Darien Lake's rollercoaster accident, can it happen at Disney?

[flynnibus]

I wonder what happens to the ride attendants

Lawyers don't tend to bother suing people that will never be able to pay. Suing an 18yr old for 10 million dollars won't really get you anything. You sue the park, the employees represent the park and the park can actually pay.

Should the guy have thought twice before he went on the ride? Yes. But it is the ride operators job to make sure that people with these types of disabilities don't ride. The blame is on the park

I think what you meant to say is... 'The blame is on both parties'

The guy has to take responsibility for his own actions as well.

 

[fosse76]

well... based on what we know.. the guy was significantly responsible for the accident, but the ride operators were also at fault for failing to enforce their own safety policies and rules.

I wouldn't use the term "significantly." We don't know exactly what he was thinking. The signage may not have been in an obvious place (if he went up through the exit, there's a liklihood there wasn't any). At any rate, he is only mildly culpable. The park's failure to monitor its own safety rules is the cause the accident.

The suit would likely be addressed with comparative negligence where the claim will be reduced because of the guy's own negligence which contributed to the accident. So if they feel the guy himself was 75% responsible for the accident, and awarded a $10mil claim.. the claim would be reduced by 75% and the park would still pay them 2.5mil

That's generally what these types of lawsuits determine. It's very easy to say it's his own fault, but how many of you actually read every word of a sign, pamphlet, brochure, contract, etc. when you see one? While it is important to know ones' own limitations, it was ultimately the park's responsibility when they can easily observe that he wasn't eligible to ride.

This is why even if the guy was responsible for the accident, it can still be attractive to sue.

He's not. He may have contributed, but ultimately the fault lies with the park. It wasn't some hidden condition that was triggered by the normal operation of the ride (which would most likely have cleared the park of any liability). This was an observable condition. Therefore, it was the park's responsibility to enforce it. Signage alone is generally insufficient to negate any claims of negligence.

I'm not sure if NY has special amusement park laws regarding liability for accidents caused by the rider's negligence.. but I think most lawyers try to blow right past such laws anyways

He wasn't negligent. The park was negligent. They allowed him to ride, creating a hazardous scenario in which people could get injured. And everyone is assuming he knew, or even understood, the safety warnings.

 

[flynnibus]

I wouldn't use the term "significantly." We don't know exactly what he was thinking. The signage may not have been in an obvious place (if he went up through the exit, there's a liklihood there wasn't any). At any rate, he is only mildly culpable. The park's failure to monitor its own safety rules is the cause the accident.

The rider is responsible for reading and following the rules. By not reading or simply not following them, the rider becomes culpable. You also forget the rider was offered the information when he entered the park. By chosing to ignore or bypass the information, liability shifts to him as well.

That's generally what these types of lawsuits determine. It's very easy to say it's his own fault, but how many of you actually read every word of a sign, pamphlet, brochure, contract, etc. when you see one?

That isn't a defense when it's shown to be reasonable information. You don't get to just wave your hands and say 'you didn't stop me!' and shift all the blame. Doesn't work that way. For a quick primer on comparable negligence... try this article http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/negligence.html

He's not. He may have contributed, but ultimately the fault lies with the park. It wasn't some hidden condition that was triggered by the normal operation of the ride (which would most likely have cleared the park of any liability). This was an observable condition. Therefore, it was the park's responsibility to enforce it. Signage alone is generally insufficient to negate any claims of negligence.

It's not just signage, the guy was directly offered the information. That's significant.
Two, 'hidden condition' wouldn't free the park up either if it is something that the lawyers would prove should have been identified under normal conditions.. and generally no matter how innocent the park is in these cases, they almost always get stuck with the liability. There is almost nothing classified as 'no fault' anymore unfortunately
And when you say 'he may have contributed' that right there is why comparable negligence will be a factor. When you do something, even if the park doesn't stop you, you still assume risk or liability in doing so. If you stood up on the coaster, and the ride op failed to stop the coaster.. you'd still be liable in part for any accident.. probably the majority of it.

He wasn't negligent. The park was negligent. They allowed him to ride, creating a hazardous scenario in which people could get injured. And everyone is assuming he knew, or even understood, the safety warnings.

Again - ignorance is not a defense when it can be shown it would have been reasonable and assumed to have read that information. The guy turned down information. That, plus the action itself puts liability in his court too.

