Second Son of Beast lawsuit filed

[AZ Kinda Guy]

SOB was not a danger and the ride was safe. Rough but still safe. It was a freak accident that could have not been avoided. So therefore, it was nobodys fault... However, that is no exscuse in a case like this and the park should be held responsible for what happened.

[StXsteven]

SOB was not a danger and the ride was safe. Rough but still safe. It was a freak accident that could have not been avoided. So therefore, it was nobodys fault... However, that is no exscuse in a case like this and the park should be held responsible for what happened.

The ride wasn't exactly a danger.. but it wasn't safe either. Alot of people get hurt on the ride wether you know it or not. I don't work for pki but someone has got to have a number of how many peopletry to bring KI to court for this ride.. just the latest event happened to all the riders..

[Vortexlover2]

If these people should sue anyone it should be the company that approved the ride to be safe not Cedar Fair.

wow. I didn't think of that- and I aggree.

But this is still puzzling me- If they are going to rebuild that part of the ride, then why file another lawsuit? It seems that they were already taking action for what they- I'm sorry, Those people who built it- did. It just doesn't make sence to me- unless they are trying to get attention, do mob psycoligy, and make money.

[CoastersRZ]

See, that is one of the things that the State invesigation is looking to determine. Was it bad design which resulted in this accident, bad wood (ie it failed before it was supposed to reach its ultimate strength point) or bad maintenance. The reason the park has been ordered to rebuild part of the ride is to determine which of those three is at fault, and to determine what changes, if any, need to be made to the rest of the ride. Personally, I think it is not maintenance related, but possibly a combination of the other two.

The reason the parties are suing, as clearly stated, is to recoup their medical expenses, loss pay etc. They have a right to want to be compensated for that. The tricky part comes in with the pain and suffering. Like why does the suit name someone that wasn`t even on the ride? Sure, she may have lost time from work caring for the others that were on the ride, but she herself was not injured. It seems to me like these people are after more than just fair compensation.

I also find it funny that these suits are claiming negligence, before the official cause of the accident has been determined. It will defeinantely be interesting to see what the State investigation turns up. To my knowledge, they haven`t started dismanteling any part of the ride yet, but it could be in an area that is not readily recognizable from areas of the park (ie the Eiffel Tower).

[peterderkonig]

Negligence is, at this point, a valid claim. Whether the reason is bad wood, bad design, improper maintenence, crop circles and alien abduction of staff, whatever, KI certified the ride as safe to run that morning. The ride was not safe to operate. Therefore, KI was negligent in inspecting the ride to ensure safety of guests. If the area that broke was not an inspected area, then the daily inspection procedures are negligent by not completely ensuring that the ride is safe.

To those who believe that these people have no right to sue, I point out, as others have done, the implied warranty of safety.

[KIBeast]

So, who is really responisble? Is it Cedar Fair, or does the blame revert back to Parmount? I don't see how they would have a leg to stand on seeing how they were suing RCCA over structural defects.

[WooferBearATL]

See, that is one of the things that the State invesigation is looking to determine. Was it bad design which resulted in this accident, bad wood (ie it failed before it was supposed to reach its ultimate strength point) or bad maintenance. The reason the park has been ordered to rebuild part of the ride is to determine which of those three is at fault, and to determine what changes, if any, need to be made to the rest of the ride. Personally, I think it is not maintenance related, but possibly a combination of the other two.

The reason the parties are suing, as clearly stated, is to recoup their medical expenses, loss pay etc. They have a right to want to be compensated for that. The tricky part comes in with the pain and suffering. Like why does the suit name someone that wasn`t even on the ride? Sure, she may have lost time from work caring for the others that were on the ride, but she herself was not injured. It seems to me like these people are after more than just fair compensation.

I also find it funny that these suits are claiming negligence, before the official cause of the accident has been determined. It will defeinantely be interesting to see what the State investigation turns up. To my knowledge, they haven`t started dismanteling any part of the ride yet, but it could be in an area that is not readily recognizable from areas of the park (ie the Eiffel Tower).

It's likely a claime for Loss of Consortium.

Loss of Consortium covers spouses and family members and does not only apply to sexual relationships.

Just a little FYI there.

[WooferBearATL]

Negligence is, at this point, a valid claim. Whether the reason is bad wood, bad design, improper maintenence, crop circles and alien abduction of staff, whatever, KI certified the ride as safe to run that morning. The ride was not safe to operate. Therefore, KI was negligent in inspecting the ride to ensure safety of guests. If the area that broke was not an inspected area, then the daily inspection procedures are negligent by not completely ensuring that the ride is safe.

To those who believe that these people have no right to sue, I point out, as others have done, the implied warranty of safety.

