News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[Comped]

This is in Florida, this trial will be televised I presume.

Perhaps they will settle out of court.

The Icon trial was not, and as this would be a civil trial I doubt it would be either. Now if criminal charges (somehow) got involved, maybe I could see that trial being broadcast. But not a civil trial.

 

[Disstevefan1]

The Icon trial was not, and as this would be a civil trial I doubt it would be either. Now if criminal charges (somehow) got involved, maybe I could see that trial being broadcast. But not a civil trial.

True. This verdict came after the family had already settled with the ride's owner, Slingshot Group, and led to the dismantling of the ride and the creation of the Tyre Sampson Act in Florida, which enhanced amusement ride safety regulations.

You are right, unless there are criminal charges, it wont be.

If a tiny org like the Slingshot Group had to pay 300M, EPIC/Universal is going to get killed here no matter who is at fault.

And I think there is a real possibility Stardust gets torn down. I did want to ride it... Oh well.

And no, I do not think I was risking my life.

 

[disneylandtour]

Takeaways:

Some of the language is confusing. I think one of the attorneys meant a witness was looking at the seat ahead of him.

If the victim was in the front seat, I think there might be decorative elements of the front of the train that, if loose, could've contributed to this.

It doesn't look like there were pre-existing conditions that contributed to his death--especially if death was caused by multiple blunt impacts with his head, with bleeding.

The description, if accurate, in this press conference doesn't present a coaster that is operating as intended. It presents one where either the seating compartment or the restraint failed, perhaps combined with some other element.

There's clearly park footage from security cameras of the victim's time on the coaster. I wonder if the attorneys have this yet?

And at this point, I think the internal memo to TMs at Universal may have not been fully transparent. If so, I don't think that's going to play well for Universal.

This ride is not re-opening anytime soon. And as I said in my first post, days ago, I see a possibility, if small, where it does re-open at all.

And I think in the coming days the discussion will likely shift to: who is financially responsible Universal or Mack?

 

[JT3000]

True. This verdict came after the family had already settled with the ride's owner, Slingshot Group, and led to the dismantling of the ride and the creation of the Tyre Sampson Act in Florida, which enhanced amusement ride safety regulations.

You are right, unless there are criminal charges, it wont be.

If a tiny org like the Slingshot Group had to pay 300M, EPIC/Universal is going to get killed here no matter who is at fault.

And I think there is a real possibility Stardust gets torn down. I did want to ride it... Oh well.

And no, I do not think I was risking my life.

Slingshot Group was clearly, clearly at fault for that death. Just because they got hammered doesn't mean Universal will suffer the same fate. I also seriously doubt the ride gets torn down.

Takeaways:

Some of the language is confusing. I think one of the attorneys meant a witness was looking at the seat ahead of him.

If the victim was in the front seat, I think there might be decorative elements of the front of the train that, if loose, could've contributed to this.

It doesn't look like there were pre-existing conditions that contributed to his death--especially if death was caused by multiple blunt impacts with his head, with bleeding.

The description, if accurate, in this press conference doesn't present a coaster that is operating as intended. It presents one where either the seating compartment or the restraint failed, perhaps combined with some other element.

There's clearly park footage from security cameras of the victim's time on the coaster. I wonder if the attorneys have this yet?

And at this point, I think the internal memo to TMs at Universal may have not been fully transparent. If so, I don't think that's going to play well for Universal.

This ride is not re-opening anytime soon. And as I said in my first post, days ago, I see a possibility, if small, where it does re-open at all.

And I think in the coming days the discussion will likely shift to: who is financially responsible Universal or Mack?

The state already agreed with Universal's conclusion that the ride was operating properly.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Slingshot Group was clearly, clearly at fault for that death. Just because they got hammered doesn't mean Universal will suffer the same fate. I also seriously doubt the ride gets torn down.

I agree about Slingdshot group, the sensor was adjusted to show green for super large folks and in reality the rider was not locked in - very bad!

But Universal has BIG BUCKS they will pay to make this go away ASAP.

I am not so sure about Stardust. If not torn down maybe big changes.

Lets see what happens.

For now, I think Stardust will remain closed.

 

[disneylandtour]

The state already agreed with Universal's conclusion that the ride was operating properly.

In this, there are things that don't add up. Maybe "operating properly" in a technical term means the bogie and track elements, the launch elements, the brake systems, etc. But something here, in these statements, is not connecting. The witness statements seem believable--and those accounts do not support an attraction that was operating correctly, at least in how most people would use that term.

Again, I think in the coming days the discussion will move toward who is responsible. And that, I don't know. It's a six month old coaster, so maybe more of the blame here is on Mack. Don't know.

 

[flynnibus]

Takeaways:

Some of the language is confusing. I think one of the attorneys meant a witness was looking at the seat ahead of him.

If the victim was in the front seat, I think there might be decorative elements of the front of the train that, if loose, could've contributed to this.

No, they weren't talking about the seat 'ahead of him' -- because they are very clear he was in the front car, front seat. They are suggesting it's something from the train shell or the elements in front of the restraint. The witness language maybe a bit munged, but the tale they were outlining was pretty consistent. Their witness report they were retelling from said kevin was slumped over the restraint and that something was detached from the train elements in front of him.

