• The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
    Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More
  • Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
    Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.

News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

Chi84

Premium Member
I didn't add anything, my whole point was that amusement parks are found negligent on a regular basis because they are negligent on a regular basis. I wasn't saying they're found negligent in the absence of evidence.
I wasn't saying negligence did not have to be proved.

But there are circumstances in which negligence can be inferred from the nature of the event. The injured person then does not have to provide direct evidence of negligence and the burden is on the defendant to show they were not negligent.

Those circumstances are where (1) the injury was one that does not ordinarily occur in the absence of negligence; (2) the thing that caused the injury was under the exclusive control of the defendant; and (3) the injured person's actions did not contribute to the injury. The textbook example of this type of glaring negligence is where a scalpel is left in a patient after surgery.

Here, from what I can tell the ride was under Universal's exclusive control and people don't ordinarily die from blunt force trauma on rollercoasters in the absence of some type of negligence, either in design or operation. Whether and to what extent the person may have contributed to the injury seems to be unknown.

That said we don't know all the facts so all discussions are hypothetical. A settlement will probably happen so we may never know.
 

Tom Morrow

Well-Known Member
I'm not "talking #$%#," although the fact that you chose to interpret it that way is very telling. I'm merely stating, in a very unbiased fashion, what goes down in the amusement industry on a regular basis.

It does not. While it is true that theme parks are getting sued all the time and settling out of court, the vast, vast majority of this is simple slip and fall type stuff. You are claiming that theme parks regularly, knowingly, are putting guests at risk of serious injury or death on their rides, have calculated "a few death payouts" into their budget, and are just hoping for the best. This is not true and does not align with reality. Even if we take the cynical route and only look at the expense, it is cheaper to just be safe than it is to pay off accidents.
 

JT3000

Well-Known Member
It does not. While it is true that theme parks are getting sued all the time and settling out of court, the vast, vast majority of this is simple slip and fall type stuff. You are claiming that theme parks regularly, knowingly, are putting guests at risk of serious injury or death on their rides, have calculated "a few death payouts" into their budget, and are just hoping for the best. This is not true and does not align with reality. Even if we take the cynical route and only look at the expense, it is cheaper to just be safe than it is to pay off accidents.
I didn't say any of that actually. You just came up with it. Like I (actually) said before, there needn't be some cartoonish conspiracy to kill guests. That doesn't mean the amusement industry is perfectly safe with a clean track record.

Translation: "I'm in deep denial, so stop accusing my beloved handicapped of ever doing any wrong."
What The Hell Wtf GIF


I'm not even going to try making a half-reasonable exchange out of this. It's simply not possible. Probably the single biggest "W T F?" moment I've ever had on this forum.
 

JT3000

Well-Known Member
There is a wide chasm between “perfectly safe” and your original claims of harm due to negligence happening “all the time”.
I think it's quite obvious at this point that people don't want to believe my claims precisely because they'd rather live in a fantasy world where amusement parks are perfectly safe. I could've worded that any number of ways and we'd still be having this conversation, because folks would rather believe it's an extremely rare occurrence at best. It's not like I even specified a frequency. I said "all the time" and everyone lost their minds like I just told them Santa isn't real.
 
Last edited:

Chi84

Premium Member
I think it's quite obvious at this point that people don't want to believe my claims precisely because they'd rather live in a fantasy world where amusement parks are perfectly safe. I could've worded that any number of ways and we'd still be having this conversation, because folks would rather believe it's an extremely rare occurrence at best. It's not like I even specified a frequency. I said "all the time" and everyone lost their minds.
No one is saying amusement parks are perfectly safe. The major ones do have a pretty good safety record though.

I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make. “All the time” is not unspecified. It means all the time as opposed to some of the time or most of the time. If you talk in absolutes people aren’t going to understand you.
 

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
I think it's quite obvious at this point that people don't want to believe my claims precisely because they'd rather live in a fantasy world where amusement parks are perfectly safe. I could've worded that any number of ways and we'd still be having this conversation, because folks would rather believe it's an extremely rare occurrence at best. It's not like I even specified a frequency. I said "all the time" and everyone lost their minds like I just told them Santa isn't real.
I’m not unaware of when these issues occur. I don’t believe your claims because you have offered nothing but vague supposition. You didn’t say something like “more than some may realize”. “All the time” very clearly implies a high frequency.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom