WCPO Story - KI may have violated Federal Law regarding disabilities

[disco2000]

These stories always amaze me - and same family would probably be first to file a lawsuit if the kid flew off the ride.

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/attorney-kings-island-may-have-violated-federal-law-by-barring-boy-with-disabilities-from-rides

I am all for ADA, etc., but sometimes you just cannot design for every scenario.

I love the quote from the attorney: “The fact that this child has been able to perform an activity in the past without incident is strong evidence that he could continue to do so again in the future, safely.” So if I drive my vehicle on I-71 past KI doing 120mph without incident is that strong evidence I could continue to do so again in the future safely? (I have not done this and do not endorse speeding, just making a point)!

And this quote: “They don't get to decide based on their view that he's not able to have control over his body,” she said. “People with disabilities can do things that everyone else does… and if Logan and his mom say he is able to maintain a position or control that’s necessary to ride those rides, that really should be the end of the story.” Will they then sign a legal form that says they will hold park harmless? I think not, and if they did and said boy was injured or killed, then they would claim they didn't know what they were signing.

The industry is in a lose-lose situation when these events happen. And if parks were truly in violation of Federal Law, every ride and park as we know it would cease to exist.

[HTCO]

-

[malem]

You'd think that WCPO would know that it's not "King's Island" by now.

[purdude86]

This is unfortunate all around. Clearly he ahs been able to ride them in the past so is able to, but I completely understand Kings Island's policies as well.

Even if they did allow them to sign a waiver to ride there is still the legal risk of an incident injuring others too that would then bring up legal complications for the park. Many parks now have these same standards in place or ones very simlar to them.

Sorry for the kid that he is no longer able to ride them but also understand Kings Island's reasoning for its policies. As HTCO said it's a lose-lose for the park and unfortunately a loss for the kid as well.

[BoddaH1994]

This is unfortunate all around. Clearly he ahs been able to ride them in the past so is able to, but I completely understand Kings Island's policies as well.

Even if they did allow them to sign a waiver to ride there is still the legal risk of an incident injuring others too that would then bring up legal complications for the park. Many parks now have these same standards in place or ones very simlar to them.

Sorry for the kid that he is no longer able to ride them but also understand Kings Island's reasoning for its policies. As HTCO said it's a lose-lose for the park and unfortunately a loss for the kid as well.

Signing a waiver is all a head game. It rarely holds up in court. Plus, what if the kid flew out of the ride and landed on another person? They would be injured or killed as a result of the choices made by someone else. Also, imagine how it would impact the park: if he was seriously injured or killed on a ride then it would be all over the news and make Kings Island look awful. That sort of thing really does affect attendance for long periods of time. Safety is good for many things but in this industry it's what's best for business.

Evan Millward from WCPO will be doing a follow up that should be posted by the morning.

Edit: Evan's story is up. Watch the video:

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/attorney-kings-island-may-have-violated-federal-law-by-barring-boy-with-disabilities-from-rides

[tuxedoman52]

Oh boy is it time for another news story already?

[BoddaH1994]

Oh boy is it time for another news story already?

Yeah, a total of 3 in about 24 hours...

[tuxedoman52]

Oh boy is it time for another news story already?

Yeah, a total of 3 in about 24 hours...

About Kings Island.

[KIBeast]

My only question is, if that list of hers was forged, then where would you get such a list from? Create it? Doesn't look like a simple forged document. Not only that, she has pictures of him on The Beast. That right there is enough evidence that this boy had been to KI and rode The Beast. Plus, the picture should have a date as to when that was taken. However, if policy changed, then that's a different issue. I would err on the side of caution as well because of previous incidents at other amusement parks. The SFDL incident comes to mind. Not surprisingly, we are not hearing the entire story.

[shark6495]

Or park policy never changed. But in light of recent events, is now being seriously enforced.

On the original link, they have a follow up story of another man who had changes made. He was a season pass holder for years then one day wasnt. It looks like he was a season pass holder under Paramount then no longer under CF.