The park isn't going to be found 100% liable.. mark my words.

 

[Lee]

The park isn't going to be found 100% liable.. mark my words.

Likely correct, and rightly so.

Yes, the park must share some blame due to the negligence of the ride operators.
But, the man was given enough warnings, and must have been aware of his own body's limitations, that he should have known better.

It's kind of like getting on a big coaster if you know you have a heart condition. The signs warn against it, but you do it anyway and the result is a massive heart attack. It's not the park or the ride's fault that you decided to risk your life.
Only difference here is that the guy's disability was plainly visible. Therefore the ride ops have to share some of the blame.

This is the guy, and the seats. I don't know how anyone could even begin to think that him being on that ride was a good idea. Him, especially.

 

[Walt Disney1955]

I hate all the lawsuits these days, but this one certainly isn't frivolous. I was surprised when I heard the family first comment that it was no one's fault and they were not going to sue. I imagine the family was hounded by law firms like crazy. I guess they were finally persuaded.

Maybe the conversation went something like this:

"When will you foolish humans stop hiding behind your emotions in favour of large cash settlements?" - Divorce Lawyer from the Simpsons

Will there be any winners from this lawsuit even with $1 million?

 

[lazyboy97o]

I wouldn't use the term "significantly." We don't know exactly what he was thinking. The signage may not have been in an obvious place (if he went up through the exit, there's a liklihood there wasn't any). At any rate, he is only mildly culpable. The park's failure to monitor its own safety rules is the cause the accident.

Unless it has been retracted, I believe it was reported that he sought out guests services to discuss his riding the park's rides.

 

[fosse76]

The rider is responsible for reading and following the rules. By not reading or simply not following them, the rider becomes culpable. You also forget the rider was offered the information when he entered the park. By chosing to ignore or bypass the information, liability shifts to him as well.

He can't be liable. It isn't his ride. He doesn't own it. He can have contributed to the accident, for sure. But legally, he isn't liable. Liable is a legal term.

That isn't a defense when it's shown to be reasonable information. You don't get to just wave your hands and say 'you didn't stop me!' and shift all the blame. Doesn't work that way. For a quick primer on comparable negligence... try this article http://www.the-injury-lawyer-directory.com/negligence.html

No, but we aren't talking about blow-drying your hair in the shower.

It's not just signage, the guy was directly offered the information. That's significant.

It's relevant, not significant. The park doesn't abdicate its responsibility by posting signage and handing out pamphlets. It has to ENFORCE those policies.

Two, 'hidden condition' wouldn't free the park up either if it is something that the lawyers would prove should have been identified under normal conditions.. and generally no matter how innocent the park is in these cases, they almost always get stuck with the liability. There is almost nothing classified as 'no fault' anymore unfortunately

Yes and no. It is THEIR attraction. THEY built it. If it isn't safe for some people, then any injury is ultimately THEIR fault. People shouldn't be required to risk their lives as part of the conditions of enjoying a theme park. Obviously, some people have conditions that would be aggravated by rides, but under your reasoning, the park should be able to go through a waterfall of acid and clear the park of liability so long as there is a sign. That's ridiculous. Theme parks (and other businesses) have a responsibility to provide a safe environment. Darien Lake didn't do that.

And when you say 'he may have contributed' that right there is why comparable negligence will be a factor. When you do something, even if the park doesn't stop you, you still assume risk or liability in doing so.

Yes, but it's all in context. The ride attendants could actually see that he was unable to ride. It therefore became the parks liability. Yes, he contributed, but it was the park's responsibility to enforce it's policy. They cannot waive liability simply because he boarded the ride. The ride operators should have not allowed him to board. Period. Allowing him to board, and starting the ride, essentially made them completely liable. It doesn't matter what he knew. They had a respnsibility to keep him safe. If I willingly get in a NYC cab, does that mean the driver has the right to break the law by speeding, or talk on his phone? Yes, I willingly got in the cab, knowing that the chances are he will be speeding and driving erraticly (as all NYC cabbies do). But the cab driver has a respnsibility to get me SAFELY to my destination, regardless of whether or not I knew the driver was going to be erratic. He is the one in control, and is therefore liable.

If you stood up on the coaster, and the ride op failed to stop the coaster.. you'd still be liable in part for any accident.. probably the majority of it.

No, I wouldn't. The park might not be found liable, but since I don't own the ride I can't be liable. It's THEIR attraction. It is THEIR responsibility to make sure that riders are informed of rules, and if the riders don't follow the rules, it is THEIR responsibility to enforce the rules. Yes, it would be my fault for standing up, but standing up didn't cause the injuries. The rides forces caused the injuries. The inadequate restraint caused the injuries. But again, and as you mentioned in your previous post, that's a juries job. To determine the level of fault and balance it out.

Again - ignorance is not a defense when it can be shown it would have been reasonable and assumed to have read that information. The guy turned down information. That, plus the action itself puts liability in his court too.

That's not relevant. Even if he demanded to board the ride, the ride attendants KNEW the policy and still permitted him to ride. That shifted the responsibilty to the park. And again, liability is a legal term. He can't be liable, but he can contribute. The park's responsibility doesn't end with the sign and pamphlet. They are the one in control. They have the final say.

The park isn't going to be found 100% liable.. mark my words.

They'll settle. This won't ever see the inside of a courtroom. The park has too much to lose.

 

[flynnibus]

He can't be liable. It isn't his ride. He doesn't own it. He can have contributed to the accident, for sure. But legally, he isn't liable. Liable is a legal term.

Which you should lookup. He is liable for his actions.

NY is a comparable negligence state. The rest of your post ignores this fact and is pointless to go through line by line. Just because the park was at fault does NOT negate any fault by the rider.

Lookup up comparable negligence and comprehend how under that model, responsibility for an incident can be shared - and that ultimatily will be what the case in this situation will be about. The park will argue they provided reasonable warnings the rider chose to ignore, and that they directly tried to provide him information which he also ignored. The rider will share responsibility for the accident because of that.. any finding will be reduced by the factor the court finds the rider was responsible for contributing to the accident.

You even admit the guy contributed to the accident - go read what that means in comparable negligence states!

 

[Scuttle]

If it happened there, it can happen almost anywhere. I mean the reality is the rides are all designed very similar, though I am sure disney takes a little more precaution. The problem, though sad, is that he had prostetic legs and I am sure he shouldnt have been riding it regardless. I am sure if they get into a lawsuit theyll just settle, but unless the guy mentions something and he is walking around with "fake" legs, the ride attendant would never know.

I was going to say if he was using prosthetics and wearing pants I don't see how the theme park is responsible. A good attorney could get them off so quick if this is what happened. Now if he's wearing shorts they are in deep trouble.

 

[juniorthomas]

Lawyers don't tend to bother suing people that will never be able to pay. Suing an 18yr old for 10 million dollars won't really get you anything. You sue the park, the employees represent the park and the park can actually pay.



I think what you meant to say is... 'The blame is on both parties'

The guy has to take responsibility for his own actions as well.

I meant from the park perspective, not the lawyers. Do they fire the employees who were a part of this, or are there any issues stemming from doing so.

 

[juniorthomas]

Likely correct, and rightly so.

Yes, the park must share some blame due to the negligence of the ride operators.
But, the man was given enough warnings, and must have been aware of his own body's limitations, that he should have known better.

It's kind of like getting on a big coaster if you know you have a heart condition. The signs warn against it, but you do it anyway and the result is a massive heart attack. It's not the park or the ride's fault that you decided to risk your life.
Only difference here is that the guy's disability was plainly visible. Therefore the ride ops have to share some of the blame.

This is the guy, and the seats. I don't know how anyone could even begin to think that him being on that ride was a good idea. Him, especially.

Wow. That's absurd. Make's this entire thing even more sad.

 

[flynnibus]

I meant from the park perspective, not the lawyers. Do they fire the employees who were a part of this, or are there any issues stemming from doing so.

They can easily fire the operators. Worst case the operators would sue back claiming they weren't trained properly or something similar and hence not responsible for their lack of action.

The worst the park will do to the operators is fire them. There is no benefit from trying sue them even if they had the legal basis to do so.

 

[Scuttle]

Wow. That's absurd. Make's this entire thing even more sad.

Wow. Ok there getting sued big time. This case is over already. They'll probably settle very quickly knowing they have no chance in court. And yes VERY sad.

 

[UberMouse]

And this is how this happens...

