Caroline and her friends go to an amusement park. She decides to ride the scariest roller coaster. After each rider is seated, the attendant secures that rider with a rollbar. Caroline tells her friends that she does not need the rollbar. After the first large hill, she detaches it. Later in the ride, she is thrown frrom the roller coaster and is badly hurt.
The section this was in was about comparative negligence, in other words, if Caroline sues the park (and probably the coaster manufacturer as well), and the court finds for her, but also finds that she was partially negligent herself, she won't get all the money she sued for. Personally, I think she acted incredibly stupidly. Why would she think she didn't need the lapbar (probably what "rollbar" in the passage refers to)?
Also, is it possible to disengage the restraints on modern coasters while the ride is underway? One reason we found in class that she could win her suit is that the company should not have made the ride so the restraints could be disengaged during the ride. Now, of the 2 real coasters I've ridden, disengaging Raging Bull's restraints in motion is impossible ( the test seat has a pedal for that purpose). But I'm not so sure that the same is true of Viper's restraints.
-----------------
RCT hypercoaster crazy!
-------------
elevated track in the sky is the only way to fly.
Remember: It's impossible to make anything fool proof because fools are so ingenious.
*** This post was edited by Jim Fisher on 10/8/2001. ***
Jim Fisher said:
"I don't think much of the "you didn't idiot proof it" (and my client is an idiot) offense unless the passenger was not mentally competent."
-------------
"Nobody writes about the planes that land." Steve Salerno Washington Times 7-10-01
You must be logged in to post