I work with children and young adults with disabilities. We fight every day to get them the same opportunities as their able bodied/minded peers. I will fight all day every day about how some children/adults cannot wait for a ride because of the disability. However, physical impairments are very difficult to modify.

A public accommodation must make reasonable modifications in its policies, practices, and procedures in order to accommodate individuals with disabilities.

A modification is not required if it would "fundamentally alter" the goods, services, or operations of the public accommodation.

For example, a department store may need to modify a policy of only permitting one person at a time in a dressing room if an individual with mental retardation needs the assistance of a companion in dressing.

Modifications in existing practices generally must be made to permit the use of guide dogs and other service animals

http://www.ada.gov/t3hilght.htm

If the park deeps that all guests must keep limbs inside the ride and to hold on as part of its safety spiel, then its for safety reasons, not discriminatory.

In reading, it looks like the guide is dated 2012, for the one you download off of the website.... Also just found out KI offers parent swap, I wonder if it does that for not disabled parents.

EDIT: the 2012 guide was downloaded from the Autism part of the site, not the main part, evidently.

[Thrill_Biscuit]

With so many legal gray areas, ambiguities, diverse interpretations, loose ends and loopholes, if I were in PR, I'd be pulling my hai.... nevermind.

[Guest dtk1376]

Looks like they refunded her money which she stated would be what would make her happy. Not sure why I'm still seeing this on the news, Facebook, etc

[RollerNut]

Where is good old Terpy?

ADA says reasonable accommodation to my memory.

[purdude86]

This is unfortunate all around. Clearly he ahs been able to ride them in the past so is able to, but I completely understand Kings Island's policies as well.

Even if they did allow them to sign a waiver to ride there is still the legal risk of an incident injuring others too that would then bring up legal complications for the park. Many parks now have these same standards in place or ones very simlar to them.

Sorry for the kid that he is no longer able to ride them but also understand Kings Island's reasoning for its policies. As HTCO said it's a lose-lose for the park and unfortunately a loss for the kid as well.

Signing a waiver is all a head game. It rarely holds up in court. Plus, what if the kid flew out of the ride and landed on another person? They would be injured or killed as a result of the choices made by someone else. Also, imagine how it would impact the park: if he was seriously injured or killed on a ride then it would be all over the news and make Kings Island look awful. That sort of thing really does affect attendance for long periods of time. Safety is good for many things but in this industry it's what's best for business.

Evan Millward from WCPO will be doing a follow up that should be posted by the morning.

Edit: Evan's story is up. Watch the video:

http://www.wcpo.com/news/local-news/attorney-kings-island-may-have-violated-federal-law-by-barring-boy-with-disabilities-from-rides

The injury to others is what I meant when saying the waiver wouldn't do any good for the park. Just threw it in as an addition to what Disco said about waivers in the original post.

[LoraX]

Maybe it's just my phone, but the picture of him looks like it has been altered.

I have a friend whose daughter has her legs amputated above the knees and her arms are not formed properly. This young lady is amazing. She blows my mind with the things she is capable of doing.

Her mom and dad took her to Kings Island last year and Kings Island provided her with a list of rides her daughter could ride. The list was minimal. They did not get upset over it, however with having limitations that prevent her daughter to ride, they have just not gone back. They are more concerned about her daughter's safety than putting her potentially in harms way. They choose to go to other activities that will permit her daughter to do more.

As a mom, I cannot understand why a parent would be upset over trying to keep my children safe.

[RailRider]

The park is in a no win situation with this story.

Just because you think you are capable of doing a certain activity does not give you the right.

Using this logic what about pregnant women? That is considered a disability by many companies, although short term. Does that mean they are being discriminated against not being allowed to ride because of their disability? Although experiencing such ride may cause adverse harm to rider, baby, and potentially other park guests. If the pregnant woman thinks she can ride safely than she should be allowed?

