Six Flags Over Texas says it wasn't liable for death on New Texas Giant

Gerstlauer was not named as a defendant....?

Isn't it pretty much standard practice to sue everyone and let the courts decide who pays how much? Given the circumstances especially of what transpired before the train dispatched (and alleged concerns regarding the restraint sensor), I understand SF being sued. But not SF alone.

^I agree, it's definitely weird.

This family will win, I have a feeling. I'm not arguing this is right or wrong, by any means, but here is the thing:

1) Six Flags could have insisted upon a secondary restraint and did not.
2) Six Flags could have closed the ride or had a system installed that did not have the inconsistencies in green light go/no-go indicators. Would it have made it difficult to get the ride operating without spending a ton of extra money? Yes, but now they're going to spend that money anyway!

I'm shocked that Gerstlauer is not named as a defendant though. If they designed the restraints that failed, did not indicate another restraint was needed, and designed inconsistent electronics to ensure rider safety, why are they not involved in this suit?

It will be settled out of court. I doubt very much it's going to go to trial, because no one wants to air any dirty laundry or look worse than they already do. No one really wins, as one party has a dead relative and the other has a damaged reputation.

Considering the (LOW) number the family is asking for....surprised it hasn't settled already!

rollergator said:

Considering the (LOW) number the family is asking for....surprised it hasn't settled already!

We don't know the amount the family is asking for. The article states, "more than $1MM". That may be just a threshold amount, a box that has to be checked if damages sought are less than $1MM. The actual number could be much much larger.

As Jeff says, this will be settled. No one wins, and the legal bills just escalate. It truly becomes cheaper to settle. Both sides will posture, and behind the scenes they will come to a resolution. The bigger question is where Gerstlauer, and their umbrella/liability carrier, come into play.

bunky666 said:

1) Six Flags could have insisted upon a secondary restraint and did not.

Considering the vast amount of coasters without secondary restraints that run safely every day, I don't see that as a valid argument. The seat belt they added is likely acting more like a measuring stick than a secondary restraint anyway. It's probably keeping people of a larger size off the ride.

bunky666 said:

2) Six Flags could have closed the ride or had a system installed that did not have the inconsistencies in green light go/no-go indicators.

What inconsistencies?

Jason, I agree with you that the secondary restraints in the form of seatbelts are not really a "restraint", but I'm saying it could be used as an argument in the case against Six Flags.

In the article, it says that the electronic go/no go system was showing inconsistencies in the minimum closure point for different seats, which they could argue was the reason this woman was inadequately restrained.

Of course, the statute of limitations against Gerstlauer hasn't yet run, so based on this and some initial discovery, I wouldn't be surprised if an amended Complaint including them is forthcoming.

Failing to include them in the litigation opens up a huge "empty chair" problem (based on what we know), as other have pointed out.

bunky666 said:

In the article, it says that the electronic go/no go system was showing inconsistencies in the minimum closure point for different seats, which they could argue was the reason this woman was inadequately restrained.

That depends on what the inconsistency was. If it was erring on the safe side, then it makes no difference. For example, let's pretend these bars actually did click. If the go/no go was set to the second click and sometimes it didn't give the okay until the third or fourth, it was being inconsistent but not being unsafe.

Very true...

This is just an unfortunate situation all around, as has been said, and I'm guessing Six Flags will absolutely have to pay out.

I have no idea how the legalities work out, but could Six Flags then turn around and sue Gerstlauer?

rollergator said:

Considering the (LOW) number the family is asking for....surprised it hasn't settled already!

'

It's almost ridiculously low. No one's mother should die flying out of a roller coaster without that person getting millions of dollars in restitution. And I'm generally an anti-lawsuit kind of guy.

bunky666 said:

I have no idea how the legalities work out, but could Six Flags then turn around and sue Gerstlauer?

Yes, there area typically ways that defendants in cases can bring in other defendants, on the basis that the relief sought should more properly be sought against someone else. There could also any number of indemnification agreements in place between all these players already.

As for the demand, usually the number on the Complaint represents a minimum threshold number for jurisdictional purposes, so the actual demand might be higher (and unpublished). In Ohio, every case filed in a common pleas court is going to say $25,000 on it regardless of the actual value, because that's the jurisdictional minimum for filing in that court.