Woman injured by Top Thrill Dragster roller coaster part sues Cedar Fair

You know, as someone who loves roller coasters, all I could think about in recent months is the coaster and what is being done to it. But after reading this, I feel terrible for the woman and her family. All they have gone through, and will be going through for her entire life... it's truly depressing. It reminds me of the disturbing Kentucky Kingdom Hellivator accident.

That list of injuries is shocking. She's asking for more than thirteen million dollars. That's only the medical bills and loss of income. Add in the mental anguish of her, her husband, and her father, and it's a lot mor than that. And I don't see any reason they won't win.

...Add to it the cost of recreating the coaster, and it turns out to be a very expensive accident.

And it makes total sense that the new trains will have very few removable parts. Still, I'm sure there will be several conversation in line for the new TDD at any given time about the accident. People are not going to just forget about it.

My heart again goes out to this woman and her family.

I was shocked to see this hadn’t been settled out of court. I figured the reason we hadn’t heard so much outside of her recovery, is because Cedar Fair had taken care of it already. But there must be a disconnect from what she wants and what Cedar Fair (or their insurance company) thinks she deserves. I hope she gets what she wants.

I always think…this could have been any of us. She may not have been an enthusiast, but I couldn’t imagine being at my favorite park, getting injured by one of the coasters, and potentially never being able to ride again…but on top of that face a life of medical issues.

Since the first announcement of a new, reimagined TTD 2.0 I have always known in the back of my mind that this was happening, at least on the current timeline, because of such a horrible accident. I'm excited for the new ride for sure, but the entire thing has also had the storm cloud of the accident hanging over it. I have wondered at times if the grand fanfare of the upcoming announcement, construction, etc., is at all in poor taste due to the circumstances of the accident and I don't have an answer. But unlike Mean Streak to Steel Vengeance or Steel Phantom to Phantom's Revenge where parks just took crappy rides and made them great, this one just feels different. Even if this was in a 5-10 year plan and it just was accelerated due to the circumstance, if I were trying to market Cedar Point in 2024 it would be tough for me to bring out the usual bells and whistles knowing what caused the original ride to shut down.

I think most of us were lulled by time into thinking that this matter surely had to have been resolved by now or that the woman and her family took a different (and confidential) path toward resolution. But here it is.
Some of the perceived delay may be strategic. But more likely this was the amount of time required to see what kind of future, if any, that Mrs Hawes and her family had ahead of them. Seeing the list of injuries and the overall damages bring a fresh and frighteningly clear look to the matter.
A few here have cited examples of legal matters that they have or are currently facing, and those people know that there’s no specific time line for any of it. The same goes for medical matters. The amount of hospital time, therapy, and the resulting medical bills is mind blowing. It’s probably determined that she’ll get no better and this has been a life changing event for all of them.
I’ve seen comments made where people are hoping that the screws are put to Cedar Point and every dime is wrung out of them. I’m more inclined to mind my karma and hope for an outcome that’s satisfying to all parties. Truth told, that could have been any of us standing in line that day.
The new ride will always and forever carry the ghost of this tragedy, sad to say. It’s just like me wondering if we will ever have an opening day at the state fair without mention of the Fireball accident, and it sure seems like we won’t. The news last night covered this lawsuit, of course, but didn’t fail to mention the crack in the roller coaster down there, the jammed up Super Loops up there, and the fact that there are no federal regulations regarding safety and inspections. And followed by a small piece about how to keep your family safe at amusement parks, which offered nothing more than common sense advice and an interview with an “expert”. I had a hard time sleeping after all that.

There is big time liability in this case on multiple parties. Maybe that’s why it wasn’t settled. Finger pointing among those that are liable.

Insurance companies in particular like to play that game when there is liability to multiple companies. All of these corps are out for themselves. Not who they injure by neglect.

My experience with civil lawsuits is that the parties that have something to lose, and will lose, will drag things out as long as possible. But in this case, I think it's plausible that the plaintiff's attorneys just weren't satisfied with any settlement offers. There's an inflection point where it's cheaper to answer the demands than let the case see a courtroom, but I guess we're not there.

Purely anecdotal, but I think it's pretty unusual for circumstances like this to be settled without a lawsuit ever being filed. I'm sure a lot of attorneys would tell you that you need the inner workings of the legal system to run their course in order to achieve the best outcome.

Also considering CF's legal history with Intamin (Perilous Plunge, Cables on TTD and Xcelerator and MF, and Shoot the Rapids, the Wicked Twister sway) I am not surprised it has gotten to this point with this incident.

Somehow people are still surprised they are not working on Dragster or that Xcelerator is not back up.

Also no way CP has destroyed the trains.

RCMAC:

I’ve seen comments made where people are hoping that the screws are put to Cedar Point and every dime is wrung out of them. I’m more inclined to mind my karma and hope for an outcome that’s satisfying to all parties. Truth told, that could have been any of us standing in line that day.

And I don't understand that angst against the park. Nor do I think for a second that the family that is suing is unjustified in what they are asking. And on the same (now three-sided) token I read the entire report from the state of Ohio that concluded no fault to the park, and that also made sense. In fact if anything some of the details in there actually made me feel better about how seriously the park takes its safety. It also, though, highlighted that TTD was still very problematic, and the rattling noises coming from the brake run, while not completely ignored, were also never figured out (the report literally states that the noises, while observed and noted and investigated, the cause was undetermined, and the ride re-opened anyway).

This crosses my mind every time we are in line for Millennium Force and the train flies by. Not only did it strike her, but it struck her in a place that caused irreparable damage.

I guess RCMAC summed up my thoughts when he said that he hopes for an outcome that's satisfying to all parties.

1) Per the report (and what the hell do I know?) from the state the park seems to have dotted all their I's and crossed their T's. Tragedy still happened. They also followed Intamin's reduced inspection recommendations because Covid (in fact they went above and beyond what Intamin recommended).

2) This woman and her family deserve to be taken care of. I agree with others that there was probably an offer that was rejected, but considering what the future does (and doesn't) hold for Mrs. Hawes, I hope they get taken care of.

I agree with MAC and OhioStater that this is just kind of…no win. It’s sad all around, and it truly does make you think. You don’t go to an amusement park expecting to be killed or maimed, and even if there is some sort of thought about rides being poorly maintained or operated outside of certain parameters, you certainly don’t expect to be killed or maimed waiting in line for attractions at said amusement park. And this seems like it was truly an accident that could have not been been foreseen by anyone.

All that being said, I have to wonder if this family truly will get an amount they find acceptable. It looks better for Cedar Point to quietly settle for a large sum of money, but did they actually do anything wrong that they should have to pay for? What is the acceptable implied risk one takes on when entering a theme park versus any other venue? What expectations regarding safety did the park not provide? I of course feel terribly for this woman and her family, and I think the decent thing to do would be for Cedar Fair to pay whatever this family needs, but I’m not so sure they’ll HAVE to. There’s not really a huge precedent for this in the amusement world, as pretty much every other significant accident (that I can think of, anyway) resulting in serious injury or death has been in some shape or form a park’s negligence or misjudgment. Travis mentioned Kaitlyn Lassiter’s accident on the drop tower, but even that was found to be a result of cables not being tested frequently enough or with the correct methods at times, resulting in cable fatigue and failure. It is extremely rare for something like the TTD accident to occur for what seems like no reason whatsoever. I think that will possibly have an unfortunate consequence for this family during litigation.

Cedar Point probably has liability for placing the unprotected queue so close to the high speed ride.

There are many many places in a park where customers could be injured by flying parts in queues or walkways. It doesn’t happen often enough that parks take extra protection into consideration but I think the fact that they COULD build extra protection makes for a level of liability in today’s legal system

Parks have netting placed around or under some coasters where things could fly into the crowd (such as Diamondback at KI or Alpengeist at BG) So lawyers may ask why isn’t this known type of protection used when line queues are close to rides?

Anothet example. Cedar Fair does not typically spend money on solid-roofed queue lines. I personally think it’s a horrible way to three customers, making them stand out in the blazing sun, but this incident also add ham comes into play with the lack of protected queues. I don’t know what angle this hit the lady at but something like a solid roof may have prevented it.

If I recall correctly, the flag plate actually ricocheted off of one of the queue shade frames and into the victim.

super7*:

I personally think it’s a horrible way to three customers, making them stand out in the blazing sun

As long as four or more customers don't have to stand in the sun.

but this incident also add ham comes into play with the lack of protected queues.

I have seen a few people online who have said they hope she receives whatever she is asking for. To me, it depends on what she is asking for. As an individual, I wouldn't put a price on my sight or use of my legs or cognitive abilities. But as a society, we do just that. Every day. Lets say she is asking for $1 billion (not saying she is but just using that $$ amount for illustration purposes -- Cedar Fair's market cap is about $2 billion). Is that reasonable? Without knowing how much she is seeking (and I don't think we should know that necessarily), not sure how anyone can say its enough or excessive. Personal injury defense attorneys say its harder to defend cases when the injured party survives than it is if the party dies. Somewhat counterintuitive thinking about death as being the worst injury. But the dynamics of the case are very different with a surviving victim.

