someone who is from more than 50 miles away, charging for her or his time, and who carries a big brief case (though the laptop age has helped to make that case smaller...) 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.