jcgoble3 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 ^^And I'll repeat myself: Lawyers quite clearly don't care about that. If they did, people wouldn't sue because they got injured on a roller coaster (see: Son of Beast). Sad, but in this day and age, it's the truth. Lawyers these days will find any hole in the rules they can to get a lawsuit through. If that guide just says that and does not warn that injury may result if you do not ride in that position and that by boarding the train, you are agreeing to release KI from any and all liability that could possibly result and they do not have prominent signs posted in the station flashing to make them impossible to miss, they'll sue because someone wasn't properly warned of the potential consequences and/or didn't agree in advance to not hold KI liable for anything. Even if KI did all of that, they'll still find a way to sue because the kid wasn't old enough to understand the warnings or because the parents weren't present and the kid wasn't old enough to legally enter into the release of liability contract on his/her own. I swear that someday we're going to have to sign a release of liability contract every time we board an amusement ride. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 ^So you're saying that he was injured because he didn't know to ride defensively? Unfortunately, in this day and age, lawyers could have a field day with that! ^So you're trying to put me on the defensive? Ok then, I'll bite. I didn't say that. I was simply speculating of what *likely* happened since I saw it happen myself from time to time while working on Beast crew. I had the same thing happen to me 30 years ago on the long-defunct Glissade coaster at BGW prior to your even being born. http://www.rcdb.com/1116.htm?p=23320 I bent down and to the right when the coaster made a hairpin turn to the left - hitting my head on the side rail of the car in the process. What I recall was that my embarassment was far worse than my injury. It wasn't my fault, nor was it his, nor was it the park's... it was simply an unfortunate accident. I feel bad for the kid. Thankfully, you were decent enough to recognize that the park was not at fault in your incident and just move on. These days, there are still some people around that are decent enough to recognize that (I hope everyone on these forums is such a person), but they're getting less and less common. Many people these days will sue for anything and often for ridiculously high "damages". It's a sad society we live in today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 I'm glad you like to hear yourself talk, repeatedly. The rider safety guide was linked only for to your "defensive riding" comment. Yes, lawyers can sue for anything, and will attempt to. But in this particular case, a lawyer could sue, but for what? A bloody nose caused due to someone not riding properly? Good luck, especially if this is the best case an attorney can use their time for. Ever consider who wrote the rider guide, and the reasoning for how things are defined & termed? Think about it.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 ^They could, probably among other things, sue for emotional distress. No telling how much they can get from that claim. Also, even sadder is that there are people and lawyers who will try to pull a fast one on the park by claiming there was some more serious internal injury that KI's medics didn't find. Or there could even be such an injury; depending on how hard his head smacked the restraint, it's at least plausible there could have been a concussion, and a six-year-old might not know to tell the medics about such symptoms. Whiplash might also be possible (I'm not a doctor and so don't know the details of what that would entail). As for defensive riding, that statement from the safety guide is exactly that. If you have to be instructed to ride in any certain position other than basic position which the restraint forces you into (i.e. sitting in most cases), then IMO you are being instructed to ride defensively. And a lawyer can plausibly say that a six-year-old isn't old enough to understand that and therefore can't be at fault. Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is simply that in this day and age, many people will sue for anything at all and quite possibly for far more than you expect them to. I'm not such a person, but the park needs to be careful here, lest a kid of such a sue-happy parent get hurt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kingsrattler Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 ^ In this day and age, people can sue all they want, but the act of suing doesn't mean they will win. I think what tggr is trying to say is sure, they can sue, but the guidelines and rules are written to avoid payout. As was the case with SOB, even following such guidelines, investigation has shown that people could still have gotten injured, so there is a case there (along with payout/settlement). in this case, there is no such proof. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 ^It can be expensive just to fight a lawsuit even when you know you're in the clear, and some people may bank on that, hoping that the defendant will offer them a settlement (possibly "without admission of wrongdoing") to avoid the expense of going to trial. In that way, they can still "win" even if their case is shaky at best, and the park loses money either way (either by the settlement or by lawyer expenses). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KI-ORIG-EMP Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 The best system to avoid senseless lawsuits is to have the process that England has. If you bring a lawsuit and you loose, then YOU pay for the other party's legal costs. This is why companies settle out of court because it is cheaper than to mount expensive legal costs to defend yourself in a lawsuit. Dang, I just got a charlie horse riding that rough roller coaster, I am going to sue the pants off that park! 