Posted Thursday, October 14, 2004 12:49 PM | Contributed by Jeff
In August 2001, two trains on Superman: Ride of Steel at Six Flags New England collided after one train was not fully stopped by the brake run at the end of the ride. At least two lawsuits -- one personal injury, and one by Six Flags against the ride manufacturer Intamin -- have resulted.
Read more from MassTort.org.
Hopefully they (Intamin) won't end up like Arrow...Unless B&M were interested in buying them out;).(just a joke)
I wish Intamin could get their safety rating up, but this was bound to happen. Guess now we know why there are OTSRs on Ka...;)*** This post was edited by TeknoScorpion 10/14/2004 1:22:53 PM ***
Not to excuse the accident or suggest it was in any acceptable (or that the lawsuit has no merit, because I believe it does), but I have to wonder if these people would have sued if they had been rear-ended in a car accident at less than 20mph.
And, after all this, parks are still buying Intamin.
Nonsense. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are about 695,000 attorneys in the U.S. There are 189 ABA-accredited law schools in the U.S. (There are a number of non-accredited schools, but not enough to make a big difference here.) To have more law students than lawyers, each law school would need to have over 3,500 law students. In fact, law schools are more more likely to have around 600 students total, if that.
You can still argue that there are too many lawyers or too many law students or too many lawsuits, but don't use made-up statistics to do so.
"Thats good, contract them to build you a record breaker next year, then sue them..."
No kidding I was thinking the same thing. You wonder if Intamin will second guess themeselves about building anything at a six flags park anymore ( just kidding)
From what I understand the breaks failed. Superman hits the breaks at around 40 MPH. Imagine if the breaks on TTD failed!
Researching facts is WAY more difficult than just making up stuff that supports your argument...;)
As to why the lawsuit was filed SOOO late, could it be because of a statute of limitations or something like that?
From my (admittedly limited) perspective, I just can't see how Intamin can IMPROVE until they're ready to admit they've made mistakes in the past.....and I have seen NOTHING to suggest that Intamin is willing to go that far....and the shame of it is they really DO make the best steel coasters out there...
Six Flags are hypocrites. I mean they sue and then keep building more and more Intamin coasters. Cedar Point seems to have a good relationship with Intamin but Six Flags's relationship is really whacked.
My question is about the accident itself, if there was an airline rupture, wouldn't the train be stopped at the top of the lift hill since the brakes are not in the proper position?
In the unlikely chance I'm ever a ride op at SFDL, SFA, or SFNE, If I EVER saw the brakes in the down position after the train came into the station, as soon as I saw the 2 green blinking lights I would dispatch it, people on or not, and then E stop it on the lift , so if the brakes fail it won't crash into the next train.
That's almost certainly why (as suggested in the linked-to story). Note that both lawsuits were filed within a couple of days prior to the three-year anniversary of the accident. I would assume (without any particular basis except being likely) that the parties were all talking settlement (and may still be doing so) but filed the suits to protect their interests.
Incidentally, a rear-ending at 20mph can do serious injuries, and the injuries in this case may not have been so minor themselves. The complaint alleges that his injuries have resulted in multiple surgeries. Maybe they were trivial, but what would ordinarily be minor injuries can balloon very easily.
If I was on that coaster and flew through the break run into the second train at ANY speed, I would sue. It has nothing to do with being "sue-happy".
Being "sue-happy" is when you walk into someones yard, break your leg and sue. When you're on a rollercoaster and the breaks fail, I would certainly consider that a bigger problem.
I'm suprised it's taken so long to see a lawsuit from the victims. Has there been one in the past or is this the first?
i.e. whether there are passengers beyond the gates in the loading area... if they are in the train are they properly restrained?
Also, you have to realise that yourself alone could not dispatch a train no matter how hard you wanted to. The other dispatch buttons at each corner of the station where ride ops are stationed need to be pushed as well. Only one of them has to e-stop.
The only difference is that a train had already been dispatched & was stopped on the lift at the time thus allowing for the inbound train to run safely through the station & stop on the lift at a much lower height.
The brake lines on all 3 rides were of course replaced following the SFNE crash,prior to that they had used a PVC brake line which is what failed leading to a loss in pressure to the brakes,not exactly an all out failure...as for SFA's brake failure it wasn't made public just what the cause was.
It is kind of odd to see SF sue Intamin 3 years after the accident though & I suppose we'll see them file suit against Vekoma by 06 as a result of the malfunction on Two face last year that left 28 riders stranded 140 ft in the air for over two hours.
a) Injured party files last-minute suit against Six Flags
b) Six Flags files last-minute suit against Intamin
It makes sense that it would work that way, as noted in the Six Flags v. Intamin complaint: Six Flags' contract with Intamin specifies that Intamin is responsible for incidents caused by a ride failure resulting from deficiencies in design or construction, therefore, Intamin is responsible for settling this suit, even though Intamin is not named as a defendant in the first complaint.
I suspect that the first case is a continuation of negotiations by other means, and the second case is a means of making sure Intamin doesn't duck its obligations with regard to the first case.
Let the finger pointing begin.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
"Apart from the statement which we know to be false in Paragraph 12 of the brake suit (that the ride was not equipped with functional restraints...this is a demonstrably false statement)"
Not necessarily -- depends on the definition of functional. If the argument is (as I suspect it is) that the restraints were insufficient to protect the passengers from injury in the event of a collision, and that argument prevails, then it was not equipped with "functional" restraints. The statement about not having seatbelts at all is, I believe, incorrect, since I thought those were installed sometime after the ejection in '99.
Note that I don't necessarily endorse the allegation w/r/t nonfunctional restraints -- just want to point out that it's not necessarily false given the language used.
You must be logged in to post