State report says woman suffered a burst blood vessel in her brain after SOB ride

Posted Tuesday, June 23, 2009 5:38 PM | Contributed by Jeff

Son of Beast is closed pending an investigation of an alleged head injury by a 39-year-old woman. The woman suffered a burst blood vessel in her brain and had to be admitted to a hospital's ICU, according to the incident report from the Amusement Ride Safety Division of the Ohio Department of Agriculture. The woman had been at Kings Island on May 31, but did not report the accident until June 16.

Read more from The Cincinnati Enquirer.

Related parks

Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:36 PM

I just rode SOB in May and it wasn't too bad. It seemed considerably smoother and somewhat slower then in '06 when they had multiple injuries on it. I also rode it then only minutes before the incident. I understand reasonable precaution but if this ride gets permanently shutdown over this I am concerned about precedents being set here. This type of problem sounds like a pre existing condition or at least something that she would be pre-disposed to anyway. If a train flies off the track that's the park's fault. In my opinion this kind of thing is not. What if she would have had a heart attack or stroke on the ride?

+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 6:51 PM
sws's avatar

We obviously need more information before we can draw any conclusions. However, as usual, I am skeptical of the allegations. I suspect this patient had a pre-existing berry aneurysm that was at risk of rupture at any time, especially if her blood pressure became elevated. This would not be specific for this ride, or any ride for that matter. I am particularly curious given the 2 week delay in reporting the incident. To draw any correlation, the intracranial bleed would have needed to occur on or immediately after the ride. However as we all know, it is some times cheaper for the park to pay up rather then defend the obvious.

+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:26 PM

I wish the park would show some cahonas and go to court if they are truly not at fault here. I would like to see a precedent set that way instead of just handing out the payola. This would discourage future non justified charges.
Maybe in that respect it would be cheeper to go to court. Also are people who are lookin' for the buck willing to subject themselves to the media scrutiny that a court case would bring? Maybe not if they knew there case was shakey. Don't get me wrong here, if someone is due compensation let them go for it, but God know most if us are very tired of this kind of BS!

Last edited by spiritman, Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:48 PM
+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:32 PM
sws's avatar

I haven't heard of any pending litigation in this case, so we should not jump to conclusions. I'm sorry if I misled people by a poorly worded comment. KI did the right thing in closing the ride until more facts are known.

+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:45 PM

Not at all, sws I think your commentary on the medical possibilities of what may have happened to this woman were helpful, excellent. I agree that if there is litigation it seems that the norm would be to settle.
I may have come off a little harsh sounding and my sympathy and wishes for a full recovery certainly go out to this woman and her family.
It does irritate me that the expense to the park (any business) over litigation is always passed on to the you's and me's in some way shape or form. Therefore if the case is weak I think they should fight it and discourage future possible litigation with this type of scenareo.

Last edited by spiritman, Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:46 PM
+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 7:54 PM
DaveStroem's avatar

My question is why is SOB being blamed. I am sure that if she rode SOB, she rode other coasters. It could have just as easily been caused by Vortex or any other ride. After more then 2 weeks I don't see how they could possibly narrow the cause down to a particular ride.

+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 8:17 PM
sws's avatar

The big question is the 2 week delay. Was there a 2 week delay between the development of symptoms and the visit to the park? Or did symptoms occur immediately after getting off of the ride and it just wasn't reported in the media for 2 weeks. Those would be very different scenarios. Why would she specifically implicate SOB? It's previous history makes it an easy target. Reminds me of the old cliche of "rounding up the usual suspects."

+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:19 PM
Jeff's avatar

Hey, I'm all for the pre-existing condition argument, but there's also a point at which a ride isn't just jostling you and can actually hurt you. I think SOB has flirted with that line from the beginning.


Jeff - Webmaster/Editor - CoasterBuzz.com - My Blog - Twitter - Video

+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:43 PM

Very true Jeff, but that line can be very different from person to person.
How do you draw that line? For instance (and this might not be a popular statement) at last weeks Timbersfest I got banged around on ST worse then anything SOB ever did to me. The slam at the bottom of ST'S first drop is becoming brutal. I still love the ride but might back away from multiple consecutive rides on it, yet everybody raves about ST and for good reason.
I just wish they could do something to smooth out that bang.

Last edited by spiritman, Tuesday, June 23, 2009 9:46 PM
+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:33 PM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

DaveStroem said:
My question is why is SOB being blamed. I am sure that if she rode SOB, she rode other coasters. It could have just as easily been caused by Vortex or any other ride. After more then 2 weeks I don't see how they could possibly narrow the cause down to a particular ride.

Just because she didn't report the injury to the park for two weeks doesn't mean she doesn't know which ride it happened on.

