Tuesday, August 16, 2005 7:43 AM
That's why there's warning signs at the entrance to the queue.
Welcome to America, people. Where anybody can sue anybody.
Isn't there a statute of limitations against filing lawsuits against claims like this of something like three years?
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:25 AM
I don't know what to say about this...
IF Blazing Fury was too much for him, he should have just stuck to the shows and shops, because, God forbid, he would have attempted to ride anything like Thunderhead or even Tennesee Tornado he would surely have been broken in two on the spot.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:50 AM
Don't bring up the warning signs. That shouldn't even be a part of the debate.
I personally would like to see how the plaintiff accounts for all of the time around the alleged injury. What else did he do that could've caused it, or if it was just plain pre-existing?
They better not settle this one just on principle.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 8:54 AM
Can a person bang their head on a mild coaster? Sure!
Can a person suffer serious brain hemorrhage from it too? Sure! The same way a person can suffer a brain bleed from a fall.
But only--and ONLY--if their reflexes/reaction time have been slowed and their blood properly thinned through chronic alcohol abuse.
Any DWIs will be public record.
Any of the usual spotty employment history will be found out through discovery.
And any previous drug and alcohol treatment taken will also be found out through discovery.
Once the case goes to trial everyone will know who he really is..because those items will then become PUBLIC RECORD too.
Why should the lawyer care? He's probably taken the case on contingency. The plan is to rattle the saber and play for an out-of-court settlement. He'll get chased out of court if it ever goes to trial (it won't), but at least he'll get more clients even if he loses. He's already made a good headline, right?
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:25 AM
"It took some heavy hitters to analyze the medical records."
Translation: we had to look long and hard for someone willing to play ball, because claiming loss of sensation was caused by a single action five years prior is a tricky thing, indeed.
*** This post was edited by Brian Noble 8/16/2005 9:28:12 AM ***
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 9:34 AM
Gee.. What a coincidence... The same channel that carried the TN Amusement Park Trial decides to cover a lawsuit about another more well known amusement park. Can anyone say ratings? My conclusion, if this is such a complicated case how are the plantiffs ever going to explain it to a jury if they can't explain it to a "reporter".
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 10:45 AM
It's hilarious to me that the ride in question is Blazing Fury, as it's only one of 2 coasters my wife has ever wanted take a second ride on right away (The other being Goofy's Barnstormer at Disney World)
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 11:38 AM
coasterguts - it IS courtTV, I don't know where else you would expect it to be.
The judge should throw this out on principle. Although, if Dollywood DID cause this, there should be hospital records for his "treatment" that appear right after his trip.
Not to mention he'll have to PROVE that A) he went to Dollywood when he says he did and B) that he did in fact ride the ride. Those could be pretty difficult items to prove. Add this to Playa's items above (should the park be able to prove those) and there isn't really a reason why he should win.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:47 PM
I think you missed my point. Obviously Court TV got enough ratings off of the TN Murder Trial to rake another amusement park over the coal. If the ratings weren't that great then they wouldn't cover it all. My opinion, no one should carry it. You can't tell me Court TV can't find another trial somewhere else in the country to cover.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 12:52 PM
Themedesigner...I can do you one better...my non-coaster-geek wife rode it last October, got off the ride and said, "That was the most boring ride I have ever been on."
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 1:43 PM
I just want to know how someone who is devoid of all sensory perception can be giving interviews to cable TV networks.
Jeffrey R Smith
Tuesday, August 16, 2005 4:05 PM
Miller's wife, who is also a plaintiff in the suit, is seeking an extra $2 million for the loss of her husband's consortium and other "tangible benefits" including "love, affection, attention, caring and companionship."
Doesn't this happen to a lot of people married for more than a few years?
Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:11 AM
Not if you keep your spouse happy. ;)
Wednesday, August 17, 2005 11:09 PM
I think this is a case of white trash
Thursday, August 18, 2005 6:45 AM
^I agree. I haven't seen a lawsuit THIS frivolous since I read where a lady was suing the makers of a contraceptive jelly. She thought digesting it would have the safe effects as using it the proper way.
Thursday, August 18, 2005 12:49 PM
"An it wuddn't vurry Taistee on ma TOASTS Neeevur!" :)
Thursday, August 25, 2005 11:50 AM
This guy has been through more lawyers than pairs of socks over the last 5 years, they dont stick around because he has no case. And here is why he doesnt have a case>>> He dint suffer the injury at the park!! He was hiking in the Great smokey mountains national park a couple of days AFTER he visted Dollywood when he had his Stroke/Brain damage whatever you want to call it!! So can he sue a National Park-No! So he tries to sue the Multi-Million doller amusement park he visted days before, and claim a harmless indoor dark baby roller coaster started it all> What a joke
Sunday, September 25, 2005 1:24 PM
ok, any one who believes this guy, YOU SUCK! u obviously havent been on the simple rollercoaster, blazing fury! dollywood is my homepark, and favorite, and yall need to know that that ride is simple as heck! u cannot "snap" ur head! he mustve been one of the most dumbest people in the world by NOT reading the warning signs!and SLFAKE, go you! if this guy went on probbably anything else in the park, he would cry! wat an IDIOT!