May be something approaching strict liability here. There are any of a number of ways this injury could have been prevented. Having lines formed far from the ride. Fortresses between guests and machines. But there are balances between safety and practicality. Holding parks liable when they may not have been negligent helps keep pressure on the safety side. Parks no doubt don't want their customers to get injured. But at least some of the reason for that is concerns of being liable.

I have no information as to status of the case (other than what is known publicly). But seems to me it would make sense that it has been settled at this point. Park is moving forward with announcing publicly the plans for the reimagined ride. Park doesn't want family members or attorneys for the plaintiff to show up to those announcements. To me, I would want to have the issue with the injury resolved (and knowing the best outcome cannot be obtained because you can't undo the accident/damage done) before moving forward with generating excitement for the reimagined ride. But that may not be the case. They have obviously moved forward with the project itself without having the accident resolved but to me that feels different because no announcements have been made beyond vague statements.

djDaemon:

the flag plate actually ricocheted off of one of the queue shade frames

Correct. They even found fragments of the yellow material from the shade on the piece. It hit the frame and shot down.

Not sure adding ham would help, but toss in some bacon and now we're talking.

I can't believe I have put up with being treated terribly by Cedar Point for over 40 years.

IANAL, and I didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it's not obvious that strict liability applies here based on my 10 minutes of reading web pages on the subject---a conclusion that is almost certainly wrong and definitely baseless, but still.

However, even without strict liability, I bet you can tell a pretty good story in court. For example, the mystery damage to and fragment of aluminum found in the Black Cherry train the night before that no one can explain sure is interesting.

I am a lawyer. But not a litigator. And last time I seriously looked at tort law was in a tort class over 3 decades ago in law school (and I suppose again briefly for the bar exam also a long, long time ago). Not sure if strict liability would apply here either. Which is why I said "something approaching strict liability."

Negligence/standard of care determinations are not necessarily black and white/objective determinations. There can be some gray area. Professor in class first day of law school pointed to gray area he had drawn on the board and said if we didn't like living in gray areas, get out. If you cannot rely on strict liability (only needed to prove injury), a jury may find negligence/breach of duty of care even when its not clear any existed if you have a sympathetic plaintiff.

This will be a very sympathetic plaintiff. She was not doing anything wrong. Going about her day enjoying her visit to the park. Following the park's rules. Totally different from the guy who hopped the fence at Raptor to get his hat/wallet/phone several years ago. Had she been a half step behind or ahead of where she was walking in line or reached down to adjust her shoe, she may well have been unharmed. But that wasn't the case and she was seriously and permanently harmed. Something that she will deal with for the rest of her life. Cannot help but have your heart go out to her and her family. Jury, after hearing her story and seeing how the accident has impacted, and will continue to impact, her life, will want to award her compensation. May well find negligence where its not clear it existed (assuming strict liability doesn't apply). State report won't help but not sure it would be dispositive.

Park/manufacturer/insurance company and their respective counsels understand all of that. Last think they want is for the case to go to a jury. Though plaintiff's counsel knows that too.

Layer on top of that what is happening with the ride itself. Its being reimagined. Public announcement next week. Plaintiff's attorney would love to talk to the jury about how the park is moving forward with TTD2.0. Putting it in the past. Maybe even Intamin is involved in that as well (don't tell people at PB that though--LOL). Can then say how much the plaintiff would love to move forward with her life and put the accident behind her but how that is impossible. Something she lives with every day of her life. Park will appear callous and uncaring. Defendants will want to avoid case moving forward.

The state report does conclude "nothing to see here" but in addition to the narrative about the black cherry train, it has plenty of descriptions of rattles, loose bolts, wear marks on a prox plate of the train that didn't run that day (but no one remembers seeing on the others the night before), etc. Add to that your observation about the plaintiff, and yeah it does seem like many might want to settle even if it costs them.

GoBucks89:

Plaintiff's attorney would love to talk to the jury about how the park is moving forward with TTD2.0....Can then say how much the plaintiff would love to move forward with her life and put the accident behind her but how that is impossible. Something she lives with every day of her life. Park will appear callous and uncaring. Defendants will want to avoid case moving forward.

Not for nothing, but this is why I had my money on the entire thing coming down when it was first announced the ride would not open in 2022.