Kings Island Son of Beast injury lawsuit goes to trial Thursday

The plaintiff is asking the jury to punish the defendant, causing them to take notice and help ensure that such an event does not happen again.

Defendant in this case has already ordered a structural analysis of the failure, and responded to that analysis by rebuilding the offending section of the ride, and by switching to a much lighter weight vehicle with the intention of reducing the stresses that caused the failure. It sounds to me like the alleged purpose of punitive damages has already been addressed by the defendant. So why, then, would punitive damages be called for in this case? Is someone alleging that the defendant was negligent in operating or maintaining the ride? Because I didn't think that was the case, nor is the defendant denying that the ride failed and the plaintiff is therefore entitled to compensatory relief!

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

I love Cedar Fair. I think they do a fantastic job of operating their parks and rides. But operating this ride might have been a negligent thing to do. The lack of consensus that has surrounded this ride since it opened is now being played out in court. That's high drama. :) I think it was great that Paramount had the guts to build this massive wooden thing and put a loop on it. I thought the name was stupid. And I thought it made me hurt in a strange and disorientating way I had never felt before or since. But I'm actually unbiased.

So you think it was great that Paramount built it. But, that is was negligent that Cedar Fair operated it?

Remember, aerodynamic you have the benefit of hindsight that the park did not have at the time of the incident. Remember also that this is about the incident several years ago in which one of the bents failed, creating a "pothole" in the helix that caused injuries to two trainloads of riders. The park was performing inspections and maintenance on the ride on a daily basis, and was monitoring the ride quality...they believed the ride was safe to operate prior to the failure, and they immediately closed the ride after the failure. Remember that this was before Cedar Fair came along and did a massive renovation to the ride, switching out the trains and removing the vertical loop. Remember also that this incident happened after at least three rounds of modifications to the trains.

Without the benefit of hindsight, what else would you have expected the park to do? That is, other than simply throw away one of their star attractions?

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Dave, I like your idea of creating an out and back that you had suggested... I don't know if that's what I would have "expected them to do". But It's still a cool idea I think.

Jason, no, that isn't actually what I think. I had said "It might have been a negligent thing" that is what the court was deciding.