News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[mkt]

You can’t force a business to shut down a ride like this just by filing a lawsuit.

Nope.

But a judge can.

 

[mkt]

He'll just use discovery to flush out any and all changes UNI made to the ride post-accident. He never had a leg to stand-on to force the ride remained closed and they know that - that's the realm of the state. There was never a chance to try to preserve the scene in some way for their inspection. They clearly at their earlier PCs didn't even know what evidence UNI had - they presumed video recordings, etc based on reasonable assumptions.

Point being, how is he going to win an injunction about evidence tampering w/o anything suggesting it? Again.. nothing has changed in the last week in the externally visible posture except UNI showing they were going to move forward with only operational changes.

And that’s exactly it. The state is already the custodian of the scene and the data. If Crump really believed Universal was destroying evidence, he’d have to back it up with more than a sound bite.

He's just huffing and puffing in hopes that Universal will just pay the family for him to shut up.

 

[lazyboy97o]

And that’s exactly it. The state is already the custodian of the scene and the data. If Crump really believed Universal was destroying evidence, he’d have to back it up with more than a sound bite.

Which is why a judge couldn’t issue a temporary restraining order preventing Universal from reopening the ride.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The ride will stay open, they will settle out of court, Crump will get his money..... Oh yes, Kevin's family will get A LOT of money too. RIP Kevin.

 

[mkt]

Which is why a judge couldn’t issue a temporary restraining order preventing Universal from reopening the ride.

Agreed.

I'm just calling out Crump's bad takes and puffery.

 

[Chi84]

Nope.

But a judge can.

That wouldn’t happen though.

 

[VicariousCorpse]

He'll just use discovery to flush out any and all changes UNI made to the ride post-accident.

Trying to prevent this from happening again isn't an admission of guilt.

 

[mkt]

That wouldn’t happen though.

Welcome to 2025.

Anything can happen. Including things that aren't supposed to.

 

[flynnibus]

And that’s exactly it. The state is already the custodian of the scene and the data. If Crump really believed Universal was destroying evidence, he’d have to back it up with more than a sound bite.

He's just huffing and puffing in hopes that Universal will just pay the family for him to shut up.

Back to my point... why are you hourly calling out 'no suit yet' ..

 

[flynnibus]

Trying to prevent this from happening again isn't an admission of guilt.

I have no idea what your response has to do with what you quoted.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Nope.

But a judge can.

Agreed.

I'm just calling out Crump's bad takes and puffery.

Welcome to 2025.

Anything can happen. Including things that aren't supposed to.

This is some quick action flip flopping.

 

[mkt]

Back to my point... why are you hourly calling out 'no suit yet' ..

Hourly?

Read my posts - the answer you seek is in them.

 

[mkt]

This is some quick action flip flopping.

Go on.

Explain where I flip flopped.

 

[flynnibus]

I find your whole tact here pointless and boorish.

It's like you're trying to bait Crump about his claims of 'evidence tampering'(? - I haven't watched any recording of today's PC) by claiming if true, he'd file suit.. but dude, he's not here. So your open ended challenges is like talking to yourself in the woods. He ain't gonna hear it.

 

[flynnibus]

Maybe I'm confused. What is your point about flushing out post-changes to the ride?

My comment was they don't need a suit NOW to learn what UNI did to the ride.. that info would be sought in discovery... even if the suit was later. Aka now vs later is immaterial - learning what they did to the (if anything) is an easy target in the case.

And my position is, the 'give them more rope' tactic.. which is, the more UNI is allowed to do, the more they risk harming their own position. Vs trying to lock them out early with a suit filed too early.

 

[VicariousCorpse]

learning what they did to the (if anything) is an easy target in the case.

Why do you think if they made changes to the ride that makes it an easy target? How is this a "give them more rope scenario"?

 

[Chi84]

Why do you think if they made changes to the ride that makes it an easy target? How is this a "give them more rope scenario"?

There are rules of evidence regarding the admissibility of subsequent remedial measures. They generally can’t be used to prove negligence but can be admissible for other purposes.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Why do you think if they made changes to the ride that makes it an easy target? How is this a "give them more rope scenario"?

The information on the changes is an easy target because it can be demanded as part of discovery.

This is the kind of case where it is generally more advantageous to be patient and collect more information, not try to rush through the process.

 

[flynnibus]

Why do you think if they made changes to the ride that makes it an easy target? How is this a "give them more rope scenario"?

Because the ride is regulated and all it's upkeep is logged and they must operate it as intended by the manufacturer. So it would take a lot of coverup for UNI to make changes w/o them being recorded. To do it alone, without Mack, would again start creating all kinds of other liabilities. So any change, you can pretty well assure is going to be captured. You don't need a lawsuit to ensure that detail is captured - it's gonna happen because of of how the ride is required to operate in the first place.

Because how the ride is operated and its intended operation is germane to the topic of the lawsuit - it would be easy to argue such material is defendable to demand in discovery.

It's 'give them more rope' because Crump's position is the ride wasn't safe. So any change you make to the ride, would be used to support that argument by Crump's team. "If it was safe, why did you need to change it?". They would use such actions as evidence to their argument the ride or operations were inadequate and hence why they had to change them. Everything UNI does to improve or enhance, is an opportunity for the plaintiffs to point out a weakness on the day the victim died.

If you gag and tie someone's hands.. they are less likely to help you. If you let someone go unhindered.. they may very well make moves that ultimately help you. Hence, give them the rope...

 

[TalkToEthan]

Here, the gun is pointed, but it's not even loaded yet.

Ya maybe….

And it doesn’t need to be loaded to get one to empty the ‘cash register’(write a settlement check) just as a finger inside a light coat implying one has a deadly weapon it’s still armed robbery for good reason.