Family files suit against Six Flags Great Adventure for alleged injuries on El Diablo ride

Posted | Contributed by Jeff

Serafin and Margaret Alesiani say their daughter, Rachel, rode the El Diablo ride at Six Flags Great Adventure on Sept. 13, 2015, and is still suffering from the experience. The Alesianis say the belt disengaged as their daughter rode El Diablo. She had to "struggle to hold onto the shoulder bar in order to keep her body in the seat while the rollercoaster proceeded through its course," the family alleges. The Alesianis also claim ride staff didn't check that the restraints were secure before the ride began.

Read more from

OhioStater's avatar

Last edited by OhioStater,

*not a rollercoaster

Last edited by Vincent Greene,
bjames's avatar

Am I incorrect in thinking that the shoulder restraint did what it is intended to do here? The seat belt is only a backup safety device for if the shoulder restraint fails, right?

I rode the one at Darien Lake and it was super uncomfortable because regardless of the seat belt, your weight is going to be on the shoulder restraint when the ride goes upside down anyway.

"The term is 'amusement park.' An old Earth name for a place where people could go to see and do all sorts of fascinating things." -Spock, Stardate 3025

Rick_UK's avatar

The delay in claiming seems odd.

Every time I have ridden that thing, they have check all the restraints and taken their good sweet time about it.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Jeff's avatar

I can understand SF wanting to quickly dismiss the suit, but "we didn't make the ride" sure seems like a strange defense.

Jeff - Editor - - My Blog

Jeff said:

I can understand SF wanting to quickly dismiss the suit, but "we didn't make the ride" sure seems like a strange defense.

It's not unusual to see this, especially if it is product liability issue, which SF is seems to be arguing here. Six Flags is just trying to establish that if the the restraint somehow failed, that's a ride manufacturer liability issue, not a park operations issue. It's a classic case of trying to share or transfer the liability, in this case from SF to the ride manufacturer.

That way, if the motion to dismiss the case isn't successful, and there ends up being a settlement or jury award, the award amount is split between all the named defendants, thus reducing the risk exposure to Six Flags.

Tommytheduck's avatar

Isn't that their defense for NTG as well?

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2024, POP World Media, LLC