Jury awards $3.6 million in Six Flags Ohio projectile accident

The person throwing the item is at fault, unless SF told people or even encouraged people to throw items at people on the roller coaster.

Just another stupid jury award where they should hold ther person who committed the act responsible, and not the entity with the deepest pockets responsbile,

But since they cant find the alleged rock thrower, they just screw the business, and this happens all the time, yet people wonder why things cost so much.but dont factor in stupid jury awards as part of the cost of doing buisness.

There is no doubt that the person who threw the rock should be tracked down and prosecuted too.

But to say that SF should not be held responsible is really not right either. They knew there was a problem, and that someone would likely get hurt. Maybe the sensible thing to do would have been to stop running the ride until the problem was resolved, either by building a taller fence, stopping access to that area, or whatever.

I mean, if it looked like a wheel was coming off the ride, but it had not yet actually fallen off, that would be reasonable grounds to stop the ride. You don't wait until the wheel does fall off and then tell people the ride is down. (TTD excepted )

I don't think it's a case of "money chasing lawyers going after the deepest pockets." 2/3rds of the total amount is punitive damages, not going to the victim. Someone could have died. The park was negligent. They should pay. And the person who threw the rock should be jailed. But just because the rock-thrower wasn't caught doesn't mean the park should be off the hook too.

I guess I can even see, to some degree, the more *conservative opinion* that the park bears NO responsibility at all for a rock not thrown by a park employee (let's hope I'm not being presumptuous). I guess in theory the park should have done something...but putting up signs that state "hurling missiles at riders is prohibited" MIGHT even be seen as "putting the idea in their pea-brain head". What is reasonable, a wooden fence tall enough to prevent someone from taking aim at a victim? Then they cannot *target* someone, but would merely be throwing at some random area where someone is LIKELY to be hit?

Do you have to have armed guards (let's hope for rubber bullets) surrounding the perimiter of your park? Security cameras and signs warning the security cameras may/may not have been there, esp. considering this was a known occurrence previously...

Just some random thoughts...

While I’m still not certain Six Flags should have had to pay anything for this event, I do take some sick solace that the general incompetence from management ultimately came back to bite them. For every person who ever seeked compensation at a Six flags guest service window for legitimate reasons only to be told to write a letter to management…today’s possible injustice was your “get even” moment!

Right or wrong…there is no denying that management were idiots for not doing SOMETHING about the rock throwing instances to at least appear like they cared. But why would we expect them to care? For years they have treated their guests like crap once they’ve entered that gate. They ignored this legitimate issue as they have ignored other legitimate issues for a long, long, time.

Again, as a strict legal argument, I think Six Flags liability/responsibility is minimal at most. For those who disagree and are arguing partial liability…I see your point, but I disagree that this partial liability should equal millions of dollars. A more reasonable sentence would have been some sort of shaming. Requiring Six Flags to put signs at all their parks admitting they failed to properly secure a dangerous ride area leading to a preventable injury might be a start.

Now isn't this a switch? I'm the guy who said the people involved in the TTD cable incedent needed to "get over their boo-boos", but in this case I do think the park has to accept at the very least a part of the liability. Especially if they did indeed know of prior instances and did nothing to rectify the situation.

Back in a January 2004 news item I said:

"It makes them responsible in the sense that they were aware of the problem. That's probably what the whole lawsuit will come down to in the end. Was SFWOA aware of the issue. If so, they're at fault."

Call me Kreskin.

Equally interesting (to me at least) is a post by Joel from CoasterGallery in a July 2002 news item (9 posts down) on the subject where he talks of seeing similar things happening first hand and even snapping a photo and confronting the kid and his mother.

I dunno. At any rate, the courts thought the park knew enough about the incidents to take action and assuming that's true, I'd have to agree with the judgement in this case (the amount is debatable, I suppose. How much exactly is one's skull worth?), but the outcome seems decent.

I do not know where the assumption that Six Flags did nothing to resolve the issue prior to the incident happening comes from. The article clearly states that in May and June of 2000 four complaints were received and the rocks were covered with mulch and a plan to increase patrols was implemented. The accident occurred on July 2.

Considering that the Villain first opened on May 5, 2000 I would say the park reacted very quickly. Within 2 months of opening a new ride the park received the complaints, came up with a plan which was supposed to reduce the risk, and executed the plan.

While it could be argued that the park could have done more I have to ask how were they supposed to know that covering the rocks with mulch and increasing patrols in the area would not resolve the problem.

While I can understand the belief that the park has some liability in this matter because the chosen resolution to a known problem turned out to be inadequate I do not see how they were negligent in handling the situation.
*** This post was edited by goofyrules 3/7/2006 3:41:30 PM ***

Hmm...Corkscrew anyone? I can think of a few visits last summer where I watched unsupervised guests throw balls and other items over the Corkscrew track in the midway. We all have to rely on people not acting like an ass.

The only way SixFlags should be held remotely responsible if other incidents similar to this had happened before and proved to have been true...According to the victim she didn't know if it was a rock or a cell phone...I spoke with an attorney friend of mine and he said SF defense must have been horrible.....To me it sounds fishy...When I'm riding in my car and I hear something hit my windshield I don't say that was a rock or a cell phone....How did she determine it was a cell phone...She thought whe heard a ring when it hit her in her face....Also, if it was a "cell phone" it had to come from someone riding by which someone else would have noticed the object floating through the air...No fool is going to take their cell phone and throw it at a roller coaster for fun...So now what?? Parks need to start building structures around not only roller coasters but all rides...Any fool can take a rock and throw it at a ride...Some things in life just happens...Back to the case..Their was no proof of what the object was that hit her and where the object that hit her came from...For what had happened $200,000 is more than enough to have compensated her for her damages especially with the lack of proof shown...This whole litigation thing is getting totally out of hand...I can't believe anyone would side with this person unless what I said before was true...3.6 million dollars?...Come on...

Its not like something came off the coaster and hit them, nor should any park have to put up any walls for riders, they should just stress safety and maybe observe their landscape for things such as rocks, that may pose a hazard to such situations. I think the 3.6 could of been alot lower. It would of covered any damage, also i agree with tubs on the lack of proof, but whats next sue six flags because the restraints were loose? I think they could of designed landscape better for much lesser chance of the incident occuring. Either way its still serious, because she could of very well been killed.

I would like to make a few comments. First of all the theory of a "cell phone" from someone on the ride was given out by Six Flags, not the victim. The injuries sustained were a fractured skull, broken nose, and bones broken under her right eye. They had to cut the top of her head from ear to ear, pull down the skin, remove part of the skull, put in a mesh plate and screws. They then closed it up with 52 staples across the top of her head. There was nerve damage from the accident and brains cells in the frontal lobe were "killed". Because of the nerve damage, she has constant face pain that she has been told there is no remedy for. So, for almost six years now she has had to deal with being in pain every day! She is now, and always will be, on medication to control the areas of the brain that were permenantly damaged, and night tremors caused by this "accident". As far as a rock doing the damage, the doctors who have treated her and a biomedical engineer have all concurred that is what makes the most sense when looking at her injuries. Also, it was proven that it could not have been anything that someone had on them on the ride. One last comment, she did not ask for millions of dollars. The jury awarded that based on the evidence. She and her lawyers were surprised by the amount.