News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[Fido Chuckwagon]

I have no doubt making changes to the restraint system would get reported, be known to jurors and would probably used in deliberations

You should have some doubts:
1. This is big news in the theme park community sure, but the average juror 5 years from now isn’t going to know or remember anything about this from the news; and
2. This evidence likely isn’t coming in for the reasons stated upthread.

That said this is all academic because this never goes to trial.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

It likely won’t ever be filed, if it is then it would not survive a motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment. In other words, this will never see a jury.

lol, this may never be filed because they settle, and this almost certainly settles before any trial, but a death on a rollercoaster by blunt force trauma absolutely survives a motion for summary judgment.

 

[Comped]

lol, this may never be filed because they settle, and this almost certainly settles before any trial, but a death on a rollercoaster by blunt force trauma absolutely survives a motion for summary judgment.

Especially in an Orlando area court.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

lol, this may never be filed because they settle, and this almost certainly settles before any trial, but a death on a rollercoaster by blunt force trauma absolutely survives a motion for summary judgment.

Not on these facts it doesn’t. Plaintiff has a weak argument.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Not on these facts it doesn’t. Plaintiff has a weak argument.

You have no idea what the facts are other than the plaintiff died of multiple impact blunt force trauma on a roller coaster.

 

[lewisc]

When I heard a guest died on Stardust I assumed heart attack. A guest didn't heed the warning. Maybe an undiagnosed condition.

I never would have thought blunt force trauma. Definitely not a weak case.

The plaintiff in the MacDonald coffee lawsuit was awarded 2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge lowered it to $480,000
The parties settled for less, rather then go through appeals.

Both parties should be motivated to settle. A large jury award will wind up getting slashed.

 

[Stripes]

Not on these facts it doesn’t. Plaintiff has a weak argument.

Weak arguments survive motion for dismissal and motion for summary judgement all the time.

Sometimes plaintiffs will even lie in an affidavit in order to create a genuine dispute as to a material fact in order to make sure the lawsuit makes it to mediation. The judge can often see right through it, but their hands are tied by the law.

 

[flynnibus]

Not on these facts it doesn’t. Plaintiff has a weak argument.

Weak argument?

There's a dead body on a public amusement. That alone is red carpet access to the court.

Settlement is only a matter of how far each side is willing to push and risk.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Crump will settle out of court, there will be no trial, the family (and Crump) will get money and Stardust will remain open.

 

[Disney Analyst]

A lot of people have mentioned these discussions being distasteful to the memory Kevin, but frankly… I find the lawyer and his constant press conferences far more distasteful to his memory. I know his job is to get the family money … but it just feels like a circus.

I would not want this to be people’s memory of me.

 

[JT3000]

A lot of people have mentioned these discussions being distasteful to the memory Kevin, but frankly… I find the lawyer and his constant press conferences far more distasteful to his memory. I know his job is to get the family money … but it just feels like a circus.

I would not want this to be people’s memory of me.

Everyone involved has been distasteful in their response to this tragedy, including Universal. Everyone gets to be a clown under this big top.

 

[Tom Morrow]

Everyone involved has been distasteful in their response to this tragedy, including Universal. Everyone gets to be a clown under this big top.

How has Universal been distasteful??

 

[Chi84]

Everyone involved has been distasteful in their response to this tragedy, including Universal. Everyone gets to be a clown under this big top.

What did Universal say?

 

[JT3000]

How has Universal been distasteful??

By them being so desperate to avoid any blame for the tragedy that they're openly putting all of it squarely on the rider's disability before the investigation has even come to a close, even going as far as banning all handicapped guests from multiple rides, most of which have no correlation whatsoever to Stardust Racers. It's about the most illogical, reckless and tasteless response possible. A ineffectual PR move that will just backfire.

 

[My95cobras]

By them being so desperate to avoid any blame for the tragedy that they're openly putting all of it squarely on the rider's disability before the investigation has even come to a close, even going as far as banning all handicapped guests from multiple rides, most of which have no correlation whatsoever to Stardust Racers. It's about the most illogical, reckless and tasteless response possible. A ineffectual PR move that will just backfire.

So just open yourself to as much liability as possible?

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

When I heard a guest died on Stardust I assumed heart attack. A guest didn't heed the warning. Maybe an undiagnosed condition.