There is a precedent for this kind of rule and if you don't have a rule like this and it happens then lawyers can ask why was there no rule to prevent this..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2012832/Darien-Lake-Iraq-war-veteran-James-Hackemer-dies-roller-coaster-fall.html

[disco2000]

My only question is, if that list of hers was forged, then where would you get such a list from? Create it? Doesn't look like a simple forged document. Not only that, she has pictures of him on The Beast. That right there is enough evidence that this boy had been to KI and rode The Beast. Plus, the picture should have a date as to when that was taken. However, if policy changed, then that's a different issue. I would err on the side of caution as well because of previous incidents at other amusement parks. The SFDL incident comes to mind. Not surprisingly, we are not hearing the entire story.

I hate when folks pull the "but he/she rode it last time", whether it be this type of situation or a kid that is denied a ride in Planet Snoopy because he isn't tall enough and the parent claims they rode it earlier in the day - if that truly happened then count yourself lucky that the employee missed the kid that time around AND that the kid returned safely.

I saw a mom in line in front of me once and I could hear her trying to talk her son up that he would like the ride and it would be fun and other such things that I could tell that little kid had never been on the coaster before. I could tell he was too short and knew the employee would have him get out of the coaster for a measurement. Guess what, employee asks to measure the child and the mom pulls that "he just rode it" spiel - kid missed the measurement guide by 2 inches. She was flat out lying using the "he just rode it" spiel!

Just because you rode it last time doesn't make it right or acceptable this time. Policies change and|or are more strictly enforced based on an incident, etc. Same goes with lots of things - I remember when folks could smoke in a shopping mall and grocery store; newborns would leave the hospital in a vehicle on the mom's lap; speed limit was 70mph; minimum drinking age was 19; etc. None of which is now legal in Ohio.

[bkroz]

This DOES bring up a good point though. Who at the park is the one giving an individual the ole up-down and determining, "Nope. Can't ride." SOME rider safety descriptions are specific: "must have two fully functioning arms." "Those with amputations below the knee cannot ride." But the rider must be able to "brace himself?" Hmmm...

[shark6495]

My only question is, if that list of hers was forged, then where would you get such a list from? Create it? Doesn't look like a simple forged document. Not only that, she has pictures of him on The Beast. That right there is enough evidence that this boy had been to KI and rode The Beast. Plus, the picture should have a date as to when that was taken. However, if policy changed, then that's a different issue. I would err on the side of caution as well because of previous incidents at other amusement parks. The SFDL incident comes to mind. Not surprisingly, we are not hearing the entire story.

I hate when folks pull the "but he/she rode it last time", whether it be this type of situation or a kid that is denied a ride in Planet Snoopy because he isn't tall enough and the parent claims they rode it earlier in the day - if that truly happened then count yourself lucky that the employee missed the kid that time around AND that the kid returned safely.

I saw a mom in line in front of me once and I could hear her trying to talk her son up that he would like the ride and it would be fun and other such things that I could tell that little kid had never been on the coaster before. I could tell he was too short and knew the employee would have him get out of the coaster for a measurement. Guess what, employee asks to measure the child and the mom pulls that "he just rode it" spiel - kid missed the measurement guide by 2 inches. She was flat out lying using the "he just rode it" spiel!

Just because you rode it last time doesn't make it right or acceptable this time. Policies change and|or are more strictly enforced based on an incident, etc. Same goes with lots of things - I remember when folks could smoke in a shopping mall and grocery store; newborns would leave the hospital in a vehicle on the mom's lap; speed limit was 70mph; minimum drinking age was 19; etc. None of which is now legal in Ohio.

On stretches of Ohio highway the speedlimit is 70 again... But the rest of what you are saying is spot on.