True, I believe that it's pretty clear cut that all parties involved were aware that SOB was a problem waiting to happen.

The numerous repairs and issues that are clearly able to be documented do not bode well for the park saying that they were unaware that a situation such as this or that an unreasonable or unexpected risk existed.

[Quickwind]

Have only read some of the first page of posts, butproving negligence is very hard. They have to prove that someone did something wrong in their daily routing or that if they did do something wrong they were improperly trained to do it in the first place.

[The Interpreter]

Have only read some of the first page of posts, butproving negligence is very hard. They have to prove that someone did something wrong in their daily routing or that if they did do something wrong they were improperly trained to do it in the first place.

Really? Don't give up the day job.

Failure to act can be negligence. You do NOT have to do something wrong to be negligent. Failing to do what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances is one of the classic definitions of negligence. Doing something improperly (wrong) is often negligence, but failing to act when there was a duty to act also can be. For instance, failure to inspect. . . or failure to offer safe carriage to guests who did nothing wrong. . .

[Captain Picard]

I wonder if their 500,000 deductible applies to injuries. http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...D=2003102110035

[The Interpreter]

a. Different parts of a policy have different deductibles, just like a car insurance policy does.

b. They may or may not even have the same insurance carrier they had back then.

c. All that the deductible means to those who may recover losses is that the defendant itself and not the insurance company pays the deductible portion...it doesn't mean the person bore the loss is out that amount, unless, of course, the defendant can't be found and/or is bankrupt and/or has no recoverable assets--none of which are the case here.

[Lion Sleeps Tonight]

Have only read some of the first page of posts, butproving negligence is very hard. They have to prove that someone did something wrong in their daily routing or that if they did do something wrong they were improperly trained to do it in the first place.

Really? Don't give up the day job.

Failure to act can be negligence. You do NOT have to do something wrong to be negligent. Failing to do what a reasonably prudent person would have done under the circumstances is one of the classic definitions of negligence. Doing something improperly (wrong) is often negligence, but failing to act when there was a duty to act also can be. For instance, failure to inspect. . . or failure to offer safe carriage to guests who did nothing wrong. . .

What job do you have??? all i see you do is argue with teens and your like what..35 year olds? don't got nothing better to do?

[WooferBearATL]

What job do you have??? all i see you do is argue with teens and your like what..35 year olds? don't got nothing better to do?

Unless you know who you're speaking with I do recommend that you give the poster credence.

I'd venture to say that most of what Interpreter says on topics here is dead on.

I'm certain that others on the board will back this up.

[Avatar]

Lion Sleeps Tonight; I see that you are relatively new to PKICentral and I don’t know how long you have been visiting the forum as a guest. But Please don’t take everything that some here on the forum says to heart and personal. Some posters try to add a little wise crack every now and then to keep things fun. I have had a few wise cracks directed towards me at times. I deserved it, I learned from it and continued to post and now enjoy a cleaver wise crack as it gets a little too serious here at times.

Now as for the age comment I think it is totally irrelevant what anybody’s age here is. In my opinion every age group has a different perspective and outlook to the park and to this forum. Every age group has something special to offer to it. Because of that it makes this forum truly unique as it allows everyone to see a different perspective other than their own. I enjoy the curiosity of the young, the eagerness of the young adults and the been there done that of the older something’s.

I look forward to reading future post from you.

[Browntggrr]

It is amazing that some of the fanboys just cannot seem to understand that there were 27 people that sought medical attention.

A frivolous lawsuit would be one person that slipped on a wet surface on the midway and wants to sue because they can't walk without tripping over their own feet, not 27 people that were in a accident they could not control. And this accident actually resulted in overnight stays in the hospital for 2 people. Hospitals don't admit people just for the thrill of it.

Now the lawsuit that was filed when the person was hit by lightning in the parking lot, that can be considered frivolous, but not those who were injured on SoB.

KI has considered themselves a family park for a few years now, and that is their reasoning for not adding large scream machines with large price tags; and many that are regulars on this site here have defended that. Now when there is an unfortunate accident to someone that needs to provide for their families and can't, because of what happened, what kind of message is that sending to everyone that enters the park, including yourselves?

It is laughable & disgusting at the same time to hear someone say that they would not file a lawsuit given the same set of circumstances. How can you sit there and even imagine what these people have gone through? And how can you imagine what their families have gone through? Unless you have actually been injured, or had a family member injured, you cannot say that you would not file a lawsuit.

You have nothing to compare their situation to.

And if you have so much money that you can actually say you would not file a lawsuit against the park, why don't you start a fund at a local bank to help out the family in need so they don't have to sue the park.

*stepping off soapbox*

[Captain Picard]

You can't even imagine what these people are going to go through. Going through a lawsuit will be as bad as the ride was or worse. Giving a deposition for hours and getting probed for every little detail of your life asked over and over with different words is no walk in the park.