I never would have thought blunt force trauma. Definitely not a weak case.

The plaintiff in the MacDonald coffee lawsuit was awarded 2.7 million in punitive damages. The judge lowered it to $480,000
The parties settled for less, rather then go through appeals.

Both parties should be motivated to settle. A large jury award will wind up getting slashed.

I agree, juries are extremely unpredictable, I don’t think either side wants this to go to a jury, especially Uni.

A jury could side with Uni in which case the family gets nothing, I think the bigger risk is Uni gets hit with a massive “make a point” verdict that gets tied up in appeals for years, winning a $100 million verdict is amazing until you realize you’re going to spend the next decade in appeals courts, without any guarantee you’ll ever see the cash, no one really wins. Better to get your $10 million settlement and start the grieving process in peace rather than reliving it for the next decade while being stressed over whether you’ll ever see the money.

 

[Rich Brownn]

By them being so desperate to avoid any blame for the tragedy that they're openly putting all of it squarely on the rider's disability before the investigation has even come to a close, even going as far as banning all handicapped guests from multiple rides, most of which have no correlation whatsoever to Stardust Racers. It's about the most illogical, reckless and tasteless response possible. A ineffectual PR move that will just backfire.

Hardly all. There are plenty of people who are handicapped that can still ride. Only those that cannot walk a little can't ride. If you're can walk some you're fine.

 

[JT3000]

So just open yourself to as much liability as possible?

Like I said, pure PR move. No new liabilities magically materialized overnight, just an incident they wish to wash their hands of.

Hardly all. There are plenty of people who are handicapped that can still ride. Only those that cannot walk a little can't ride. If you're can walk some you're fine.

You're splitting hairs. The point is they've banned a large chunk of their paying guests from several, disparate rides for no good reason, rides that were all built well after ADA guidelines went into effect, so they can't simply be grandfathered into non-compliance on account of some big whoopsy they've yet to even elaborate on. Even a half-baked attempt at transparency would at least be a marginal improvement on their current strategy of quietly sweeping it under the rug and moving on like business as usual.

 

[Jon81uk]

The point is they've banned a large chunk of their paying guests from several, disparate rides for no good reason, rides that were all built well after ADA guidelines went into effect, so they can't simply be grandfathered into non-compliance on account of some big whoopsy they've yet to even elaborate on.

The "good reason" is that someone died. Until there is further investigation into the cause they could either keep the ride completely closed for everyone, or take reasonable precautions to prevent those who may have similar limitations from getting injured on the rides.
Its not just Universal either, Thorpe Park in the UK has altered their restrictions on who can ride on Hyperia which uses the same restraint system from Mack,
they no longer allow double amputees
and "Guests who are non-ambulant or have a double arm below elbow limb difference cannot ride Hyperia." Previously Thorpe Park did allow non-ambulant riders on Hyperia. (from https://www.thorpepark.com/hyperia/#is-hyperia-suitable-for-guests-who-are-non-ambulant)

 

[JT3000]

The "good reason" is that someone died. Until there is further investigation into the cause they could either keep the ride completely closed for everyone, or take reasonable precautions to prevent those who may have similar limitations from getting injured on the rides.
Its not just Universal either, Thorpe Park in the UK has altered their restrictions on who can ride on Hyperia which uses the same restraint system from Mack,
they no longer allow double amputees
and "Guests who are non-ambulant or have a double arm below elbow limb difference cannot ride Hyperia." Previously Thorpe Park did allow non-ambulant riders on Hyperia. (from https://www.thorpepark.com/hyperia/#is-hyperia-suitable-for-guests-who-are-non-ambulant)

Someone died on one ride, not six rides that seemingly have nothing in common. They've offered no further explanation, so we needn't create illogical ones for them. If the rides are unsafe? Yes, they should absolutely be closed to everyone, and even just by banning some people who were previously allowed to ride just fine, they are essentially saying, "So yeah, we just now figured out these rides are probably unsafe for people who've been riding them for years. We can't say why, but our bad, you guys." Not exactly a statement that instills trust, is it? And I even threw in a half-hearted apology that hasn't actually been offered by anyone at Universal, in order to make it sound slightly better.

I see no mention of "non-ambulant" guests on that sign. It only deals with amputees. I've also heard nothing from any other parks with similar rides changing their rules.