Cedar Point sued in Dragster incident

Sorry, poor choice of words. I honestly was not even thinking about "bleeding heart" in terms of politics and you crazy liberals who hang out here... :-)

I just thought people were getting way to sentimental (bleeding hearts) over the alleged pain and suffering the plaintiffs have endured. We’re not talking about lava coffee, skin grafts, and 3rd degree burns here…

I apologize to any of you easily offended lefties... :-)

First of all CP is not being sued, their insurance company is, and every case goes to court. It will probably take about 7-9 years before they see any money. I definetly would sue. Lets face it, it was CPs fault. What if it were your children that got hurt, you would sue too.

Hey, easy to get offended when you live in an area where you are constantly dodging gigantic agressive support-our-troops SUVs.

But yah, believe it or not, I'm with Jeffrey on this. 50 grand for something that not only didn't send them to the emergency room, but didn't even send them home for the day sounds an awful lot like someone in need of a new mobile home.

That being said, CP probably should have at least given them free passes. When I worked at Great America, we gave passes when folks got stuck on rides for an extended period of time. That sounds a little more reasonable to me.

Now as for the lady who was knocked cold by a huge piece of wrought iron that fell off the second story of Columbia and who bled all over the plaza...I could see that.

*** This post was edited by janfrederick 2/16/2005 6:21:10 PM ***

---

What if it were your children that got hurt, you would sue too.

---

Under the circumstances of the accident and the injuries received - I wouldn't...

...I'd have given them cute little Spongebob band-aids.

The Lord has spoken... You do not want to get on the wrong side of The Lord. :-)

What hell these people are thinking sueing Cedar Point and Intamin because of a stupid litle cut they got from Top Thrill Dragster. Plus they want $50,000 for little cut is like they want money so they can more richer.

SFGAMDie HARD said: There are two things significantly wrong with that statement. First, the do you wanna bet part, is an assumption, something nobody can use as evidence in a courtroom.

First: There is nothing wrong with my statement as it was an opinion. A statement based on the premise that I don't feel that this is a justifiable case. |sarcasm| And I am NOT a lawyer as you pointed out later so I won't be presenting this as evidence.|/sarcasm|

SFGAMDie HARD also said: Second, the mental stress definition, WAY off. I was in a serious car accident a year and a half ago. I consider myself as having endured mental stress, that doesn't mean I don't ever enjoy driving anymore and that I fear for my life everytime I get behind the wheel.

|opinion| You may not have experienced long term mental stress. If your mental stress is limited to a short time frame of the accident is it worth $50k several months later? Compensation for mental stress is justifiable if the mental stress prevents you from functioning in the same way as before the incident. If part of their suit includes mental stress caused by the event. And their stress lasted that day or even a week than that isn't long term and doesn't consititute enough stress to be life changning and require some form of compensation. They are milking the system because they can.

I would like to say, however, that I do agree with who is at fault here. But, as said before, if the cables were properly stress tested, inspected and the ride was in proper operating condition and was being operated correctly than the agreement reached by the park and the victims should have been the end. Any attempt to gain more compensation is just an attempt at personal gain.|/opinion|*** This post was edited by ldiesman 2/16/2005 7:26:45 PM ***

Are you guys reading a different article than the one linked at the top of this news story? There is nothing there at all saying they are suing for mental stress...They are suing for PAIN and SUFFERING.

Before you all get hot and bothered arguing bullcrap, why don't you actually read the damned article.

Pain and suffering is a relative mental issue, correct? (though I do think that some people still missed the point)

From my post in the middle of this thread...

Obviously some of you need to get a dictionary.

---

Suffering according to the American Heritage Dictionary is "An instance of pain or distress. "

Pain according to the same dictionary is "An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury."

---

Also from this site,

---

Damages for non-economic losses are damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium or companionship, and other tangible injuries. These damages involve no direct economic loss and have no precise value.

(snip)

The legal standards for assessing pain and suffering damages are imprecise. Evidence of pain and suffering plays on jurors’ emotions, not their sense of logic. Because jurors’ judgment on these issues is believed to represent the very sense of the community that justifies the jury system in the first place, trial judges are hesitant to reduce the amount of pain and suffering post-trial. Furthermore, the traditionally subjective nature of types of damage awards makes them difficult to consider on appellate review.

