Parents sue Cypress Gardens following accident

The parents are negligent for the reason of not realizing their kid is too stupid to be out in public with no supervision. This park has been trying it's best, and succeeding, pretty well, in rebuilding itself as a theme park over the past couple of years. And because of that I have to agree with Chuck...counter sue these idiots. What their doing, if successful, could ruin this parks chances for the future. Though, if the whole story is told, I have to believe the general public will see right through this as we already do.*** This post was edited by Floorless Fan 3/7/2006 7:48:52 PM ***

---

I have to believe the general public will see right through this as we already do.

---

The problem with the general public is that they don't really have the understanding of many things amusement park related. Too often do I read news stories where guests comment on how the ride was broken and they were "going to die" and that the park didn't do anything to help them and yadda-yadda-yadda. A recent story of the latest breakdown on Sheikra comes to mind.

*** This post was edited by TopThrillSheikra 3/7/2006 9:26:53 PM ***

Jeffrey, I would have to agree with youre overall opinion of the situation, in that Cypress Gardens IS liable for something here. They operate rides that, although they are inherently safe, can cause injury and/or death. It is with this knowledge that they operate these rides, and in turn are responsible for making the ride as safe as possible. (Forcing down lap bars, etc.)

Yes, it is ridiculous, but regardless of what we all think, this has some leeway in court, especially since theyre really not asking for a terribly high amount of money.

Now, I would never compare this at all to the case Six Flags is facing right now. The situation could have been easily avoided if some sort of fence was placed there, and just like it is common practice in parks to place fences near rides that come near the path, it should have been there. They definitely are going to lose that one, and maybe not rightly so, but that was sort of a stupid mistake to make about their ride in question.

Of course its all about the money these days, but if the kid really is disabled, and required some sort of hospitalization, I'd say somewhere in the vicinity of $15,000 is enough for hospital/ambulance/lawyer fees, which maybe they feel justified in having? I dont know. Well see what happens.

So can I sue Dodge if I get hurt in my Ram for not wearing my seatbelt?

---

Cypress Gardens IS liable for something here. They operate rides that, although they are inherently safe, can cause injury and/or death.

---

And the parents and kid chose to ride anyway despite the warnings, and with knowledge that it could be dangerous. That act should itself force them to assume more liability for the situation, regardless of the kids reckless behaviour.

If the ride was operating properly, as it was, and the staff were doing their jobs, as they were, then there should be no case. Period.

Mind you, what do I know about U.S. or FL law? :-)

"Mind you, what do I know about U.S. or FL law?"

...for that matter, what does anybody know about U.S. and Florida laws anymore!

But I think enough credit can be given to all people in knowing that you DO NOT STAND UP ON A ROLLER COASTER!

Yes, there is one law everyone has to obey...and that is the law of gravity. ;)

---

Now, I would never compare this at all to the case Six Flags is facing right now. The situation could have been easily avoided if some sort of fence was placed there, and just like it is common practice in parks to place fences near rides that come near the path, it should have been there.

---

I could use this same argument to say that overhead retraints should have been there for Cypress Gardens. This situation could have been easily avoided with installation of overhead restaints or similar. I understand the difference in the details, my point is to get people thinking about their reasoning, especially in the Six Flags case. It is indeed a "slippery slope" type of reasoning. Please note that I think both suits/situations were BS and neitehr park should have had to pay.

P.S. I do think that there is a severe liability issue for all thes lap bar rides. Luckily, these thugs that slip out of the restraints, as far as I know, have only injured or killed themselves. What is going to happen the day they slip and fall on the innocent person behind them or on the ground? Does this change anybody's thought pattern? The park's know that these resraints can be manipulated, and they then have to know, or at least should know, that this poses a risk of severe injury and/or death to their innocent customers should these rule breakers fall on the inocent. This is a classic case of negligence by every park currently running any high speed ride in which a thug can self-manipulate him or herself out of the restraints!

Again...I believe that the thug/rule breaker SHOULD be the reponsible party in all these scenerios. Sadly, as the Six Flags case shows, this is not the case. The park is at least partially responsible for thug behaviors that are beyond their control. The park has to anicipate thug behaviors and make efforts to preven thugs from being thugs, ie build a fence...why not put in the overhead restraints???

What is the valid counterargument to my line of reasoning? I don't see it!

I don't think the park should be held accountable for the thugs' behavior...but I do think that Six Flags, in the interest of providing a safe and fun environment for families, would beef up security, add cameras, and arrest people who behave this way.

actually there is more than the law of gravity... there are all the laws of physics. ;)

^ true, Dragon....

How is there a liability with lapbar rides?

If you don't try to defete em, Most work just fine.

There are still a ton of coasters that have no restraints as in bars or belts. I don't see people flying off these things.

Chuck

Charles:

I'm guessing you have not read the whole thread. I respond with another question. How is there liability with rocks on the ground?

If you don't throw them at moving coaster trains...nobody gets hurt.

Again...I'm in agreement on the Cypress Garden case that it is BS the family is seking money. If anything I would like to see their son serve some jail time once he is stable.

I honestly do not believe coasters need overhead restraints. My point is that the reasoning/line of thinking/justification that many gave to endorse the Six Flags case, is a slippery slope that can easily lead to the examples I've given.

There is also a difference between what I think is correct and reality. The reality is that lap bars are indeed a lawsuit nightmare waiting to happen in today's society. Park's should protect themselves regardless of what coaster fans think. When rocks on the ground/not building a big enough fence/not having security to prevent rock throwers/"insert your favorite excuse here"...cost a park MILLIONS, there is a problem.

Not addressing lap bars that people can manipulate out of seems much more negligent than not preventing a thug rock thrower...no?

---

So can I sue Dodge if I get hurt in my Ram for not wearing my seatbelt?

---

Yes. And it's happened. And Daimler-Chrysler lost at least one multi-million dollar verdict. Not sure of names or anything, but it happened in Tennessee fairly recently and perhaps in other instances with other companies.

---

Seriously, The park should counter sue imediately for bad press resulting from the kids malicious actions.

---

And legal fees incurred.

JR

---

---

Cypress Gardens will host the “Coasting for the Kids Marathon” on Saturday, May 20th. A group of fundraisers will ride the park’s Triple Hurricane coaster and ride an hour for every $1000 they earn. All of the money will go to the Make A Wish foundation. You can read the press release and see all the details on how you can help here.

---

---

OH BOY! I can just see now, kids flying off of Triple Hurricane as they take part in a coaster marathon. They're reason will be, "I saw some other kid do it, so I thought I would try.

Krypton wrote: "They operate rides that, although they are inherently safe, can cause injury and/or death. It is with this knowledge that they operate these rides, and in turn are responsible for making the ride as safe as possible"

When operating correctly (as they were in this case and many others) the rides don't cause injury/death, the rider does. That's like saying I can rip apart wiring at work, chew on it, and electricute myself. Since I'm at work, the company is at least partially responsible for my injuries.

Kudos to Dexter for saying: "Every time I take a kid to a park, I take time to read the safety signs with them, and I tell them to listen to the ride opperators."

It's not just with amusement parks, our entire society believes you should be able to make mistake after mistake without suffering the consequenses.

You're never going to be able to make an amusement park ride that will keep the rider safe from himself!*** This post was edited by B&M Guy 3/10/2006 4:52:26 PM ***
*** This post was edited by B&M Guy 3/10/2006 5:14:41 PM ***