Kentucky sues Six Flags for rides at Kentucky Kingdom site

Funny, the state wasn't sued for the Lassiter accident, nor did the state speak up when "their" ride was town down shortly thereafter.

Ahh, let the games begin.

As Jeff stated with the Lassiter accident and the fact SF was paying taxes on the rides on the property.

I don't see how the Fair board owns these rides.

If Six Flags loses this suit I'd be sending the State Fair board a bill in the amount of the Lassiter settlement.

Hmmm. Just a thought here.

If I rent an apartment and because of my negligence, someone gets hurt on something in the apartment that isn't owned by me, but was expected to be maintained by me, who gets sued - me or the landlord?

If I lease a car and fail to maintain it and the brakes go and I run over somebody, who gets sued - me or the leasing company?

I honestly don't know the answer, but I would think I (the lessee) gets sued in both cases, not the lessor.

And if so, I can certainly draw the parallels to the Lassiter case with the drop ride.

A business is a lot different from personal property.

Yeah, but is the lessor/lessee relationship really all that different?

I could argue either side of this one, I think.

I think there has already been precedent for this, I just don't remember which case. Heck, fairs have been successfully sued for injuries on a concessionaire's rides.

^^^^ to answer your questions Gonch, both of you get sued.

I rented a van and listed another driver as "authorized to drive" and was charged accordingly. He was involved in a fender-bender--minor damage, but a dispute as to whose was at fault, him or the other driver. Their insurance company filed claims with the driver's insurance company, my (the lessee) insurance company, and the rental company's (lessor) insurance company.

If I was renting something (let's say a house) to someone who was in debt it would be in my best interest to be sure they were properly maintaining it.

Ha!

This reminds me of that movie with richard pryer called "moving".

Yea...we are taking that too.

Mamoosh said:
If Six Flags loses this suit I'd be sending the State Fair board a bill in the amount of the Lassiter settlement.

I would also be sending the State Fair board a bill for the taxes SF paid on the rides.

Really we can say what we think but the facts are in the lease agreement which none of us have seen.

I'd give them a bill for the rides I paid for (or at least a share of my debt for said rides).

I see they are in no hurry to bring Chang back to the park. Which makes me think that somehow Six Flags has more of a hand in owning the rides than does the state fair board.

Sure, we haven't seen the lease, but I still go back to the accident. It was in the best interest of the plaintiffs in that case to know who exactly to sue to get the most out of it. In my mind, that means that discovery process already took place as recently as a few years ago.

In the case of the accident IF the board owned Superman but leased it to Six Flags to operate which would also include maintmence and upkeep. Than really to only people to blame would be Six Flags for failing to properly maintain the ride.

The closest thing I can remember like this is Western Playland in El Paso, TX. Remember that debate, well Western Playland is celebrating its 50Th. at the new location this year. So I'd say the City lost.

Granted we don't know the agreement between Six Flags and Kentucky. But if a business leases a space in a mall, does the mall keep all the various tables, stands, cash registers, ect.? No. The business invested that money and gets to keep it all. I could hardly think that Six Flags, even under the old management, would agree to terms that gave that much capital away if they terminate the deal.

That's not the point. Both parties would be negligente.

And if SF was paying taxes on these rides, that means they own these rides.

Uh. This is so dumb.

The Fair Board knows Six Flags owns these rides. They just know without attempting to at least exploit some sort of loose-wording/loophole in the contract and lease agreements, they will lose any interested suitors that will potentially continue running the amusement park after Six Flags' departure.

I mean, what amusement park operator will want to step in and take over when there's nothing there to operate? If you take the rides out, it's just land. The Fair Board knows this and is fearful that if Six Flags pulls out and also takes the rides with them, the Fair Grounds and all of its annual tax revenue will really just vanish in a snap.