Decapitation at SFoG
Okay, so if the guy was high, he likely WOULDN'T put in the effort to climb two fences. Heh....still, stranger things have happened. I say if the guy was baked, Six Flags must not pay. :)
I HAVE heard of other cases where places with signs and fences that were supposed to stop a reasonably dangerous event from occurring, then an event occurred, and the people who sued got settlements because the places in questions should have protection so that even an UNREASONABLE death or injury could not occur. Six Flags may pay after all.
"Look at us spinning out in the madness of a roller coaster" - Dave Matthews Band
First, someone died. That's tragic, regardless of the circumstances or the fact that he put himself in such an incredibly dangerous position in the first place. Much like the Tamar reports, please try and remain cognizant of the fact that he was a human being, and that his life has been lost. He made a stupid decision, we ALL make stupid decisions from time to time, and thankfully it's rare that we lose our lives in the process. Be an adult, and please stop with the "he got what he deserved" rhetoric - it lowers us all.
Second, two fences with signage SHOULD be enough to prevent this from happening. However, society for better and most certainly for worse has removed/reduced many of the direct consequences that result from poor decisions. That unfortunately means that people fail to learn from their mistakes in ways they may have in the past. Travel the Midwest, esp. the farming areas, and notice how many people have been injured by farm machinery, etc. Roller coasters are MACHINES, and they don't care about you or your frail human body. Give them their proper respect, like you should when you turn the key in your ignition. The warning signs and fences were there to protect people from doing something that would endanger them....
Third, more restricted access may result from this. Babred wire over the inside fences might be an option to prevent people from attempting to scale fences to retrieve lost articles. Another idea is to electrify those fences that stand between a ride and the restricted areas, so that a guest who scaled the first fence and got into the restricted area would only have one option from there...to go back to the midway. The electricity on those fences would be turned off ONLY when the ride was not in operation (lock-out/tag-out). I recognize that these measures seem extreme, but they do seem necessary in some of the parks where guest behavior has already been identified as an issue.
I have to get to work, so I'll leave those to soak for now...but I'll be back later.
You still have Zoidberg.... You ALL have Zoidberg! (V) (;,,;) (V)
If you had electric fences, someone who "accidentally" touches the fence could probably sue for damages as well. *** Edited 7/2/2008 4:56:41 PM UTC by Bster***
Just a thought.
"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin
*** Edited 7/2/2008 5:42:52 PM UTC by Carrie M.***
"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin
It seems to me the only real defense to combat this issue would be to build inverted coasters with a specified clearance from the ground to the ride vehicle, so that a person standing on their tip toes and reaching with their arm outstretched cannot touch the vehicle.
I can jump higher than that... how tall is the person judging this distance? Where do you draw the line?
Not that I think it's right. Our country really needs some serious tort reform, IMHO.
Certain victory.
depotrat said:
I thought "Bardwire" was the Shakespere family telephone!!
Well done. :)
depotrat said:
I thought "Bardwire" was the Shakespere family telephone!!
I know this is wrong:
Sure adds a new twist to:
"Alas, poor Yoriick. I knew him well..."
Great Lakes Brewery Patron...
-Mark
Carrie M. said:
I tend to disagree with the notion that obtaining legal counsel is inappropriate in this circumstance.
Indeed, there is a host of legal issues at hand here, which very few people would be prepared to handle without a lawyer. However, I don't really think anybody is arguing against that. Maybe I missed something.
"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin
Bolliger/Mabillard for President in '08 NOT Dinn/Summers
http://www.cbs46.com/news/16747339/detail.html
Carrie M. said:
Perhaps I am wrong, but I am reading several posts that suggest that the only reason the family has a lawyer is to pursue their own opportunity to sue.
The argument is that they shouldn't sue, or at least we shouldn't live in a world where they can sue and have any sort of case or potential for settlement. Someone correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think anybody here would have a problem with the family bringing on legal counsel for the myriad of other reasons that they should.
You must be logged in to post
