Cedar Point sued in Dragster incident

Posted | Contributed by Jeff

Two people want money for "pain and suffering" after the cable on Top Thrill Dragster separated and sent bits into riders last summer.

Read more from WEWS/Cleveland.

Link: PointBuzz

Related parks

janfrederick's avatar
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 ***

Lord Gonchar's avatar

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.


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 ***
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".

"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.
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 ***

Jeff's avatar
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.
Lord Gonchar's avatar
I just find the blase attitude to be very frustrating in this thread.

So what if I tripped, it was your fault I did.

So what if I spilled coffee, it's your fault I did.

So what if no one could have seen the cable shredding like it did, it's your fault it did.

So what if my shoes got wet from the rain outside, I slipped in your store, it's your fault.

So what if you didn't break the mirror on my car, you hit me so it's your fault.

So what if I'm a moron, it's your fault.

Maybe people should sue their parents for making them so damn incapable of accepting and dealing with decisions they made and actions they took.

I don't see how you can blame the park for this. There was an unforeseen (although that seems to be the source of some debate) malfunction with a ride part. Luckily no one was injured in any way that was remotely serious. You chalk the whole thing up as a learning experience, clean the boo-boos, offer condolences and move on.

Maybe I'll spend this summer tripping over my own two feet at all the parks I visit and blaming the parks for using such unsafe concrete for their walkways and sue for the boo-boo on my knee...because in the end, I just want to fit in. :)

Gonch, I love the way you think - maybe it's that it seems so damn familiar ;)
Lord Gonchar's avatar

So what if I tripped, it was your fault I did.
-The trip wouldn't have occured if it weren't for the poor queue design. (Parks fault).

So thousands of other people tripped there? Hundreds? Tens? Just one? I have to say, regardless of the design, if thousand of people used it everyday and you're the first to trip, it's not the fault of the design.

So what if I spilled coffee, it's your fault I did.
-The spilling wasn't the problem. The fact that the coffee was hot enough to cause 3rd. degree burns was. (McDonald's fault).

So if the woman hadn't spilled the coffee, there'd still be an issue?

So what if no one could have seen the cable shredding like it did, it's your fault it did.
-No it wasn't, but somebody must be to blame (Parks responsibility).

God? The wind? Joe Pesci? They all make as much sense.

So what if my shoes got wet from the rain outside, I slipped in your store, it's your fault.
-Eh I don't know about that one. I guess the floors have to be dry at all times no matter who brought in the water. (Stores fault).

Yeah, because God Forbid, someone isn't there wiping my feet dry as I walk into the store.

I understand you're just kind of arguing the other side at this point, but man, if that is truly how this world thinks, then we're worse off than I ever expected.

Lord Gonchar's avatar
See, I vote Joe Pesci as well.

At the very least, he'd just pull out a baseball bat and take care of things. :)

Personal responsibility.

Joe Pesci understands....

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2023, POP World Media, LLC