The Interpreter Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 ...The civil lawsuit is scheduled to go before a jury Monday in Warren County Common Pleas Court.Colleen Hegge, who has represented a half-dozen Son of Beast riders in court, said a settlement isn't out of the question in Yanik's case. "Talks have continued, and they have gotten better," she said. Yanik suffered a shoulder injury that required surgery following the ride. He has spent $22,521 in medical bills to date, according to court documents and has suffered $22,000 in lost wages. The lawsuit is asking for $500,000 in compensatory damages and more than $350,000 in punitive damages. All the other lawsuits but one were settled prior to trial. Jennifer Wright of Defiance took her case to a jury in October 2009 and was awarded $76,364 in compensatory damages and an undisclosed amount in punitive damages.... http://www.daytondai...al-1109729.htmlThere is much information at the cited link... Note particularly this quote from Ms. Wright, the only plaintiff to win a verdict in court from this accident: ..."All I ever wanted was the truth to come out and no one to ever be hurt again,"... You might want to read that quote several times. I note that case was settled after the verdict and before the punitive damages portion of the trial was concluded. The terms of that settlement were not disclosed. The ride has not operated since. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastersRZ Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 That article certainly paints a grave picture for Son of Beast. It makes me truly wonder if the ride will ever operate again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrose530 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Well let's all keep in mind that the real problem happened while paramount owned the park!, And since CF has owned the park have been no "true" issues. Not saying that this lady in 2009 is faking just that the state of Ohio cleared the ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skaterboy22101 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It clearly says before you enter the ride that if you dont want to ride it, you dont have to. They choose to get on the ride. Everytime I got on SoB, I never got injured. It passed mantince tests that day. Hell, I even rode it that day. Nothing that wasn't normal. All of these people are over reacting, probably for insurance claims or settlements. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrose530 Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 It clearly says before you enter the ride that if you dont want to ride it, you dont have to. They choose to get on the ride. Everytime I got on SoB, I never got injured. It passed mantince tests that day. Hell, I even rode it that day. Nothing that wasn't normal. All of these people are over reacting, probably for insurance claims or settlements. I believe that most of the 27 riders in 2006 we hurt in some way, but i do not think that the 2009 issue is real ! And obviously the state feels that the ride is safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
74Gibson Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 ^ But she turned down a settlement and went through the hell that is trial because ...“All I ever wanted was the truth to come out and no one to ever be hurt again,”... As Terpy quoted above. If I was responsible for something that caused undeniable harm to someone... I doubt a shoulder injury requiring surgery was faked, I would feel guilty. The state has cleared SOB to run. Management has stated that they are not happy with the ride experience and will not open SOB until they are. If I were in charge, I would never run SOB if I genuinely believed it could hurt others. Being sore from a rough ride is one thing... getting injured is entirely different. Oh, did I mention lawsuits are expensive. I wonder what the true cost of SOB is (including all the settlements and legal fees). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkroz Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 Well let's all keep in mind that the real problem happened while paramount owned the park!, And since CF has owned the park have been no "true" issues. Not saying that this lady in 2009 is faking just that the state of Ohio cleared the ride. The real problem (the 2006 incident) happened a mere six days after Cedar Fair completed its acquisition of the Paramount Parks. Who might've really been to blame for Son of Beast's accident aside, Cedar Fair technically owned the park, and unfortunately for them, technically is all that counts. Paramount did try to sue the company responsible for the ride's design and construction, and was unsuccessful. And I would argue - even as a fan of the old ride - that there have been "true" issues before and after that day. How many of us here have felt a little wobbly afterwards; had a sore back; not been able to really enjoy the rest of the park or concentrate at work the next day because your back is still aching; felt chest pain during the course of the ride simply from the sheer whipping and jackhammering of the trains? Maybe some people have even been seriously injured, and just not reported it... It clearly says before you enter the ride that if you dont want to ride it, you dont have to. They choose to get on the ride. Everytime I got on SoB, I never got injured. It passed