Man dies after ride on Stardust Racers at Epic Universe

Indicates they have not settled:

“Stardust Racers is evidence in an active death investigation. Reopening the ride before our experts can examine every component is unadulterated spoliation of evidence, a grave risk to public safety, and puts profit over people’s lives. Universal reportedly told employees the ride functioned as intended. If that is accurate, then the design itself is deadly. We are demanding that Universal pause the reopening, preserve all evidence, and allow our experts to inspect it. If they refuse, we will address Universal’s callous actions in court,” said Attorney Ben Crump.

https://bencrump.com/press/...stigation/

The public posturing by the lawyer and the park's decision to reopen suggests to me that it's not particularly dangerous for almost everyone. The other story about what the EMT's found is pretty ambiguous as far as what people say they encountered.

Universal is pretty darn risk averse when it comes to their rides (look who debuted metal detectors) if they are opening it with no modifications it tells me the state and company know exactly why the death happened and it was pretty specific to the victim. Sounds an awful lot like his spine condition contributed to his death, which will lead to more restrictions for handicap riders.

And the change is as expected, those needing mobility devices are effectively prohibited from riding if they can’t walk to and into the ride vehicle.

From the article linked at the bottom of this post.:

“...Guests using mobility devices must be able to walk independently.” You must also be able to “(1) maintain an upright position, (2) support your torso, neck, and head while absorbing sudden and dramatic movements, and (3) brace your body with at least one natural upper extremity.”

Sounds very familiar. I'm almost positive that this has been Cedar Point's policy, word-for-word, for at least 25 years since I worked there.

Anyway, this article is very thorough.

Stardust Racers Riders Must “Walk Independently” Now, Major Updates to Universal Guide for Safety and Accessibility

Crump's legal team and family had another press conference late this morning.

Seems like they are to a certain extent in pound the table mode at this point.

Said they found out about the reopening when members of the media told them about it. Park did not let them know in advance. Said when they found out, they were working with park's legal team to schedule an inspection of the ride by Crump's experts. May be the case the park was looking to schedule quickly and Crump was looking to push that out somewhat, and the park just decided to reopen and deal with any consequences later.

Family indicated that the ride ops tried multiple times to get the restraint to latch before it actually did.

Reporter asked question about whether reports that Kevin passed out during the ride which led to him being forced against the restraints causing his injuries. Crump denied he passed out.

Nothing was said/asked about how the injuries were sustained (in terms of what Kevin hit -- restraints, other part of the ride vehicle).

Said park provided some type of chair/seat which was used to lift Kevin from wheel chair to the ride seat. His spinal injury/disease/condition was lifelong.

With many of the risk factors/warning conditions for rides, parks are likely to have idea if any given guest presents with any of them. Can't tell if someone has heart conditions, high blood pressure, is pregnant (in early stage) or back issues. With someone who is unable to walk at all, park has reason to know. And to me, there is a significant difference between someone who is unable to stand/walk for a long time versus someone who cannot stand/walk at all. Soft tissue/bone density will be very different. Park supposedly had a chair/seat they could use for people unable to walk at all. Here seems likely that Kevin's spinal issues contributed in a significant way to the accident (notwithstanding Crump's/family's express statements to the contrary). Questions to me are how much and whether the park should have let someone like Kevin ride. That other parks would not would be part of a negligence/industry standard analysis.

That's an interesting point about liability the park may incur as far as seeing what a person's physical capability is. But on the flip side, didn't the family/lawyers say that he has been on all kinds of stuff, so it "must" be the design of this specific ride? I mean, if he knows better, then why would the park have a say? That's probably a thin argument, but interesting to me.

Is there any real legal reason the park can't operate their ride? As far as we know, they haven't modified it in any way, and their internal investigation and statement that the ride "worked as designed" came out pretty soon after the accident. If the state and local authorities didn't find any reason to keep it closed, I have a hard time believing that there would be a reason to.

While it’s nice the parks internal investigation found nothing, I don’t put much stock in that as they are just as biased as the lawyer. The key is the state investigation, that’s the impartial body/observer. They say the ride functioned as intended and can reopen, then it can.

I don't know exactly how it works in Florida, but generally the state government's regulating entity will require all documentation and do an independent inspection, and once they clear it your insurer will require that they do the same. Sometimes the manufacturer will get involved, as well. Once they're all done, it's fair game to reopen.

If the insurer in particular says it's safe to run then that's a pretty good indication that there's nothing inherently wrong with the ride. They're the ones that are ultimately paying out.

Would be very surprised if the park lacked the legal authority to open the ride. They have in-house and outside legal counsels who are experts in the various regulatory schemes at issue. And they would have gotten state, insurer and manufacturer thumbs up for the re-open.

Crump will argue in court (if it ever gets that far) that re-opening the ride before Crump and his team had a chance to review/investigate deprived them of the opportunity to discover evidence that may have helped them establish their case. Would argue evidence wasn't preserved/was spoiled. How successful that argument is would need to be seen. Expect the park, manufacturer, state and insurance companies documented their reviews/investigations very well. So, Crump would need to establish there is something his experts could have found that none of those other parties didn't. Not sure how likely that is.