[The Interpreter]

...and it is NOT just the victims. Everyone involved, from the ride operators working that day to people who helped to build the ride to the people who designed it to the maintenance workers, being called for depositions--sometimes more than once--and perhaps to testify. Then there's producing documents, dealing with insurance companies, discussions with attorneys for all sides, bills for all this coming in, costs and expenses and most of all...how long everything seems to take. There is STILL litigation in progress over an incident at Darien Lake on Superman which occurred the Sunday after it opened, more than seven years ago, at the beginning of the season in 1999.

[CoasterXtreme]

Well said Browntggrr! I couldn't agree more.

[WooferBearATL]

Browntggrr - I could not have said it better myself.

Hopefully this will wake some of these folk up.

[Browntggrr]

http://www.nbc4i.com/news/9696783/detail.html

[Lion Sleeps Tonight]

there fileing lawsuit becuase, "the park failed to maintain the ride in a safe condition and failed to inspect the ride and discover any and all safety issues and defect"

(quote off the articale)

This problem couldn't have been previnted. The problem couldn't of been found on a normal day inspection. I'm sure pki will pay for there medical problems, but are these people thinking they're gona get millions?

[WooferBearATL]

there fileing lawsuit becuase, "the park failed to maintain the ride in a safe condition and failed to inspect the ride and discover any and all safety issues and defect"

(quote off the articale)

This problem couldn't have been previnted. The problem couldn't of been found on a normal day inspection. I'm sure pki will pay for there medical problems, but are these people thinking they're gona get millions?

Nah, that one will probably settle for about 100K for the fractures unless the park is found to be guilty of gross neglecence.

I'm guessing that they're probably fishing to make that determination.

Based upon past history for SOB, I'd say it's a good bet.

[Lion Sleeps Tonight]

Look at this, http://www.nbc4i.com/news/9507334/detail.html some people dont listen? becuase i rode it on july 7 and yes it was a wild ride, i didnt think nothing was wrong with it. but i could fell a diffrence from last year.

[Lion Sleeps Tonight]

Sorry for double posting but, do you think if they didn't work on Son of Beast during winter rehad and left it alone, do you think this would of happen?

LOOk- http://www.nbc4i.com/news/9555006/detail.html

they already found the problem but they are lookin for more and look at the bottom quote

"It will be safe it will be probably a smoother ride," Spiegel said"

[TheKlockster]

I was there July 7 - but didn't ride it as the park was fairly crowded. It appeared to be doing fine though. I did ride it like that Wednesday - or the Wednesday before that - and it was running very smooth.

[CYoung2003]

It's time for my rebutle on this. The only thing I'm going to say is that it ****es me off to hear people saying that the ride was poorly maintained and neglected. That is completely false. Our maintenance workers arrive 5 hours before the park opens to walk track and inspect it for any problems. They do this every single day. If they find the slightest problem with the track or the structure, they will keep the ride down and fix that section that has the problem. As a matter of fact, that day we were down for a couple hours so they could do some track work on the first drop. Obviously, the problem it had later that day was not spotted, and I dont know who's fault it is or what. But maintenance will inspect track in the mornings, and they check on the ride throughout the day. Also, they test ride it every morning before we open and throughout the day they will come up and ride with a full loaded train. So if you still think thats neglect, then that's your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that they DO NOT neglect that ride. Thanks.

[WooferBearATL]

It's time for my rebutle on this. The only thing I'm going to say is that it ****es me off to hear people saying that the ride was poorly maintained and neglected. That is completely false. Our maintenance workers arrive 5 hours before the park opens to walk track and inspect it for any problems. They do this every single day. If they find the slightest problem with the track or the structure, they will keep the ride down and fix that section that has the problem. As a matter of fact, that day we were down for a couple hours so they could do some track work on the first drop. Obviously, the problem it had later that day was not spotted, and I dont know who's fault it is or what. But maintenance will inspect track in the mornings, and they check on the ride throughout the day. Also, they test ride it every morning before we open and throughout the day they will come up and ride with a full loaded train. So if you still think thats neglect, then that's your opinion, but the fact of the matter is that they DO NOT neglect that ride. Thanks.

What you have said is opinion.

What will be determined in court is legal defenition of neglegence.

If the park continued to operate a ride that forseably continued to have issues (and judging by the down time and the continual work) it fits the defenition of neglect.

[TheKlockster]

Well what CYoung said isn't really opinion - it is indeed fact.

[Avatar]

^^^ That’s what I love about this forum, We usually get every side of the story . The informed, the uninformed and the factual, the I’m guessing. The one thing that we are never short of is the personal opinions!!