mantince tests that day. Hell, I even rode it that day. Nothing that wasn't normal. All of these people are over reacting, probably for insurance claims or settlements. It would seem indisputable that this woman had a medical issue. We can't entirely say that the ride was at fault (and indeed, that's what the courts are for). But you know what? It doesn't matter... The ride experience was poor. I was a fan of the ride. I rode it multiple times when it was open, and would ride it again today if it re-opened. But come on... The experience could be better. It could. It's that simple. It was rough - moreso, even, than one would expect from "The tallest wooden roller coaster on Earth." The ride isn't closed soley because of this one woman. What has Terpy taught us about A and B and causality? At most, consider her "the straw that broke the camel's back" - final, irrefutable evidence that the ride had gone too far. Because even if it didn't cause the injury she claims, the fact that the public weren't surprised by her claim said a LOT about the ride, didn't it? Perhaps we'll get a better Son of Beast. Perhaps we'll get a better ride in it's place. But they won't let things get worse, and that's a good thing. Sigh. What a shame that Paramount Parks couldn't wait another year or two for the invention of Intamin's pre-fabricated track wooden coasters (which, by the way, occupy the second, third, and fourth spot on the 'world's tallest wooden coasters,' eclipsed only by Son of Beast... And if anyone could do a wooden loop, it would be Intamin...) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
faeriewench Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 And I would argue - even as a fan of the old ride - that there have been "true" issues before and after that day. How many of us here have felt a little wobbly afterwards; had a sore back; not been able to really enjoy the rest of the park or concentrate at work the next day because your back is still aching; felt chest pain during the course of the ride simply from the sheer whipping and jackhammering of the trains? Maybe some people have even been seriously injured, and just not reported it... I, for one, never had any issues. In fact the roughest ride I had on Sonny was its debut year. Anymore its Vortex I have issues with now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted March 17, 2011 Author Share Posted March 17, 2011 Well let's all keep in mind that the real problem happened while paramount owned the park!, And since CF has owned the park have been no "true" issues. Not saying that this lady in 2009 is faking just that the state of Ohio cleared the ride. June 30, 2006...Cedar Fair, after a period of due diligence, acquires Paramount Parks, including Kings Island, and becomes solely responsible for their operation and maintenance. July 9, 2006 (NOT June, as the article describes, and NOT on the sixth day of Cedar Fair's ownership, as stated in the post just before this one), the incident that precipitated the instant lawsuit occurred. Paramount Parks was not responsible for this matter, as Cedar Fair assumed all liabilities when it acquired ownership. Cedar Fair also made the decision the morning of July 9 to open and operate the ride. Paramount Parks was not involved in any way in that decision. Also, the ride reopened, sans loop and with lighter trains, July 4, 2007, only to close again in June 2009 for reasons never publicly explained. Though many enthusiasts and observers have speculated as to why the ride closed at that time, there has been no confirmation of why, but the park's general manager has said that he is not happy with the ride experience, and the ride will not reopen unless and until he is. I believe that most of the 27 riders in 2006 we hurt in some way, but i do not think that the 2009 issue is real ! And obviously the state feels that the ride is safe. What issue in 2009? The lawsuit discussed in this thread was precipitated by the July 2006 incident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted March 18, 2011 Author Share Posted March 18, 2011 It appears a three day jury trial is contemplated: http://www.co.warren...5CRCD=10CV76791 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrose530 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Well let's all keep in mind that the real problem happened while paramount owned the park!, And since CF has owned the park have been no "true" issues. Not saying that this lady in 2009 is faking just that the state of Ohio cleared the ride. June 30, 2006...Cedar Fair, after a period of due diligence, acquires Paramount Parks, including Kings Island, and becomes solely responsible for their operation and maintenance. July 9, 2006 (NOT June, as the article describes, and NOT on the sixth day of Cedar Fair's ownership, as stated in the post just before this one), the incident that precipitated the instant lawsuit occurred. Paramount Parks was not responsible for this matter, as Cedar Fair assumed all liabilities when it acquired ownership. Cedar Fair also made the decision the morning of July 9 to open and operate the ride. Paramount Parks was not involved in any way in that decision. Also, the ride reopened, sans loop and with lighter trains, July 4, 2007, only to close again in June 2009 for reasons never publicly explained. Though many enthusiasts and observers have speculated as to why the ride closed at that time, there has been no confirmation of why, but the park's general manager has said that he is not happy with the ride experience, and the ride will not reopen unless and until he is. I believe that most of the 27 riders in 2006 we hurt in some way, but i do not think that the 2009 issue is real ! And obviously the state feels that the ride is safe. What issue in 2009? The lawsuit discussed in this thread was precipitated by the July 2006 incident. What I meant by the real problem was that it was Paramounts's "Band- Aid" fix's that caused the 2006 incident. And Paramounts was very responsible for the 2006 Incident, they knew of issues on the ride and half ass fixed the issues then passing the issues along to Cedar Fair. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Maple The Tree King Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 What I meant by the real problem was that it was Paramounts's "Band- Aid" fix's that caused the 2006 incident. And Paramounts was very responsible for the 2006 Incident, they knew of issues on the ride and half ass fixed the issues then passing the issues along to Cedar Fair. Pardon me, if someone wants to correct this, but I do not believe there was a "band-aid" fix. From reading the state report it seemed that Paramount Parks' policies for maintaining the ride were appropriate and ok'd by the state of Ohio. As pointed out by our good friend The Interpreter - Cedar Fair assumed all liabilities and made the decision to operate the ride on that fateful morning. What occurred was a cracked vertical timber. According to the ride's design this should have been fine and it should have been able to operate with enough support to continue running until the problem could be noticed. Unfortunately, the design didn't come through and a slight deviation in the track caused a bump between two track segments. When the trains ran over that bump, it created the jolt that injured the riders. This was all available in the state report, which can still be found online and which is public record. I believe the state faulted the design of the ride and made recommendations to improve it. They did not fault "Paramount's band aid fix." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skaterboy22101 Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Nevermind, I now realize what I posted was stupid. Read on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
74Gibson Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 I love how you can honestly admit a mistake. That's very respectable! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coaster_junky Posted March 20, 2011 Share Posted March 20, 2011 from the article posted above: “They would fix them in a Band-Aid style and then wait and see what happened,” he testified. “They never really stopped and said ‘we’ve got a problem with this ride as a whole.’ ”Wright said she would love to help Yanik win his case. maybe i'm just making this up, but i thought i read on this very site that ohio's department of agriculture had stated in the past that they really do not know much about roller coasters and all they can truly do is check the rides structural integrity. if what i'm remembering correctly, how does wright know that the park had "problem with this ride as a whole?" ...and maybe it's just me, but to me the "band-aid style" approach seems fairly reasonable. why would you do a complete overhaul on the entire ride if there is only one problem area at that time? that's like cutting your hand with a knife and instead of placing a band-aid on it, you go and have full body cosmetic surgery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pedro Cerrano Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Settled. http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110321/NEWS01/303210032/Son-Beast-injury-case-settled?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 What I meant by the real problem was that it was Paramounts's "Band- Aid" fix's that caused the 2006 incident. And Paramounts was very responsible for the 2006 Incident, they knew of issues on the ride and half ass fixed the issues then passing the issues along to Cedar Fair. Pardon me, if someone wants to correct this, but I do not believe there was a "band-aid" fix. From reading the state report it seemed that Paramount Parks' policies for maintaining the ride were appropriate and ok'd by the state of Ohio. As pointed out by our good friend The Interpreter - Cedar Fair assumed all liabilities and made the decision to operate the ride on that fateful morning. What occurred was a cracked vertical timber. According to the ride's design this should have been fine and it should have been able to operate with enough support to continue running until the problem could be noticed. Unfortunately, the design didn't come through and a slight deviation in the track caused a bump between two track segments. When the trains ran over that bump, it created the jolt that injured the riders. This was all available in the state report, which can still be found online and which is public record. I believe the state faulted the design of the ride and made recommendations to improve it. They did not fault "Paramount's band aid fix." Actually "they" did: In a video interview, Rick Schmizze, who investigated the 2006 accident for the Ohio Department of Agriculture, said owners of the amusement park have known since 2000 there were problems with the ride.