[FutureThrills]

^{I've been a member on here for a while. I mostly just like reading all your post and enjoying the personal opinions of all you of on the various topics. I just had to chime on this one as I thought of a partial solution to all parks. I understand that it is unfortunate that there are people that physically limited in what they can do. I do not however think that the ride operators should be the ones determining who can ride or not ride. I think parks should consider treating disabilities like they do with height requirements. People with disabilities can check into a centrally located spot where one or two people, medically trained personal, that can determine what they can and cannot ride. Assign then some sort of wrist band so that ride ops can determine if they are eligible. This takes pressure off of the rides ops and eliminates them from making any kind of medical judgment. We live in such a sue happy world days that every precaution has to be taken. Which is truly sad in my opinion.}

^{edited: Changed font size. Not use to posting.}

[homestar92]

Another thing nobody is thinking about - the park giving out a refund opens a potentially dangerous door. Now the park has made a judgment call that THIS disability deserves a refund even though they've never given them out in the past. The park has established a precedent of giving a refund because of being unable to ride most of the rides. Now they will be forced to make judgment calls as to which situations that bar a guest from riding are refund-worthy and which aren't.

Even if they give out no more refunds ever again, that in itself is a judgment call that Logan deserved a refund, but a future angry guest does not. It's a lot safer to just not give any out ever or to always give one to anyone who asks. Obviously the latter would not be good for business.

[BoddaH1994]

^{I've been a member on here for a while. I mostly just like reading all your post and enjoying the personal opinions of all you of on the various topics. I just had to chime on this one as I thought of a partial solution to all parks. I understand that it is unfortunate that there are people that physically limited in what they can do. I do not however think that the ride operators should be the ones determining who can ride or not ride. I think parks should consider treating disabilities like they do with height requirements. People with disabilities can check into a centrally located spot where one or two people, medically trained personal, that can determine what they can and cannot ride. Assign then some sort of wrist band so that ride ops can determine if they are eligible. This takes pressure off of the rides ops and eliminates them from making any kind of medical judgment. We live in such a sue happy world days that every precaution has to be taken. Which is truly sad in my opinion.}

^{edited: Changed font size. Not use to posting.}

I don't know... That's another can of worms. If the rider was ejected from the ride or even had a heart attack during the course of the ride then they would have been, "checked out and deemed healthy or in good enough shape to ride" by the park's medical staff. That's just waiting for a legal or PR nightmare.

[KIBeast]

I think it's different when someone claims they have rode it before and then when there is actual visual evidence.

Also, you didn't even read the section of my post which you quoted mentioning the policy changing. You only commented on what you had in bold print. It starts immediately after the sentence in which you highlighted to make your point.

[westcoaster]

So where does this leave future of the many that enjoy Parks, and their Rides.

[BoddaH1994]

So where does this leave future of the many that enjoy Parks, and their Rides.

Probably won't be changed. The policy didn't change. No matter how much noise someone makes, safety isn't going to change. I doubt there will be any legal action.

[KIBeast]

I have a question, then. If there was no policy change, then why the confusion?

There's an itinerary that shows what that individual could ride.

[shark6495]

Maybe a stricter enforcement?

[Browntggrr]

In other news, Vortex is sinking & Flight Deck is on the chopping block.

[BB1]

& Flight Deck is on the chopping block.

What's a Flight Deck? I mean, there's The Bat and Firehawk, but I don't see a Flight Deck. Wait, do you mean Flight of Fear? No, they couldn't!

[Outdoor Man]

It's sad that KI even has to deal with this. As stated, this is for the safety of the guest and others first and foremost. I think someone else said it best earlier- if something were to happen, they'd likely sue also. I think parks in general do as much as they can to reasonably accommodate people with disabilities- but you can't compromise safety in that accommodation.

Extreme case: under this scenario- since I have the occasional digestive issue but still enjoy WindSeeker, I am going to present a law suit for them to install restrooms at the top of the tower in the event nature calls while I'm 300' in the air. Or, I have back issues- so I can enjoy The Beast like everyone else- they need to install Lazy-Boy like seats to coddle my stack of ruptured discs... or I could take my safety into my realm of responsibility- and just stay off the rides that may cause the trouble.

Breaking the law.... our constitution gets sooooo abused and convoluted that it is almost comical. There are laws to protect those with disability from being able to earn a living or attain certain rights. Riding Roller Coasters is not a right. The constitution allows for each citizen of this kindergarten called the United States "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness"... not life, liberty, and happiness.... it is the pursuit of. No where does it guarantee that you will always be happy.