Kentucky Kingdom sued by family for feet severing accident
Posted
The parents of a 13-year-old Louisville girl whose feet were severed by a Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom ride sued the theme park today claiming it failed to maintain the equipment and ensure riders’ safety. Kaitlyn Lasitter, according to the lawsuit, has suffered permanent injury, severe emotional pain and her ability to earn money has been impaired. The lawsuit is seeking an unspecified amount of punitive and compensatory damages as well as a jury trial.
Read more from The Courier-Journal.
Related parks
So that did that stop him from making other investments in the park? No. This year we have Hurricane Bay waterpark with some repainted waterslides, all new deck-chairs, Crocodile Isle interactive play area for the kids, private cabanas--and last but not least--Deluge. While I was not able to find a pricetag on Deluge, figure that it's fairly long and uses LIMs to transport the boats up and down the course. I'm guessing $2-$4 milliion.
So my question BatwingFanSFA is "What lack of a budget did the park have?"
BatwingFanSFA, sometimes the things that come that you say just truly astonish me.
Not me, he talks out his backside all the time.
The Plain Truth is that the girl should and will collect enough money to live comfortably for the rest of her life.
This is why parks pay over 50% of the admission price to the insurance companies.
Probably the least-frivolous lawsuit out there.
a slam dunk in terms of the girl and her family being entitled to money
I’ve certainly no clue what the evidence will show as nobody has been privy to that information to date. This is a terrible accident and a tragedy any way you look at it…but does this necessarily dictate that there is a criminal or tortuous behavior that caused the accident?
This very well could be a cut and dried case of negligence, or even worse. I just don’t see how anybody could know this based upon the released information.
I realize we live in a litigious society with a disposition prone to condemnation, but does anybody else see the possibility (no matter how small) that this was just a terrible accident that could not be prevented within the realm of customary practices involved in inspecting machines? There is a failure/accident risk associated with every activity one engages. Maybe this was just one of those unfortunate cases.
An off-the-head example…People die every year from lightening strikes. Should a park-goer be unfortunate enough to lose a life to this rare, but possible event…is there necessarily somebody to blame? I guess you could make the argument that the park should install lightening rods every 10 feet in attempt to avoid such a low probability occurrence…but installing redundant rods would not be usual or customary for any business or individual. And even if a park would go above and beyond the call of duty in effort to further reduce the possibility of lightening strike below that what is customary on their premises…they could never reduce the chance for a strike to zero. Sometimes low probability accidents just happen! Do we always have to have somebody to blame?
Words like “least-frivolous lawsuit” and “entitled to money” seem awfully strong to me…given we don’t know what happened. This could be a case of metal fatigue with an occurrence probability lower than my lightening-strike example above. I’m going to wait until I see some evidence of negligence on behalf of the park, manufacturer, etc before I comment on the legitimateness of the lawsuit.
As tragic as this accident is…I hope we do not make matters more unfortunate by promoting/supporting shotgun justice techniques. Innocent individuals/businesses should not have to pay a dime for low probability accidents that could not be prevented with reasonable diligence. If evidence shows that there was willful neglect…then I’m all for removing the legs of the guilty.
Is there some evidence that I’ve missed that would lead some to already assign guilt?
*** This post was edited by Jeffrey R Smith 7/14/2007 12:20:36 AM ***
But yes, we do need to wait and see what the exact circumstances are. The comment "entitled to money" is probably more of an expression of sympathy towards this young woman who will have to live with the results of this accident for the rest of her life rather than a direct condemnation. If the park is at fault, then yes, they should pay ( a reasonable amount, not these 100 million dollar jackpots that some lawyers demmand). If not, then as unfortunate as it is, that's the way it will be.
-Esch
One of the first things Shapiro did was raise maintenance budgets. He specifically mentioned it in one of the conference calls.
AJ Felice said:I have connections with an employee at SFKK with more importance than a ride operator, and he had much to say about this incident. The ride's cables are inspected yearly, and this year there was no indication of any future problems... So really it was a freak accident than no one could have predicted, prevented by not having budget cuts, or have done anything else beforehand!!!
In that case, the lawsuit's won right there. You can't inspect those cables once a year. That's absolutely negligent. You're telling me they check the cables in March or April and run them through November? If this is true, then there should not only be a monetary payout, but jail time as well. There needs to be somebody in that tube daily. Period.
Jeff, Please, Your a web specialist, Not a lawyer.
Chuck, who says the parents also have every right to retain one on her behalf.
I don't think it matters if they can prove negligence or not. You get on those rides with a reasonable assumption that you're going to get off in once piece. I find it awfully surprising if they in fact only inspect the cables once a year.