GoBucks89:

Said park provided some type of chair/seat which was used to lift Kevin from wheel chair to the ride seat

Does this even exist? I’ve never seen it if it does. I’ve read that they are not even allowed to assist someone into the ride and that it’s drilled in their training that they can’t.

Looks like two small stairs so you can scoot over from your device, (very informative) full source here:

https://inspectionsada.com/...ical-z86bp

Touchdown:

I don’t put much stock in that as they are just as biased as the lawyer.

But as others have said, the park is not the only stakeholder. Not only that, but if parks were flippant about injuries, they wouldn't be in business very long.

You'll see the transfer stairs sitting out of the way in stations at various Kings Island coasters; I know I've seen Banshee's and Racer's off to the side. Each one is specifically designed for that ride's trains.

Ah. Thanks. So it’s less that he was lifted by the device but lifted himself with the help of the device.

Going back to the press conference, one of the attorneys said that Universal provided a transfer chair and Kevin was able to use that to get on the ride. Should have been more clear in my summary.

There was a change from the first press conference to the second. In the first, statements were made that Kevin's disability didn't hold him back. He graduated from college. Drove a car. His parents didn't treat him differently than his siblings. Think they were responding to what many people thought (when Kevin's name was announced as the victim of the accident and pics of him in a wheelchair were shown) that the accident was the result of him being in a wheelchair/disabled.

At yesterday's press conference, they discussed that he had limits. That he followed restrictions suggested to him. Said he read the warnings for the ride and thought it was safe for him to ride. A reporter asked if Crump would admit that Kevin had "back, neck or similar physical conditions" noting that was one of the warnings at the time Kevin rode. Another one of the attorneys responded that she thinks that warning is so vague that its not clear. And noted nothing in the warning mentioned being able to walk or being in a wheelchair in the warnings. So they seem to have moved from "Kevin's disability had nothing to do with the accident" to failure to adequately warn.

Issue with any warnings is there typically is a balance between being vague and being so detailed/long that the warning is ignored/not read. I haven't studied warning signs on rides but my impression is that there is some consistency in what they said. Establishing something of an industry standard. Though sounds like at least Cedar Point may have had the same restriction as Universal now has with respect to being able to walk independently.

Another reporter asked about whether reports of Kevin passing out and then being injured as a result of the ragdoll effect (not using those specific words) are being investigated. Crump was adamant that Kevin did not pass out (expect its at least in part based on what Kevin's girlfriend saw sitting next to him on the ride). Said they believe there are videos that will show what happened if only the park would release them. There are a lot of cameras in public spaces at this point but not sure if there would be anything that would necessarily show what happened with sufficient detail on a moving/turning/twisting coaster train. Another of the attorneys said that they believe its foreseeable that someone would pass out on an intense coaster and thus restraint systems should be designed to protect in that situation. Not sure how easy that is to do though. But then he stated that Kevin didn't pass out. A certain amount of throwing darts at this point it seems.

I wonder what they think the park is withholding. This train didn’t have a video camera on the train. While I have no doubt there is a video recorder in the station, break run and launch tracks, it’s doubtful the event occurred in those four positions. Any security feed from outside the ride is unlikely to be focused on the ride and instead focused on the public paths. With the metal detectors there isn’t going to be a phone recorder coming forward either, and the event occured after dark so the video will likely be infrared hurting resolution.

I think its fair to say (based on watching the 2 press conferences) that Crump and his legal team speak with precision when it comes to the law but less so when it comes to roller coasters and amusement parks. Its at least part of the reason we do not have more clarity on where Kevin hit his head. So, not sure how much they know (2-3 weeks in) about the likelihood of video evidence being available. I agree that it doesn't seem likely there will be video that is very helpful (if at all) to establishing what happened. Kevin's attorneys may not know that though.

They are also working in the court of public opinion at the present. Painting the picture of a large, multi billion corporation that doesn't care about what happened, opened the ride (to preserve profits) without a full investigation being conducted, has evidence it will not share with Kevin's family, etc. Won't appeal to people on this site, but Crump & Co. want Universal to believe it will appeal to potential jurors. Not sure how convincing they are being right now. Though with a growing anti-corporation sentiment with a number of people, I think letting something like this go to a jury is even less likely.

I don't know what is standard in the US, but on most modern coasters in the UK there is CCTV everywhere that there isn't free running track (and in some cases where there is). We retain footage for 31 days, not sure what the industry standard is.

I'm with Rick, I'd be surprised if there are any new coasters being built that don't have cameras covering a lot of the track, at least on "bigger" coasters like SR. With as cheap as cameras are these days, seems like a good tool to catch any weird things that may happen on the ride, for maintenance, troubleshooting, etc.

Mystic Timbers has a big camera aimed at its second drop, visible in this pic:

https://www.themeparkarchiv.../40000.jpg