Six Flags Worlds of Adventure sued for 2000 Villain accident

As much as I dislike this park, I am pulling for them in this case. It should be the person(s) that thrue the rock that are going to court.....not six flags.

If you look at any coaster, there are sections that are open to this kind of act to take place,but that does not mean that all parks should or have to install fences 20 feet tall to stop this from happining.

What ever happend to common sense?It seams like a person is no longer at fault for there actions, but insted the people/companies that are inocent have to pay for the dumb acts of others.

People are just looking for reasons to sue people today,and it is really gotten out of hand.

Yeah, because God knows you'd be OK with the fact that surgeons had to remove part of your skull after an accident that the park could have prevented. And she's totally responsible for her own actions. She was pretty stupid to think that she could safely ride a roller coaster without people throwing stuff at it. Right.

I agree with a lot people and can see both sides...BUT

This incident took place after they errected a barrier due to the IDIOTS throwing rocks. SFWoA did stop that. This incedent does envolve a cell thrown from looking at the court stuff. The judge has heard this before and will most likely side with the park.

People need to take resposiblity for their OWN actions...not just at parks.

Yeah she got hit very bad with a cell phone or "object" but how is that the parks fault? Should we all strip down before riding at ANY park?

SFWoA DID take immediate steps once they realized people were throwing rocks. Now they even have TWO barriers and have closed the walkway.

Just take this lady out of the picture and think about this logically. If they are going to argue that SFWoA didn't keep the person(S) safe on the ride then every ride in the freakn' USofA is going to be liable. Think of all the HUNDREDS of coasters that a person can come in VERY close contact with the riders while they are walking/standing by. I can name 12 parks just in PA/Ohio that could have HUGE lawsuits on hand. Just because it happened at SFWoA doesn't mean any other park is safe forever.

People are dumb. The ONLY way to stop another accident is to strip down the riders totally and put them in a caged roller coaster train. Then have all roller coasters about 100ft off of any type of walkway or midway. This is a joke. The park will win in Court with the judge on this one after the last suit against the park.

I do feel bad for the lady, but I also have been hit with a cell phone on Magnum on the return bunny hops...It's actually seen in the picture flying in the air. Yeah it hurt. And I know this lady had it worst from the sounds of it. But to sue the park as an act of stupidity on another human. No.

"The Future of Roller Coasters"
-RollerCoasterGod
http://OhioThemeParks.com

*** This post was edited by RollerCoasterGod 1/14/2004 9:13:15 PM ***

The truth is that, no matter how ridiculous it may seem, the umbrella of liability has expanded in this day and age. So while common sense may dictate that it's an issue between two people, there exists a case over whether or not the park did not do everything they could to prevent this type of thing from happening. I think it's stupid too, but it's how it has to be.

I think the case is going to be based heavily on when these nets and barriers were installed, and how much time was allowed to pass between the first time the park knew the barriers weren't good enough and this incident. So long as the park did all they could within reason, they should win.*** This post was edited by Nitro Dave 1/14/2004 10:55:27 PM ***

So if another bird hits someone in the head on Apollo's Chariot, BGW should be sued and lose the case since they knew about the Fabio thing? I don't get it, especially if the barrier RCG mentioned was true. You can't eliminate all of the accidents that can happen with idiots unless they enclosed the ride and make everyone ride naked. If I really wanted to, I could throw something at anyone on any coaster, flat ride, in a booth,... Isn't this like suing a movie theatre for idiots throwing objects and knowing about that happening and then more idiots come and throw and hurt someone and then suing the theatre for it? Or suing CP for knowing about the bug problem and one putting out your eye? So stupid.

-Danny

Yea, but the parks not the one who thrue the rock.

Its the moron that thrue the rock that should be sued. Its not like the park told the boy/girl to throw a rock at some person riding a coaster.

The park did install a barrior, what else should THEY have to do?

Its just like if someone drove by the villin and shot at someone.........should the park have to enclose the ride in bullet proof glass now?

Where will it end???