“They would fix them in a Band-Aid style and then wait and see what happened,” he testified. “They never really stopped and said ‘we’ve got a problem with this ride as a whole.’ ” http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/dayton-news/last-son-of-beast-accident-case-going-to-trial-1109729.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldschool75 Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 Now that the lawsuits are settled, how long do you think it will be before they say what they are going to do with the big wooden monstrosity that sits on the edge of the park? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 The lawsuits stemming from the July 2006 incident have been settled. Son of Beast last ran in June 2009. Ohio appears to have a 2 year statute of limitation for negligence: http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/2305.10 Thus, the time period to file for any incidents alleging bodily injury that occurred up to and including the time Son of Beast last operated, or the alleged injury was incurred or first discovered, has not yet completely expired. Other causes of action may appear to exist, and have varying Statutes of Limitation. Many lawyers do not file such actions until right before such expiration, for a myriad of reasons. There is no legal advice contained herein. In addition, the facts and circumstances of any particular matter may well warrant the attention of a licensed legal professional, a lawyer. If you have, or think you may have, a legal question or case, you should consult a competent attorney licensed to practice in the appropriate jurisdiction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoastersRZ Posted March 21, 2011 Share Posted March 21, 2011 If ever there was a disclaimer attached to a post, that about takes the cake! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted March 21, 2011 Author Share Posted March 21, 2011 I just post 'em folks: ...Yanik was the last plaintiff suing Cedar Fair for the accident on the Son of Beast wooden roller coaster in Mason, Ohio. A weak support was blamed for the bumpy ride, and the Son of Beast was closed briefly. It was shut down for good in 2009 after another complaint..... http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2011/03/21/Park-settles-roller-coaster-injury-suit/UPI-14361300730825/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Diamondback FOF Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 "A bumpy ride"? That made me giggle I think most people who rode SOB would say it was more than bumpy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thunderbeast1968 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 I have actually got off the Son of Beast roller coaster and felt a little bit "beat up". It has also caused me a bad headache. I am a pretty stout guy 6'4" and 230#. I am not a "small guy" by any means. I can handle the SOB most times, but I have experienced a few times that I did not feel great after riding. I chose to re-ride again at another time knowing that I might be sore after riding. I have (what I felt) good rides on some times, and other times, not so well. Has anyone ever had a ride experience like that? Not sure of the fate of SOB, but I hope maybe Cedar Fair might be able to do something positive with this ride. If they can't, maybe they can recycle parts of the coaster, like the lift hill and maybe other sections that may or may not be affected. We will see??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
son of beast214 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 i think how the ride feels depends on the weght and # of people on that train. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIfan1980 Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Two quotes from the article: - "was shut down for good in 2009". This may end up being true. - "Cedar Fair had known of problems with the ride since 2000". I guess this is a generic enough statement that it is hard to dispute, but seems a little misleading. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 As I said, I just post 'em folks. I cannot say more without saying more so I shant at this time... Terp, the careful one... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 Two quotes from the article: - "was shut down for good in 2009". This may end up being true. - "Cedar Fair had known of problems with the ride since 2000". I guess this is a generic enough statement that it is hard to dispute, but seems a little misleading. Misleading because you used "Cedar Fair" as opposed to "owners" for the actual quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Oh, really? The last sentence of the posted article: Rick Schmizze, who investigated the accident for the state, testified in a deposition that Cedar Fair had known of problems with the ride since 2000. Terp, who has now said more... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted March 22, 2011 Share Posted March 22, 2011 ^ And that is from the writer, which does not use quotation marks.... So: Yes... really Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Interpreter Posted March 22, 2011 Author Share Posted March 22, 2011 Which was KIfan1980's point...the article is misleading, at least in parts...due to carelessness and/or lack of knowledge. KIfan1980 didn't write the thing.... 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.