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 ^^CF has attorneys on retainer as well as in-house (since CP is self-insured) for this type of thing, but what you are failing to understand is the attorney making the claim also has to make an income as well. While It could get expensive for CP if it actually goes to trial, the initial costs fall on the accusing attorney. If his time is spent on frivolous lawsuits like the one being discussed, I seriously doubt he has much capital to take on this type of lawsuit. Evidence is needed to make the claim, but most importantly, it is needed before it ever heads to trial. The accusing attorney had to present enough evidence that KI is responsible for the injury (physical evidence & witnesses) and a large part of obtaining evidence for this type of case is to pay for it as well as hire someone to investigate other similar cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 ^And for the accusing attorney, the solution to making an income is simple: require your client to pay the costs as they are incurred or even in advance. A plaintiff gambling on making a quick buck off a frivolous lawsuit will pay those costs because the potential settlement can easily surpass what they paid in legal fees. As for evidence, none is required to be presented at the initial filing of the lawsuit, only a list of allegations, and as for the discovery process, that can be easily abused to force the defendant to settle without actually presenting a valid case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 ^That sounds great on paper, but never happens in reality. A typical injury attorney only gets paid if the plaintiff receives a settlement/ judgement. Given that this particular incident is anything but typical, the attorney willing to take the case is the worst of the bottom feeders as they are, in fact, encouraging the frivolous lawsuit. Also, evidence is most certainly necessary. Simply filing an injury lawsuit does zilch without something backing it up. If there is zero evidence, the paperwork used to file the lawsuit is worth less than the paper you use to clean your backside and will quickly be thrown out. As for evidence, none is required to be presented at the initial filing of the lawsuit, only a list of allegations, and as for the discovery process, that can be easily abused to force the defendant to settle without actually presenting a valid case. That said, is there a particular lawsuit where a business settled without being presented with evidence that you are referring to? I'm anxious to hear about it! KI and other like businesses have lawsuits filed against them almost non-stop. We hear only a small handful, if that. If each business paid just because they were presented with a list of allegations, and no evidence, none would be in business today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdawg1998 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 This is why I don't like The Beast too much. It feels like I can't really enjoy the ride without bracing myself for what's to come. I lean to whatever side of the car I know there will be the most lateral G's so I don't get slammed to the side. It's just a very, very mean coaster. I like to enjoy my smooth and graceful rides on Diamondback! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 ^^That was just my understanding of how the process works. I am not a lawyer, nor have I played one on TV. I'll concede that some evidence is needed, but I'll maintain that you don't need sufficient evidence to actually prove your case to the jury to drag things out and force a settlement; you just need enough to answer discovery requests and keep the case from getting thrown out. As for the attorney willing to take the case, I'm well aware that it would have to be the "worst of the bottom feeders", as you put it. The fact is they're out there, and people looking to file frivolous lawsuits will find them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'll concede that some evidence is needed, but I'll maintain that you don't need sufficient evidence to actually prove your case to the jury to drag things out and force a settlement; you just need enough to answer discovery requests and keep the case from getting thrown out. In any lawsuit, sufficient evidence is necessary to even get close to a jury trial, and all evidence needs to be presented to the defense prior to said trial. Any defense attorney will file a motion to dismiss due to insufficient evidence, and at the motion hearing (only in front of a judge) if there is insufficient evidence presented, the lawsuit will be quickly thrown out without the defense having to "defend" itself. If motion hearings did not happen for these types of things, out judicial system would be backed up 100x worse than it presently is. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markr Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I am sure that they are investigating what caused the boy's injury-I think we should wait for the investigation to be completed before speculating that the ride caused the injury. What exactly are you waiting on, a press release? The ride would not have opened 20 minutes later without them knowing what had happened. Chances are most of the delay was waiting for first aid to come out and clean the blood out of the train. I think some are making this a bigger issue than it actually is. I am not waiting on anything. I was making the same point that you are making, ie that people may be making a mountain out of a molehill. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markr Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I am sure that they are investigating what caused the boy's injury-I think we should wait for the investigation to be completed before speculating that the ride caused the injury. What exactly are you waiting on, a press release? The ride would not have opened 20 minutes later without them knowing what had happened. Chances are most of the delay was waiting for first aid to come out and clean the blood out of the train. I think some are making this a bigger issue than it actually is. I am not waiting on anything. I was making the same point that you are making, ie that people may be making a mountain out of a molehill. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I'll concede that some evidence is needed, but I'll maintain that you don't need sufficient evidence to actually prove your case to the jury to drag things out and force a settlement; you just need enough to answer discovery requests and keep the case from getting thrown out. In any lawsuit, sufficient evidence is necessary to even get close to a jury trial, and all evidence needs to be presented to the defense prior to said trial. Any defense attorney will file a motion to dismiss due to insufficient evidence, and at the motion hearing (only in front of a judge) if there is insufficient evidence presented, the lawsuit will be quickly thrown out without the defense having to "defend" itself. If motion hearings did not happen for these types of things, out judicial system would be backed up 100x worse than it presently is. A "motion to dismiss" is an assertion that the claim for which the plaintiff is suing is not one that the law provides a remedy for (e.g. failure of the defendant to greet the plaintiff on the street). If the plaintiff makes a claim for which remedy is available under the law (e.g. injury), then a motion to dismiss will be declined. What you refer to as a "motion to dismiss due to insufficient evidence" is what is technically called a "motion for summary judgment". According to Wikipedia (I know, not the best source) a motion for summary judgment "is usually only made when sufficient time for discovering all evidence has expired." I interpret that to mean that such a motion must wait until after the discovery phase is concluded. Therefore, abuse of the discovery process to run up the defendant's costs (as I mentioned earlier) can still force the defendant to settle before a motion for summary judgment becomes possible without having sufficient evidence to actually win. The defendant would have to absorb all of the costs associated with fully completing discovery in order to move for summary judgment and may not be able to afford that, while a structured settlement early on in the process may be far easier on the defendant's wallet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 ^ That is incorrect. In a nutshell: http://www.expertlaw...ad.php?t=104826 Another Wiki: http://wiki.answers....tion_to_dismiss and: http://www.ncids.org/Def%20Manual%20Info/Defender_Manual_Vol%202/DefenderManual_CH32.pdf There are truckloads more. We have reached the point of moving on about 10 posts ago.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 ^ That is incorrect. In a nutshell: http://www.expertlaw...ad.php?t=104826 First, that's not a civil lawsuit being discussed, but rather a traffic ticket. Second, my interpretation of what was asked there is that the (short) period for discovery was over and that the motion was made at the trial right before it starts, which backs up rather than refuting my previous post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SeasonPass4Life Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 As for the nose bleed, I seriously doubt it was a height issue, due to my own personal experiences. I'm over 6' tall, and have gotten nose bleeds on both The Beast....and Diamondback. I've been prone to nose bleeds since I was about 10 years old. It always looks worse than it is and it doesn't hurt, it just happens sometimes. I'd be more inclined to think that's what could have happened. The last time I got one at KI was on Diamondback during Halloween Haunt. My friend and I were laughing at the end of the ride and I tasted blood, the worst part was he said he could taste it too! NASTY, but hilarious.... I was tempted to just let it go, throw my head back like I was passed out and see the horror on peoples faces when we rolled into the station. But I opted to use the rain that was falling (quite heavily at the time) to rinse off and held my nose. Got cleaned up and it stopped within about 2 minutes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 And to respond to your edit: Another Wiki: http://wiki.answers....tion_to_dismiss and: http://www.ncids.org...Manual_CH32.pdf As to the first, I'm more inclined to trust Wikipedia, where the collaborative editing process helps weed out errors, over any user-generated answers site, where a single person answers a question and many people don't bother to look at answered questions. As to the second, a close reading reveals that it is discussing motions at the trial itself and, more importantly, is dealing with criminal cases, not civil cases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KIfan1980 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Brown/jcgoble - can I suggest you use PM if you'd like to continue your debate. I think most of the rest of us have moved on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jcgoble3 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Good point. Actually, I think it would be best if we just drop it and agree to disagree here. I don't think either one of us is going to convince the other anytime soon, and I think we both have better things to do than continue to argue a matter that neither of us is an expert in (at least I assume Brown isn't a lawyer). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Brown/jcgoble - can I suggest you use PM if you'd like to continue your debate. I think most of the rest of us have moved on. Blasted like limit! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLiveTheSmurfRide Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Wait.....so do I have a case for representing this kid (Likely) in court, or what? I gotta pay dem billz. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Browntggrr Posted June 29, 2012 Share Posted June 29, 2012 Sure. Some actually believe you could: fall down a flight of stairs at home, limp to KI, claim it happened there, and you may get a payday all on someone else's dime! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
khaoskat Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 My youngest has been riding beast since he was 5 or 6 years of age. He is also tall for his age, at about 56-58 inches just turned 9. That being said, he also weighs almost nothing, about 70 lbs He does not like The Beast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dalefan Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 The best system to avoid senseless lawsuits is to have the process that England has. If you bring a lawsuit and you loose, then YOU pay for the other party's legal costs. This is why companies settle out of court because it is cheaper than to mount expensive legal costs to defend yourself in a lawsuit. Dang, I just got a charlie horse riding that rough roller coaster, I am going to sue the pants off that park! I've read where some people/judges in the USA make the loosing party pay the legal costs because the case was either dumb or they had no reason to sue. I seen a website where people sue for stupid reasons too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XjoshhyX Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 Me and my friends were Actually on the ride 2 trains back when this happened. I didn't hear much Other than the fact that someone had a nose bleed. Having not seen the kid I'd say if he met the height requirement all was good and it was just a freak accident. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donald Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 This is not an un-heard-of incident on Beast. I, as a former Beast ride Op, personally saw it happen a number of times. More than likely the kid didn't "lean" with the 360, rather against it, and he face planted on the front side of the car. That, incidentally, is why there are small pads on that part of the train behind each seat. It had nothing to do with the kid not being measured, or not being tall enough. It has everything to do with the kid simply not knowing to avoid leaning toward the side of the car. Shaggy Nice picture of Todd Frazier and Brandon Phillips! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4runneradam Posted June 30, 2012 Share Posted June 30, 2012 And some kids get spontaneous nose bleeds for little and sometimes even no reason. EXACTLY! I bet the kid was a "bleeder" 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.