Eventhough the park did not throw the rock this area had a history of this type of problem. The park acknowledged this when they built the barrier. The barrier obviously was not built in a fashion in which it was 100% functional however. By saying "hey we have an issue" and then building a barrier that allowed the same type on incidents to happen I think the park is partially liable. Sure the park didn't throw the rock/cell phone. Who did? This person has medical bills that she is responsible for paying. Should she be left out? This has taken a long time to progress, were they trying to find a culprit or come to an agreement in the time leading up to this? I beleive that a park should be held responsible for incidents that happen while on their rides. It is the parks responsibility to assure everyone a safe ride while on the ride. I got screwed over on a similer suit where the individual at fault convinced the courts that the state was lible for the my injuries, however in Ohio the state can not be found financially liable of this sort of incident so I had to spend over $50,000 of my own money for medical bills and repairs to my vehicle. Was that just for me to have to pay for someone elses actions? I do not believe in suing someone because they have more money and they should pay just for that, but if you allow certain things to take place knowingly you assume a certain amount of responsibility.

A drive by shooting is an extreme uncontrolable event. Given the history, this problem should have been taken care of years ago. You can't control what goes on outside the property, but you can control (to some level) what goes on within.*** This post was edited by ldiesman 1/15/2004 1:13:11 AM ***

Not only do I want to sue CP for the bugs, but all the damn birds that poop on my car have ruined the paint job. I can sue them for knowing about the birds and also for serving food to people who throw it on the ground where birds end up eating it causing them to poop all over the place. Boy I hope I don't have a Fabio incident there because I'll take them for every penny I can.

Seriously, this is rediculous to blame the park if they took measures to prevent it from happening. I truely feel bad that anyone had to suffer from someone elses stupidity, but where does it end. People are so quick to sue anymore it seems like it's almost a knee-jerk reaction. This wasn't an accident, it was a criminal act for pete's sake.

Like Danny said, before you know it, we'll be riding coasters wearing straight-jackets in covered trains chained into the seats to protect us from ourselves. Give me a break.

hmmm...who is getting sued? Six Flags Ohio, now SFWoA, or Six Flags corporate? How can they prove that willingly corporate in 2000 knew any of this, and what about the person that actually threw the object in question? Something tells me this will end up in a stalemate unless whoever threw the object at a rider is found, but then I'm just good friends with a lawyer who's been practicing for 40 years....hmmmm

This is no different than if they 'perp' and the woman were standing face to face in the park and the perp beat up the women. Should she sue the park then, or the perp?

The lady has a right to sue, but I think it should be the person that caused the harm. Only if they can't find that person, should she be able to sue the park, if anything at least for the fact that there wasn't enough security to catch the perp.

You guys are talking about ideals and things that don't matter as far as the court is concerned. It doesn't matter who you think should be punished. If the barriers were installed when it happened (and I don't think they were in 2000, because I took pictures at the very spot it happened late season), that's even worse for the park because they knew there was a problem there and still allowed access to the area.

If the park doesn't settle they're going to get raked over the coals.

A few people are fogetting one main clue in this case. The article above states that an object was "thown." At the time of this incedent and according to other reports from people on the train it came from the train. So "thown" should be used very loosely here. If I'm sitting in the front seat and loose...let's say my keys. They fly up in the air and land on the back seat person. Yeah that's going to do some damage from the velocity the train is doing. This lawsuit is the cell phone lawsuit that is following the rock lawsuit.

Why it's only coming up now? I don't know. But I have seen it's been tried to brought up 2 other times. So I do not know if they got a new "loop hole" or what.

"The Future of Roller Coasters"
-RollerCoasterGod
http://OhioThemeParks.com

There is a huge difference between the path alongside Villain and the path alongside Magnum. The Villain is a lot closer to the ground when it is next to the path than Magnum is, making it a much more tempting target for the kind of people who throw rocks at coasters or take shots at passing cars (hey, I live in Columbus, OK?).

I thought this was a case where originally it was thought to be a flying cell-phone, but ultimately no phone was found, and the conclusion was that it was a rock thrown from the picnic grove. Or something like that.

You know, this never would have happened if they had left the picnic area inside the park........................ :)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Or if they just put to use those really nice picnic areas over on the Wilf Life side. I could list off a 1000 reasons why to make all the picnic stuff over there. That I will never understand but I still think the Great Lake pavillions would make a GREAT haunted house area. ;)

You are right, about never finding a cell phone. They took reports and from what I remember reading way back when the doctor said the impact was the same as a cell phone. Though I'm assuming they never found a rock that big/small enough either while they were looking for the object.

