Pending lawsuits target Cedar Point and Kalahari in Sandusky

Well, if sunlight is an issue, I see another lawsuit looming.

http://business.financialpost.com/2010/12/01/spanish-woman-buys-the-sun/

Jerry said:
Winding back on topic - I tripped on a branch while walking in Frontier Town at CP this past summer - skinning my knee. A guy saw it happen, got up off a bench and gave me his card, can you guess what he was? yep, ambulance chasing lawyer... I threw it in the bin and walked on to the bathroom to wash it off...

You ARE kidding, right?

Then again I am not exactly surprised. If it were me I would of laughed at him thinking it was a joke. Has the world really come to this?

I have had many minor injuries (including scraped knees and bruises) at amusement parks. That's what First Aid stations are for, not a courtroom. I have tripped many times at amusement parks. I see people trip all the time. That's part of life. You are supposed to suck it up and get it treated the old fashioned way. It's sad that you can't even do THAT without some shark of a lawyer trying to interfere. ;)

-Tina

^LOL, I should have sued the goat that bit my finger at Wild Adventures...meh, who am I KIDding... ;)

^Very true! I didn't even think about that one until now! ;)

That was definitely the park's fault! They should of had a sign up saying "Do Not Stick Fingers In Goat's Mouth!" ;)

-Tina

rollergator said:
^LOL, I should have sued the goat that bit my finger at Wild Adventures...meh, who am I KIDding... ;)

Ouch...on the finger AND the pun...especially the pun.

Gator, that was really ba-aaaaaa-d...

I realize everyone likes to bitch about lawyers, and say oh-so-clever things like "I fell down/tripped/had my feelings hurt/puked at Cedar Point, maybe I can sue, too!" But the reality is that, at least in Ohio, it takes a decent injury and a real breach of duty to generate any kind of settlement offer. You might get a tiny "go away" offer, but typically, that won't even cover medical expenses.

For most cases that involve injury on the property of another, the doctrine of Open & Obvious can stop a claim, and it's very likely that a claimant will have to overcome a Summary Judgment motion based on that defense in order to generate any offer at all. This can be a very tough motion to beat, depending on the circumstances.

There are stupid lawsuits out there, for sure, but to demonize every plaintiff who files a lawsuit ignores that fact that businesses like amusement parks have actual duties to their customers, and there's a long-standing body of law out there that states exactly what happens when these duties are breached. If you get seriously injured at a park through the park's negligence, and you're not comparatively at fault yourself, you should not feel compelled to just sack up, be a man and take it. The court system exists for this very reason.

Also, if the anecdote about being handed a business card is true, that attorney broke the ethical rules against solicitation. That would have been the first clue that the representation might be less than stellar. I can't say I'm shocked that it happened, but in no way would I say that it represents the bahavior of most attorneys.

But yeah, just because we all like amusement parks doesn't mean they get a pass when their negligence leads to injury. As for these particular cases, there's very little information contained in the article to make any determination as to how meritorious any of them are. As I posted in Pointbuzz in reference to this article, the $25,000 amount comes from the jurisdictional minimum that you need to include in a complaint to get your case heard in an Ohio Court of Common Pleas. It's a legal fiction, and it doesn't represent the worth of the case, the actual demand for settlement, or the ultimate settlement amount. It's very likely the only public document that addresses a money demand, and that's why the article included it.

I injured my right foot while at Michigan's adventure, and split my toenail in half while walking over the footbridge that goes over the lazy river. My toe was bleeding, and I really didn't think much of it, I just wrapped my shirt around it until the bleeding stopped.

I went to the first aid department, but they already had 2 people there waiting to see someone, and only one person there checking them over. (A little girl had a badly scraped knee, and another little girl had blood coming out of her mouth. (Probably broke a tooth.) So, I didn't want to wait. That, and it looked like they needed more help than I did.

I just limped around the rest of the day and went home. I'm sure I probably should have had it looked at. My toenail started dying off, and had some really gross stuff growing around my toenail, and it still hurts when I put my socks on. We are talking almost 10 years ago.

I did eventually have my foot looked at, and I was told that my entire toenail would have to be removed, or it could get infected, and that my toe was sprained. But, the doc seemed to think it would be fine as long as I kept the nail clean, and iced my foot for a while.

I was also injured on Shivering Timbers, while going around the swoop turn. I was holding my arms up, and got slammed hard to the left. and my whole left side had multiple bruises on it for a couple days, I also scraped my ankle on the lap bar down by my foot. It was really sharp there for some reason.

People at work thought I had fallen down the stairs. I just looked at them and grinned. Nope just a badge from the coaster wars. I'll know next time to NOT put my arms up on the turns on ST ever again.

