Judge orders injury reports on all Six Flags Rotor rides

Posted Wednesday, August 15, 2001 4:20 AM | Contributed by redman822

A judge hearing the suit against Six Flags Great America for the injury of a girl on the park's Rotor has ordered the parent company to turn over all injury reports throughout the chain regarding the ride.

Read more from The Daily Herald.

Related parks

Wednesday, August 15, 2001 4:23 AM
Wasn't it her fault anyway?
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 4:34 AM
Well, that's what the court is trying to determine.

Six Flags is pretty stupid for not settling this one out of court.

-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
"From the global village... in the age of communication!"
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 4:38 AM
Maybe now they will settle this one just like Disney, when they get ordered to show injury's that's when they pay up.

-------------
Army rangers lead the way
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 4:55 AM
The lawsuits just keep adding up. I if the jury finds out it is her fault six flags should sew her. That way they could set an example to every. I just don't get it how The Gp does stuff that they know they will get injured in but they decide to sew the park for their stupidity.

-------------
chill factor
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 5:21 AM
MFRULES - Last month there was an article about Six Flags and safety. Look back through the news items. It was partly the girls fault, but also partly the employee's fault. Word on the street is that he didn't speak very good english. Which would be why the girl didn't adhere to the warnings from the operator.

-------------
BMCOASTER

bmcoaster@wi.rr.com
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 6:27 AM
Isn't sewing something done with needle and thread? Wouldn't it paint the multi-million dollar company unfavorably if it sued an individual who was injured on their ride, regardless of fault? Does anyone ever think before they post anymore?

-------------
Jeff
Webmaster/Admin - CoasterBuzz.com
"From the global village... in the age of communication!"
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 7:53 AM
Jeff is absolutely right. Even if a customer's misconduct caused injuries to other riders, the park would be unlikely to sue because of the potential public relations problems. It would leave the suing up to the injured parties. I could only see a park taking legal action against a customer in the case of a truly criminal action such as sabotage or assault. Even then it would probably be criminal action not civil.
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:41 AM
More fodder for the weavils...

-------------
Yeeee Haaawwww!
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 8:48 AM
Six Flags should of made an out of court deal with the accident. Now the family of the injured girl will probably get millions of dollars in damages.

-------------
"Duff Man Says... Ohhhhh Yaaaaa!"
Current Favorite Coasters:
1)Raging Bull 2)Millennium Force 3)Medusa (SFMW) 4)Vertical Velocity (SFGAm) 5)Dueling Dragons (Ice)
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 9:05 AM
I agree Jeff.. settling this one out of court would have saved them a TON of negative publicity that they are going to recieve.

Sad thing is, most peopel see a company settle out of court, they assume an addmission of guilt. Many times it's much smarter to bite the bullet and settle to get it out of the news. Even if you win, in the long run the negative effect it could have on your company, well you can't put a dollar value on that. Similar to the whole Michael Jackson thing. Maybe he did it.. maybe not but the negative impact on him bussiness would have been worse than it was, and that was pretty bad as it is.

-------------
MF total - 387 laps
VertiGo Launches - 13
June 11th, 2001 - Gemini 100
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:07 AM
I thought Six Flags put new rules into effect for these Rotor type rides. Namely the new maximum height limit and the colored lines in the ride itself distinguishing if someone is too tall and if someone is not in a safe position on the wall.
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:56 AM
What exactly happened to the girl anyway? I can't remember.

But of course they are gonna sue! It's the American way! LOL! Geez...everyone's suing someone over something nowadays. Did you guys know that if you are walking along the sidewalk in front of your neighbors house, and you suddenly trip and fall, you could sue them perfectly legally? I'm serious!

-------------
Gone, a sense of confidence, I'm convinced that there's just too much pressure to take! - Linkin Park, Crawling

KoЯn still Яules!
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 10:59 AM
I just hope the past injuries on Rotors is not the reason Chance has discontinued the line. (which was off the production line in 1999)

I also found Geauga Lake to be quite enforcing with the rules on their rotor, hence turing away angry patrons who were wearing only sandels, thus not being able to ride.