---

*** This post was edited by redman822 2/17/2005 6:34:56 AM ***

Here is another link about pain and suffering

http://www.4utah.com/legalanswers/legal/topic.aspx?content_id=0BC43A11-562B-49EF-B25F-79E9C9B613AA

So basically you just proved that it's just a bunch of boohooing intended to do nothing but make lawyers and the occasional client rich, and has nothing to do with actual pain, suffering, or justice, just playing on juror's and judge's emotions.

Way to prove yourself to be a boohooer. We are arguing bullcrap, the bullcrap that is this "lawsuit".

This should have never happened in the first place.

Please... shards of metal flying into passengers skin. That's just wrong.

Cedar Point is lucky these people aren't suing for more. Regardless of "how much they bled" or "if they still were riding rides", what happened to these poeple was wrong. Hell, I'd sue for at LEAST $100,000. That's just because I'm a jerk though.

Should we expect Cedar Point to take some sort of legal action toward Intamin? If anyone is at fault, it seems as though they are.

"I think that speaks volumes about the people initiating lawsuits like this. They need to be told coffee is served hot."

That's not the whole story though. As someone else mentioned, there had already been many complaints about their flimsy cups and the coffee was heated well above the standard limit.

"Well if you're all-knowing and knew it was only a matter of time before metal shards got tossed in the path of the train, then why didin't you pipe up and tell CP?"

Namely because this wasn't the first time that metal shards were discovered so CP was already aware of the problem.*** This post was edited by Coasterbuzzer 2/17/2005 9:46:20 AM ***
*** This post was edited by Coasterbuzzer 2/17/2005 9:46:49 AM ***

Just a quick story: I recently rear-ended someone in my car, going about 10 mph. The only damage to the other person's car was a small scratch, about 2 inches long, on the bumper. No dents. The car was an old Toyota.

I found out from my insurance company that the woman I hit received several thousand dollars to fix the car, and several more thousand for "pain and suffering." No wonder insurance rates are so high.

OK, continue relevant discussion.

Thank you Den for pointing out yet another of these wahoos. I had a similar thing happen - backed into the front end of someone's beat-to-s**t clunker in a skiing parking lot at a very low speed. I ended up having to pay for a headlight, front bumper, side panel, rear light and a cracked driver's side window. And of course, neither insurance company saw anything wrong with this? Maybe it was UBRhino ...

These days, why would anyone want to start a business to serve anyone when any service is just seen as an opportunity to slam a lawsuit to make you rich? If I ever open an amusement park, I'm making each person coming in sign a release with a lawyer there claiming you understand there is some inherent risk to walking through that ticket booth ... if you don't like it, I don't need you at my park ...

^You would have a pretty empty park then.

Ha Impulse-ive! I would have made you pay for a LOT more. Nah, I'm just playin', I'm not THAT mean.

I know of an incident that happened at The Great Escape. My friend's mother was exiting The Trabant. Now if anyone had been to the park in 2003, they would know The Trabant had it's entrance and exit on the west side of the ride. It was kind of an odd position. Anyway, while exiting the ride my friend's mother tripped. It was very easy to do. She ended up with a broken ankle.

Is this the park's fault? Sure is.
Is it fair? Maybe not.

The next year we returned to the park and found The Trabant to have it's entrance on the east side of the ride. This was a huge improvement. I'm sure this particualr incident was not isolated. The park had probably received several complaints and, because of legal concerns, decided it was in their best interest to make a change.

How about Dragster? If this incident were to happen again, the park would be hit with another law suit. Would everyone disagree with that as they have with this incident? I would say no since the incident had already happened before. Should the victims of this hypothetical "future" incident be granted more money than the current ones? No.

Whether the park saw it coming or not they are still liable. It's like the, "if a salesman trips in your yard, you can sue him" bit. The only difference is the park is ALLOWING people to enter.

Impulse-ive: If you did that with your park, you would probably never be sued. Still, I'm not sure many people would take that risk.

Actually, many parks already have such agreements on the fine print of the tickets. Perhaps that is why the lawsuit is only for $50,000 and not more. At Dorney, on the back of every ticket is printed "It is agreed between the passholder and Cedar Fair, L.P. that in further consideration of your admission to Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom that all claims for injury or loss allegedly incurred or caused while on the premises of Dorney Park & Wildwater Kingdom shall be raised and pursued only in the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania.". (This is from an old ticket I have from 2002)

I'm not a legal expert, but isn't there a limit or something between the level of the court and how much you're allowed to sue for?*** This post was edited by dannerman 2/17/2005 1:40:44 PM ***

That agreement doesn't mean anything. No one goes to a park with the expectation of getting hurt. Not justifying the suit, but if you use that defense you'll lose.