Decapitation at SFoG

Maybe they should get sharks with laser beams on top of their heads to make sure no one crosses the fence.

---

john13601 said:

It would be nice if Six Flags stepped forward and paid for the funeral and any medical bills that the family incurred.

---

I on the other hand feel that it would be far more appropriate for the family to step forward and cover the not inconsiderable costs which Six Flags will have inevitably incurred as a consequence of this incident. I'm thinking about ride downtime, repairs, cleaning up, adverse publicity, all that sort of thing. I'm sure a corporate lawyer could construct a very comprehensive list :)

And the lawyers have now chimed in. Who had 7pm Monday?

http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=8580338&nav=menu36_2

I still do not understand how two six foot high fences with warning signs is not enough. Someone please explain that to me.

Shoulda known the lawyers would be in on it sooner or later. With all dues respect to the diverse culture of the board, I just hope they don't make this a race issue. "The white CEO'S are delibertly TRYING to eliminate those who are different one person at a time"

Man this country is screwed up. i'm ready to move to Canada.

Just because a lawyer has weighed in with his thoughts doesn't mean the family retained a lawyer. Some newspaper writer called up a lawyer and said, "hey...what do you make of that roller coaster death?"

That is all there is to this...so far.

Hopman...I have no idea what you are getting at with that comment. Actually, I think I know what you are getting at but I have no idea why.

Hopman, I don't think it'll go that route and I don't think it's very wise to go that route here. I understand what you are saying, but probably not a good idea.

If a lawyer were to take the case I'm sure they would have to prove that SF was negligent in providing a proper barrier between people and the ride. What's a proper barrier? Well... I don't know. I'm going to reserve judgement until more facts are brought out. There are too many different versions of this story that I don't know what to believe anymore. I could insert a media jab here but I don't need to.

~Rob Willi

If you believe the kid jumped over two marked six-foot fences, does it matter what else happened?

I am curious is Markey's federal regulations would have prevented this. :)

Seriously though, what else could Six Flags have done other than barbed wire or electrifying the fences.

The only time a person should even consider hopping two 6' fences with warning signs all over the place is if he's being chased by dogs or something. Even then, hopping one fence should be enough.

The only thing I can think of is something someone else already mentioned. (I'm basing this on what others have said) There is limited view of much of the ride area from the station. Maybe they'll argue that if there were more cameras it might have been possible to prevent this with an e-stop. This is of course speculation, because we don't know what point the ride was at when it hit him. An e-stop may have done nothing to prevent this.

^Once the train crests the lifthill, no, an E-Stop would not prevent this. This design has no midcourse brakes.

---

Jeff said:
If you believe the kid jumped over two marked six-foot fences, does it matter what else happened?

---

But are there really two fences? The pics I've seen only show one surrounding the ride. I'm not going to dispute that the kid was in the wrong for being in the "kill zone," that's why they call it that. My judgement is for whether or not Batman's fence is adequate enough to keep dumb people out. I've never been there so I don't know.

~Rob Willi

I would think that one fence should be sufficient. Two should be overkill. Fences are there for a reason and the park should not be held liable if someone decides to jump them.

---

wahoo skipper said:
Just because a lawyer has weighed in with his thoughts doesn't mean the family retained a lawyer. Some newspaper writer called up a lawyer and said, "hey...what do you make of that roller coaster death?"

---

This article says, The attorney representing the family"...

Unbelievable.

But it doesn't surprise me that a lawyer would find a way to make a case.

However, if he is going to put a connection to the employee who got killed, it's is still apples and oranges. The employee flat out made a dumb decision, and this kid actually had to compromise 2 sets of barriers to make the same dumb decision.

Sounds kind of funny how the reports state that this teen "isn't the first person to be killed by the same roller coaster".

In both cases the deceased was in the "kill zone"... the worker entered the zone and got hit (through a gate or over a fence? not sure) and the teen a few days ago scaled a fence and entered.

Regardless of how sensational the media wants to make it sound ("isn't the first person to be killed by the same roller coaster"), the fences are there to keep people OUT... not keep those beserk coasters IN.

And even once inside (think those fences and warning signs should have triggered something in the kid's mind that said "this could be dangerous"), kid should have been alert... it's not like the coaster chased him and cornered him and then mauled him... he had to have stepped in front of it. For crying out loud... even Larry the Cable Guy could figure that out ("If you're ever attacked by a train... do this." [side steps out of the way])

The first linked article did not say he was the family attorney. One of the stories is wrong. By a news organzation? I'm stunned.

That said, the attorney may have a point, whether or not it is a good legal argument. I guess they need to explore what steps, if any, were taken after the death of the maintenance worker. It may not have been forseeable that someone would get hit by the coaster before the maintenance man died, but it was forseeable afterward.

Of course, you have two different issues here. The maintenance guy was authorized to be in there and presumably didn't have to jump the fence to get in.

Yes, signs and fences SHOULD be enough but these days, considering the crazy decisions we have seen courts make, I really don't know.

I don't know if the case can be made that the park should have done more to keep the train from hitting anyone in the kill zone. They may have stricter lock out tag out procedures now that would prevent that sort of thing from happening and to help cover their butt. In this case they could say that the teen did not follow LOTO procedure and is therefore liable.

I'm not sure that I understand the point of taking additional steps after the maintenance worker incident. There were fences prior to that, correct? If you ignore safety rules, then you put yourself in danger. I'm not sure its any more complicated than that.

And if the two fences were each 6ft, what does the quantity have to do with anything? I mean, if someone is willing to scale one 6ft barrier, what difference would one, two or even ten more of those fences accomplish, other than making it take more time and effort to circumvent?