I seriously wonder if the Rotor will ever come back to Geauga Lake
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 11:45 AM
While both the girl and SFGAm are negligent in this matter, the sheer number of those who have ridden this type of ride without incident compared to the small percentage of those have been injured clearly shows that this type of ride is safe and that it is the rider and the operator that is the x factor. *** This post was edited by Maxim on 8/15/2001. ***
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:36 PM
If the injuries suffered are clearly the fault of the rider, I hope SF DOESN'T settle out of court. I would'nt want frivolous lawsuits cropping up against parks simply because someone was hurt. If the parks is at fault in any way (operation of ride, maintenance of ride), then they SHOULD settle, or pay up! Judges have the power to compel parties to provide evidence - maybe this is where Markey should have concentrated his efforts. Other than Fabio's "incident", ride-related injuries are the fault of either the manufacturer, the park, or the rider. When injuries occur, the responsible parties should be determined and should face the music...just my opinion.

-------------
rollergator - intent on improving the "guest experience" - coming soon to a park near you
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:41 PM
Yeah well, no one is suing the manufactuer. They are suing Six Flags, the operator!

And I'm not too sure that carrying this particular lawsuit to term is really resulting in anymore negative press for the company. The current media climate is saying that amusement rides arent safe anyway (or at least need more regulation). SFI has a case here that they could possibly win (or I should say not lose). Since there is already negative press in the air anyway, it might be worth it to roll the dice. I'm sure that they and their lawyers have discussed settlement at length.

OTOH: maybe, just maybe the PLAINTIFFS did not want to settle...it's a possiblity...
jeremy

-------------
"Nobody writes about the planes that land." Steve Salerno Washington Times 7-10-01
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 12:57 PM
how was the girl hurt? ive never seen or heard about anyone getting hurt at my home park "the great escape" on the rotor...ive seen numerous people get sick on the ride but thats about it.
+0
Wednesday, August 15, 2001 2:25 PM
What you are all wondering about is called "comparable negligence". That is when the plantiff has responsibility in the accident. The Judge/ Jury determines through the presentation of the trial the AMOUNT of comparable negligence the plaintiff has..

So then an award amount would be minus the percentage the plantiff was found to be liable for.

Example ; 500,000 award
Plantiff 50% negligent
adjusted award ; 250,000

The issue the plaintiff's attorney is going to argue is whether the operators of the ride knew they had an ongoing safety issue and failed to correct it. that is what the judge wants to know too..or he wouldnt have ordered Six Flags to provide the documents..and in THAT case, she may not have ANY compareable negligence because they had an ongoing problem.. that makes it into just a negligence issue.. and some states allow for "punitive" awards, financial awards given to the plaintiff to punish the defendant , that is usually when you see outrageous award amounts, and not ALL states allow for punitive damages..

And lets face it, 13 year olds are NOT always the brightest, most attentive audience.. with this in mind, she might have some comparable negligence, but then again was the ride operated correctly to account for that kind of rider? Did the park act within reason by allowing her to ride? Those are issues that will be settled during the trial.

And anyone would sue if injured, even just to recover medical expenses ......please... taken a ride in an ambulance lately? $500 a pop!

BTW, Most of these companies wont settle untill trial begins, its called the game of "chicken". At this point this case is in the "discovery" process and they are just gathering information (both sides). This is not the FULL trial yet... that is why Six Flags has the time line they have to get the documents to the Judge.



*-BB-* *** This post was edited by BB on 8/15/2001. ***
+0
Thursday, August 16, 2001 8:41 AM
I ran the Raptor at Geauga Lake and I still don't understand how this injury could happen. The operator has complete control of raising the floor and can stop it anywhere. We were always trained to stop it below the lowest person's feet.

If the person slid down the wall too far we wouldn't do that because the rest of the people would slide too far when the rotation slowed. Instead, we would ask the patron to raise their feet a little at a time and raise the floor in conjuction with that.

I can only guess the operator was at fault.
+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...