As for the lawsuits, I would want any lawsuit I filed heard outside of Erie county. I'm sure that Cedar Point and the resorts around there have that court in their back pocket. A certain company here in Michigan ran a campain to oust all the city and county board members, so that could get their own candidates into office, only because they wanted to build a store in a certain city.

Well, the state burned them for a quarter million dollars, and slammed them with several fraud lawsuits.
But, when you have a company that rakes in $2 billion every year. Good luck ever seeing that go to trial.

I'm sure a lot of this cases may have merit. I said as much about those in the article. Of course gross negligence deserves punishment. However, when it comes to "slips at the waterpark," I cannot think of one extenuating circumstance that would lead me to any conclusion but frivolity. Now if a life-guard is tripping them, or jumping out of the bushes and scaring the patrons, I would be inclined to reconsider my stance. But for that particular case, in a just world, he/she who brought suit should be severely fined for wasting the court's time and taxpayer's dime.

And if that's not enough to stifle legal claims, string 'em up by the scrotums with piano wire. That'll teach the likes of them...

Okay, that was ridiculously over the top, even for me. I apologize to anyone I may have offended.

What I should have said, in a more temperate moment, was that Aamilj's idea is reprehensible and regressive. Severely fining those whose suits are determined, before a trial can even begin, to be without merit only ensures that the only ones who will ever dare go to court are corporations and the wealthy. I can't think of a change that would do more to disenfranchise the public of the right to seek legal redress.

Severely fining those whose suits are determined, before a trial can even begin, to be without merit only ensures that the only ones who will ever dare go to court are corporations and the wealthy.

Who said anything about not having a trial? The jury can decide guilty, not guilty, or frivolous. Seems fair to me. It would force lawyers to only take legitimate cases. Or maybe you prefer the current status where lawyers steal money from those "poor" clients you are concerned about by taking cases that have no shot at winning. they are not taking water-park slip cases pro bono.

I can't think of a change that would do more to disenfranchise the public of the right to seek legal redress.

Deterring frivolous cases does not interfere with anybody's right to seek legitimate redress. The key word is legitimate. Why would anybody be against common sense provisions to limit frivolity that costs the taxpayers' money?

Sure it would. The barrier to entry for most people is already too high in terms of cost. Now you want them to incur more risk? These are courts, not casinos.

Sure it would. The barrier to entry for most people is already too high in terms of cost. Now you want them to incur more risk? These are courts, not casinos.

Yes I would like to see those lawyers and litigants who bring frivolous lawsuits to incur a heck of a lot more risk. Out of every 100 cases some 20-30 actually see settlements. Somebody is able to afford these lawsuits at status quo. Yet the lawyers get their fees in 100% of these cases. They tie up court resources and cost the taxpayer money that we don't have...especially in the current economy. I am a big believer in tort reform.

I'd like to see people who post frivolous comments arrested, but that's just me.

^^You speak as if the judicial system can determine guilty, not guilty, and frivolous with 100% accuracy. The fact that companies take settlements and defendants take plea deals while still maintaining innocence suggests to me that "frivolity" is just going to become another pawn in the big game and defense lawyers will use it as a threat to beat down plaintiffs. (i.e. "Lower that settlement amount by $10,000 or we're going to push for frivolity.")

Perhaps someone can explain how to prevent the appearance of water at a water park then. Jeff, I think there are some plaintiffs who indeed play the justice system like a casino. They're the players with little or nothing to lose, so why not see what they can get out of a person or business with a lot more to lose. If not a settlement, then the threat of a lawsuit. Pull the lever, spin the wheel, roll the dice.

I remember with the infamous McDonald's coffee cup incident from a few years ago-- an amazing number of people I talked to didn't care how McDonald's conducted themselves during the proceedings. They didn't care whether or not a person should know what to do with a container of hot liquid. They simply thought that because McDonald's makes lots of money and this woman thought she deserved some of it, it should be given to her and they really wouldn't miss it. With people like that in any prospective jury pool, don't you think that encourages lawsuits that may not be of the highest merit, because again, what does the plaintiff have to lose if it isn't?

If the justice system is arbitrary enough for people to treat it like a casino, how will adding a "frivolous" outcome change that? Won't it just be another reel on the big ol' slot machine?

Step right up! It's time to play Win, Lose or Draw!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9Tp1mkqa5c

Ifthe justice system is arbitrary enough for people to treat it like acasino, how will adding a "frivolous" outcome change that?

It would force the player (plaintiff's attorney) to actually play with his own money/reputation. I don't like the idea of disuading reasonable lawsuits. I do like the idea of disuading crap lawsuits that clog up the courts and waste valuable time and resources. I would think there could be some sort of reasonable tort reform that could accomplish such a goal. Maybe financial penalties for the attorney and community service obligations for the client...?