Lassiters want Kentucky Kingdom trial date moved up

I can see where this would be a good move for the Lassiters. A 2010 trial date gives Six Flags more time and opportunity to strengthen their defense, and it also gives the Lassiter family less time to weaken their resolve and settle. That girl deserves a payoff, and the longer this trial is postponed, I believe the less likely it will be that she will get it.

I think the greatest likelihood of a long delay is that (with no reason to believe plausible defenses are going to be arising from SF) the Lassiters recovery will shrink. People who would take SF to the cleaners (rightfully so? Not my call to make here) might feel less inclined to do so as time passes. The Lassiters will still come away with a CONSIDERABLE sum of money, and from what I've heard, they're in NO way inclined to settle for any amount of money - they apparently want FULL disclosure of the facts, aired publicly as at a trial. From what I've gathered, the financial side of things is not on their radar, their concern is for the facts to come to light and for the industry, chain, and park to be held accountable.That may change if their family finances change and they find themselves in need....but that doesn't appear to be the situation.

I'm not typically one who supports lawsuits because I feel they are more likely to be frivolous and without merit, but I really hope this girl DOES get her story out there and gets what she deserves. If getting the trial bumped up helps that happen, sounds like a good thing.

I don't really worry about the Lassiters. I have absolutely no doubt that they will be taken care of in the end. Though at what a cost...

What surprises me is that SF bothers taking this to court in the first place. Now maybe they privately offered a settlement and the Lassiters declined (for whatever reason). Given the facts that have already been aired, it's kind of a foregone conclusion that SFKK is going to lose. Perhaps they will try to spread part of the blame to Intamin and hope a jury awards a lesser amount.

Any legal experts out there who can explain the advantages (for both parties) of taking this to court rather than settling?

Since the Lassiters are requesting the trial be moved up, I would think that the lawsuit was their decision, i.e., an offer to settle was refused, as opposed to SF "daring" them to take it to court.

More cynical reasons why they would want the trial moved up-- striking while the iron is hot. Any delays could mean other tragedies might happen in the world, which might make this accident seem not so horrible in comparison. Secondly, as time goes by, the girl's condition improves (hopefully), and there is a connection lost between what the jury sees in the courtroom and the girl immediately after the accident.

Are you suggesting that getting your feet cut off becomes less horrible over time, even to a jury?

^I said this earlier: "People who would take SF to the cleaners (rightfully so? Not my call to make here) might feel less inclined to do so as time passes." Becomes less horrible? No. Does become less *headline-grabbing* though. As time passes, memories fade and that which was deemed critical at one point in time becomes less so. Timeliness, even as a vague construct, is something that was once considered an essential part of our courts system....with good reason, IMO.

Emiroo said:
Any legal experts out there who can explain the advantages (for both parties) of taking this to court rather than settling?

Not a legal expert, but I do the podcast and have read enough articles on the story to know that the Lassiters have made it very clear that more than anything they want this story to reach as many people as possible.

Seems to me, the more public they make it, the better, as far as they're concerned.

^ and my guess is that any settlement Six Flags is offering requires the proceeding to be sealed as well as preventing them from saying anything further about the case. I don't blame them for taking Six Flags to court.

In the latest news, the park is suing Intamin.

Ky. Kingdom sues ride maker

The park has denied liability and claims that Intamin Ltd., which madethe ride, and those responsible for the wrong cable may be liable for"all or part of the injuries and damages incurred by Lasitter" and herfriends.

Jeff said:
Are you suggesting that getting your feet cut off becomes less horrible over time, even to a jury?

Yes. I'm saying that after months or years after therapy and having even the slightest bit of normalcy in her life, she will look less disabled to a jury. A sharp attorney will be able to get the girl or the family to casually mention what activities she's able to do again.

Secondly. whoever said people that get seated on juries are the brightest bulbs in the box?