No, and you don't even need to go to law school to figure out that the lawyer will expect to be paid around 40% of whatever amount the victim is awarded. If the punitive damages are high enough, it's a new Mercedes for everybody in the law firm!
If there's a lawyer out there who wouldn't take this case because he or she is worried about being paid, please tell me. I wouldn't trust that person to mail a letter, let alone handle a legal issue.
It was not a lighting strike. It was a piece of mechanical equipment that is owned and operated by SFKK that malfunctioned and maimed the girl in question.
SFKK is responsible for damage caused by their equipment.
The girl deserves to be compensated, but an investigation needs to come full circle before a responsible party can be determined.
This is an interesting all-encompassing opinion. It gets me thinking of a different analogy as my lightening strike scenario seems to have fallen short for some of you who seem predisposed to make this the park’s fault before determining all the facts.
A little old lady circa 1994 goes out and buys a Ford car. She cares for her car and services it as instructed year after year. In 2007 she is driving down the road and without warning or explanation her wheel flies off the car and rolls into the path of a 13 year old girl…who subsequently loses one leg and suffers loss of function in another…
Safe to say…some of you reflexively fault the little old lady…?
Without deviating from my original post…I just find it peculiar that there are some out there who cannot acknowledge that there may be a scenario where the park is not at fault. My interest in this topic is this baseline mindset that there must be somebody to blame. This urge is so strong that the blame is being placed before the investigation is completed.
I freely admit that the probability is that there will be some sort of negligence found on behalf of…? But I’m not confident enough to play internet jury and start condemning the park/manufacture, etc without seeing the facts. I’m also not naïve enough to believe that there would not be a lawsuit in this case...even absent evidence of any tortuous act. Somebody is going to try to get money every time an injury so graphic presents itself. The question is whether any money is deserved based upon the actions of the defendents. We don't know the actions, so how can we assign blame?
I happen to believe that life sometimes just has unfortunate accidents. I’ve no way of knowing if this case might be one of those circumstances. For those who hold such absolute views of the park’s guilt…I ask again…on what evidence do you base your unyielding opinions? I'm reading your certain attitudes for guilt assignment as evidence that some of you just don't believe that an accident can happen without necessarily having somebody at fault. Am I wrong?
I think you have a reasonable expectation that you will leave the park with as many limbs as you entered (and in their original positions).
You’ve just described the pre-event mindset of every accident victim. But I’m not reading this discussion as a psycho-analysis of those who suffer accidental injuries of low-probability causes. The majority of takes on this thread are about assigning guilt for the cause of the accident. If you are suggesting that the new bar for conviction of negligence (or other) is an inability to “meet expectations”…then God help us all. I would hope that somewhere in the equation for assigning guilt we might actually have some evidence…?
It is the lack of evidence combined with unyielding condemnation from those so quick to blame that has me so perplexed. Can anybody who has already determined guilt explain why they are not willing to wait until the evidence is known?
Signed...
Jeffrey…who leaves for a cross-country Branson trip tomorrow with the reasonable expectation that we will get there with all limbs attached…but also keenly aware that there are no certainties in life as “poop happens.”
Should I fall victim to a terrible catastrophe of unspeakable proportions without a person or business to blame…please pray for me and know that I’ve lived a happy life while dodging the associated risks inherent to living. Should no evidence of wrong-doing as to the cause of my catastrophe be discovered for any party…please do not engage in manufacturing blame in attempts for monetary reward on my behalf. Wrongfully depriving innocent parties of their earned income in the name of artificial entitlement will do nothing to change my circumstances…and in fact will only sully my conscience.
*** This post was edited by Jeffrey R Smith 7/15/2007 5:25:07 PM ***
And "your" obviously not an English professor. Do I really need to go to law school to know a 13-year-old with no job can't pay a lawyer?
You only pay court cost in a PLAINTIF suit for injury and the settlement ususally involves the defendant paying them if you win.
The Lawyer takes those cases for a percentage of the settlement, Usually 33 percent in court, 25 percent out of court.
Chuck, Who understands the parents doing it on the childs behalf.
A little old lady circa 1994 goes out and buys a Ford car. She cares for her car and services it as instructed year after year. In 2007 she is driving down the road and without warning or explanation her wheel flies off the car and rolls into the path of a 13 year old girl…who subsequently loses one leg and suffers loss of function in another…
Safe to say…some of you reflexively fault the little old lady…?
Well assuming that the little old lady did her own maintenence, then yes. If she does not, I would blame the local Wal-Mart that rotated her tires.
You must be logged in to post