And don't be quick to assume anything, I've been to KI three times this year and have only ridden Diamondback.


+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 10:44 PM
Carrie M.'s avatar

Yeah, the two week reporting delay doesn't even seem odd to me really. I figure I go to the park, have a rough ride on SOB. I don't feel so hot afterward. I give my standard couple day rule to see how I feel. I determine I really should see a doctor. I call for an appointment which takes a couple more days to a week to get in to see. I have some tests done and then wait a little longer for the results. Then I file a report. Seems reasonable to me.

In this case, the report says she was admitted into an ICU, where I can only imagine the filing of an incident report was not her main priority.

Of course we don't have the facts about what happened. But the two weeks it took to file the incident report doesn't bother me.


"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:01 PM
sws's avatar

There are multiple types of intracranial hemorrhage, the clinical manifestations of which will be different. All we have to go on now is "a burst blood vessel in her brain." That generic description leads me to suspect a ruptured berry aneurysm leading to a subarachnoid or intracerebral hemorrhage. These would present with the sudden onset of "the most severe headache of my life." Usually patients are immediately symptomatic at the time of the rupture and they would be unlikely go two weeks before presenting. Direct head trauma, even apparent minor trauma, can lead to the development of a subdural hematoma, which may be asymptomatic for weeks or months. They haven't described any direct head trauma thus far in the reports. Of course I need to careful to over interpret an article in The Cincinnati Enquirer, instead of the New England Journal of Medicine.

Last edited by sws, Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:03 PM
+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:04 PM
Carrie M.'s avatar

But the article didn't say she went two weeks before presenting symptoms. It said she went two weeks before filing an incident report.


"If passion drives you, let reason hold the reins." --- Benjamin Franklin

+0
Tuesday, June 23, 2009 11:19 PM
sws's avatar

Everything right now is pure speculation and we are going to need to wait for further details to be released. Of course, nobody ever speculates about things in the coaster community. :) The point I'm trying to make is that if "a burst blood vessel in her brain" refers to a ruptured aneurysm, it's unlikely she would have made it to her car without knowing something was seriously wrong. It's a huge leap of faith going from "SOB beats the crap out of me every time I ride it," to "Sonny burst an artery in my brain." Of course, I can see Coaster Image selling T-shirts with the latter slogan on them. :)

+0
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:17 AM
Lord Gonchar's avatar

For some reason, when I read that article I came away with the impression that she immediately sought treatment, but it wasn't reported to the park (or claimed the coaster as the cause) until the 16th.

Seeking treatment and reporting the incident are two different things in my mind. Pay careful attention to the wording in the article. It keeps talking about her receiving care in the past tense and always refers to her waiting two weeks to "report the incident" or "report the accident."

I know it doesn't make much sense, but I'm left thinking "seeking treatment" and "reporting the incident" are two different events.

Or am I just illiterate?


+0
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 12:59 AM
sws's avatar

Lord Gonchar said:
I know it doesn't make much sense, but I'm left thinking "seeking treatment" and "reporting the incident" are two different events.

That makes perfect sense and I agree completely.

I re-read the article and I cannot determine when she sought treatment based on what we've been told. However, I did now notice reference to "alleged head injury" that I had initially overlooked. That presents a very different scenario depending on what type of intracranial hemorrhage occured. Relatively minor trauma could give rise to a subdural hematoma that may not become symptomatic for a couple weeks.

+0
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 7:19 AM

Lord Gonchar said:
For some reason, when I read that article I came away with the impression that she immediately sought treatment, but it wasn't reported to the park (or claimed the coaster as the cause) until the 16th.

Seeking treatment and reporting the incident are two different things in my mind. Pay careful attention to the wording in the article. It keeps talking about her receiving care in the past tense and always refers to her waiting two weeks to "report the incident" or "report the accident."

I know it doesn't make much sense, but I'm left thinking "seeking treatment" and "reporting the incident" are two different events.

Or am I just illiterate?

It also says she was in ICU so she may not have been able to talk during that time.Did not something similar happen on mission space and they had to tone down the ride after that ? I doubt you can tone down this ride since it already has new/different trains added
Unless they design a coaster train with shocks on it.

Kevin38

+0
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 8:03 AM

I rode SOB a few weeks ago in the very front and the ride itself was smooth and enjoyable (for SOB). However, rode 2nd to back the next day and I was fighting for my life. It is a brutal ride if you don't ride in the very front. It needs to go before someone gets seriously injured (again).

+0
Wednesday, June 24, 2009 9:52 AM

Swami Sez the SOB is removed within the next 3 years.

+0

You must be logged in to post

POP Forums - ©2018, POP World Media, LLC
Loading...