 

[spoodles]

Here's a POV video if anyone's interested. From what I understand, the accident occurred at the 3rd hill. That hill is shorter with a quick ascent, which probably causes more upward thrust at the crest than the others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmILZ-okeGQ

 

[Lee]

Here's a POV video if anyone's interested. From what I understand, the accident occurred at the 3rd hill. That hill is shorter with a quick ascent, which probably causes more upward thrust at the crest than the others.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmILZ-okeGQ

It was the second hill, right after the first helix.

 

[spoodles]

I'm sure you're right. My info's just water cooler talk.

 

[juniorthomas]

They can easily fire the operators. Worst case the operators would sue back claiming they weren't trained properly or something similar and hence not responsible for their lack of action.

The worst the park will do to the operators is fire them. There is no benefit from trying sue them even if they had the legal basis to do so.

And I don't think those operators have any sort of claim for wrongful termination. It seems fairly evident that they did play a role in the guests death, even if they weren't the main cause of it.

 

[xXLoraXx]

Just adding my opinion as a ride operator myself. I work at a UK themepark aimed at 3-12s so granted my experience is a little different.

Firstly, I think the blame lies with both the ops and the man himself. Whilst it is a sad situation, I think it was a totally avoidable accident that could have occured anywhere. Our motto at work is 'if in doubt - check'. This covers us, as a ride op, and somewhat shifts the blame to the management team if something is to go wrong. If we are unsure whether to let someone on (ie most commonly in kids that borderline meet height restrictions), a phone call to a manager takes only a short while. Yes, this may slow down loading and may anger other guests waiting but in cases like this it's far better to be safe than sorry. There have been similar cases at my place of work and there have probably been many accidents that have been avoided because we used a combination of common sense, health and safety restrictions, and management approval. I don't know much about this incident but I would have thought that any doubt in the operator's mind should have been cause to have a manager present.

At my park we ask that all prosthetic limbs are removed as there is a risk to others' safety if they come loose and may hit someone if moving at speed (sounds ridiculous but this is straight from my employee's handbook). However, yes, there are probably times when limbs would go unnoticed eg if wearing trousers and normal footwear. If they have had the limbs for long enough, they may just walk with a slight limp. None of our rides (again, keep in mind this is a small park with two coasters that would be considered 'kiddy coasters' the height requirements are 90cm and 1m respectively if that gives you a better idea of the size of the rides) ask for a certain amount of limbs, however the bigger rides (the coasters, the log flume and rapids, the swinging ship) all ask for lower body control. This is specifically to brace oneself on drops/turns on most of the rides. I can't see how this man would have been able to brace himself against movements of this type, I think I read somewhere he fell during a sharp turn, I haven't seen the ride itself so cannot comment to deeply. In my mind, it is common sense that this would be the case. I also don't think that he would have been tall enough to ride without prosthetics, but that's a whole different story. In this respect the blame definitely lies with the ride team. However hearing that he did not listen/did not seek advice about suitable does leave him somewhat liable, in my opinion.

In short, I think we all agree there's no way the man should have been on this ride. Tragic though it is, I think that it was totally avoidable if the actions of both the park (the ride ops knowing and following procedure/ checking with management/ using common sense) and himself ( seeking advice/ knowing his limits/ common sense) were different.

 

[xsupaxmanxsfnex]

Every ride manufacturer has certain rules as to what conditions required to ride and what conditions are unable to ride. The ride manufacturer and the park meet to create a system where they can help people determine which rides they can and cannot ride. I am not sure what the requirements where for that ride but it sounds like the man should have never been allowed to ride in the first place. I respect that he was a war veteran but that does not matter when it comes to the man's safety when riding rides.

I work at Guest Services at Kings Island in Ohio and part of our job is to help guests with disabilities get special access to rides because they cannot go through the queue and help they determine which rides they are able to ride. This is a very important part of the job because it will help the park to operate safely.
Obviously at Darien Lake they did not follow their normal procedures because they should have some type of system to determine who is allowed to safely ride their ride.

To the original poster, I don't want to sound like a jerk but it doesn't matter if the man served in the military and served our country, safety is safety and he should not have been let on just because he had a sad story. That's not discrimination, its all about the ride manufacturer requirements and how their restraints work to determine if someone is SAFE enough to ride.