"The Future of Roller Coasters"
-RollerCoasterGod
http://OhioThemeParks.com

Is the state sued when people throw rocks off bridges and damage someone's car or body? Even so, higher barriers would only mean trying to throw the rock higher and harder to me. Not that I would do it, but if you look in the idiots shoes... It's almost encouraging them to do it since they know they won't get in trouble. The park will.

-Danny*** This post was edited by Koaster King 1/15/2004 10:56:19 AM ***

When are people going to start taking responsibiliteis for their own actions? Whether it was a object thrown at the ride or a loose cellphone in someones hand, how is the park liable when they post many signs warning about loose articles? A big pet peeve of mine is people don't realize the consequences of there actions anymore.

I'm not saying she doesn't have a right to sue for damages. She was physically injured because a) someone threw a rock, b)someone carelessly rode a coaster with total disreguard to heeding the posted signs about loose articles. (I don't presonally believe it was a cellphone though because they never found one from what I've been told) This is clearly a case where since the culprit can't be identified and/or is willing to come forward, the park is left as a scapegoat to pay the damages. How is that right or fair.

I do realize that this world we all live in isn't perfect, but where does it end?. I see more and more people blindly going about their lives with total disreguard to the people around them. It's always about me me me me and whats best for me. What about we all start to realize that we can't recklessly disreguard park rules and posted sign warnings. I really despise people who say they saw the sign and didn't think it applied to them, or that the park didn't physically prevent them from committing a senseless act while on or off a ride. Why do we have a rider responsibility act/law now?*** This post was edited by Thrillerman 1/16/2004 1:18:23 PM ***

I think part of the problem of this argument is that not everyone is considering the same facts. Without knowing the facts, it is hard to know how liable the park should be. For example, some people are saying the barrier was put up after accident and some say it was put up before. If this is the second incident and the park did nothing after the first and only put the barrier up after the second incident, they might be in trouble. Like I said previously, if the park had knowledge that people might be throwing things, they had a duty to do something about it.

However, the fact that they put up a barrier cannot be used to show that there was a problem. Rule 407 of the federal rules of evidence state that subsequent remedial actions taking cannot be used to demonstrate liability. In other words, the plaintiff cannot say in court, "there obviously was a problem or they wouldn't have put up the barrier." The reason for this is one of policy. If courst allowed subsequent remedial measures to be used as evidence of liability, no one would ever fix a problem. If fixing the problem could be used against you, you would never fix it. Therefore, this type of evidence is not allowed. (There are situations where subsequent remedial actions are allowed into evidence, but none of those fit this situation. One of these exceptions is to prove ownership. In other words, if the park denied owning the property, you could use the fact that they built a barrier on the property as proof that they owned the land. However, like I said, that does not appear to fit this case.)

---

Is the state sued when people throw rocks off bridges and damage someone's car or body?

---

No, but railroads have been sued for not putting the same kind of fences on their bridges over highways, and you get the railroads lost.

The facts in the case aren't that complicated. A person was able to throw something in the path of the ride, causing injury. The park could've done something to prevent it. It's not more complicated than that.

Any while I understand the frustration with personal liability and lawsuits, what does that have to do with this? What was the injured rider responsible for?

The court is going to consider which party was in the better position to prevent the accident. First of all, I think that we can all agree that whomever did this is probably never going to be found. (if they are, they should be criminally prosecuted). The court then needs to look at, between the park and the rider, which one is better able to prevent the accident. The park is clearly in the better position to prevent the accident. By installing a fence, like they did, they could have prevented this accident for a limited expense. The only way the rider could prevent the incident is to not ride. Clearly, even the park would not want this to be the chosen solution because without riders, they do not have customers and they are out of business. Therefore, between the available parties, it makes sense to put the burden of prevention on the park.

Certainly this isn't a cell phone falling out of someone's pocket and hitting another rider. I'm no expert in physics, but, a cell phone traveling at nearly the same velocity as the rider wouldn't have been able to do the damage that this woman recieved. It was clearly a rock or some other object thrown from the outside. I think this will come down to whether or not the park knew about the actions before the incident in question.