It doesn't look like there were pre-existing conditions that contributed to his death--especially if death was caused by multiple blunt impacts with his head, with bleeding.

This is the language that is difficult to keep on point.

There is no sign that he died directly of a pre-existing condition (like in the case of a HBP leading to heart attack, stroke, etc). But that doesn't mean necessarily there is no relevance to his physiology to the accident, nor does anyone have the full story of how/why he was unconscious. Nor does anyone know if his physiology contributed to the events.

Of course the attorneys want to say there is no linking of his condition to the outcome.. that's liability. But it's also premature at this point.

The description, if accurate, in this press conference doesn't present a coaster that is operating as intended. It presents one where either the seating compartment or the restraint failed, perhaps combined with some other element.

There's clearly park footage from security cameras of the victim's time on the coaster. I wonder if the attorneys have this yet?

There are videos - but they have not been seen by the family yet. As you say, there will be video from around the ride, ops, security, etc.

And at this point, I think the internal memo to TMs at Universal may have not been fully transparent. If so, I don't think that's going to play well for Universal.

No, as pointed out before, they are making statements that are intentionally within specific boundaries.. and leave it to others to jump to more. The gap over if something broke free or not is of course where stories clash, but to the actual language, it may not actually conflict. This is the part that people can't read too much into what is said.. it's very specific language for very specific reasons.

And I think in the coming days the discussion will likely shift to: who is financially responsible Universal or Mack?

Nah, that stuff is always buried at the end, because it involves later suits, insurance, etc. When the family sues, they'll sue both, and in that lawsuit there will be some liability and amount set. But almost 100% certainly before that happens, there will be a settlement, and between Comcast, Mack, and the insurance entities something will be negotiated and settled.

 

[Andrew25]

Universal: Ride was in working order and operating as intended. The ride vehicle left the station and returned 'intact'.
Attorneys: Pre-existing medical injury does not play a role here. Claiming that an object was detached., per witness statements.
State of Florida/Department of Agriculture: Agrees with Universal.


The stories are all conflicting at the moment. I really hope that transparency wins out at the end.

 

[flynnibus]

It should - it's just going to take months to get there.

We have to deal with all the speculation until then.

 

[JT3000]

In this, there are things that don't add up. Maybe "operating properly" in a technical term means the bogie and track elements, the launch elements, the brake systems, etc. But something here, in these statements, is not connecting. The witness statements seem believable--and those accounts do not support an attraction that was operating correctly, at least in how most people would use that term.

Again, I think in the coming days the discussion will move toward who is responsible. And that, I don't know. It's a six month old coaster, so maybe more of the blame here is on Mack. Don't know.

Witnesses can say a lot of things that aren't necessarily accurate. While I wasn't there and don't know the full details myself, I trust actual investigation and testing more than I do random witness accounts. Especially when some of the details given are directly contradicting each other. They'll need to get their story straight if they want to win a case here.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Universal: Ride was in working order and operating as intended. The ride vehicle left the station and returned 'intact'.
Attorneys: Pre-existing medical injury does not play a role here. Claiming that an object was detached., per witness statements.
State of Florida/Department of Agriculture: Agrees with Universal.


The stories are all conflicting at the moment. I really hope that transparency wins out at the end.

Yes, I think this sums it up very clearly.

There just are conflicting stories at the moment, at least on the point about something being detached from the ride vehicle. I don't think that conflict can be waved away as the statement from Universal that was supported by state officials that the ride was 'intact' being 'technically correct' in some way. It's not clear as far as I can tell, though, if the attorneys have access to information on this beyond 'witness accounts' that could just be the guy whose video we all saw.

It could be true that the ride was both working as intended and the rider's disability did not play a role in his death, however.

 

[cjkeating]

I’m at work so can’t watch the video yet… did they suggest what caused the blunt force trauma? Sitting in the front row makes this more confusing.

 

[disneylandtour]

Universal: Ride was in working order and operating as intended. The ride vehicle left the station and returned 'intact'.
Attorneys: Pre-existing medical injury does not play a role here. Claiming that an object was detached., per witness statements.
State of Florida/Department of Agriculture: Agrees with Universal.


The stories are all conflicting at the moment. I really hope that transparency wins out at the end.

In ways, I think coaster "operating as intended" is worse because this suggests death may have been the result of design elements. That, I think, is a small nudge toward either meaningful revisions or removing the ride. (ALSO, the brand of Stardust Coaster has been deeply damaged--and that may be what cinches it.) If the ride was not "operating as intended," then there is a path to fix it, without elements being deeply redesigned.

 

[Andrew C]

In ways, I think coaster "operating as intended" is worse because this suggests death may have been the result of design elements. That, I think, is a small nudge toward either meaningful revisions or removing the ride. (ALSO, the brand of Stardust Coaster has been deeply damaged--and that may be what cinches it.) If the ride was not "operating as intended," then there is a path to fix it, without elements being deeply redesigned.

Dude! lol

 

[Disstevefan1]

In ways, I think coaster "operating as intended" is worse because this suggests death may have been the result of design elements. That, I think, is a small nudge toward either meaningful revisions or removing the ride. (ALSO, the brand of Stardust Coaster has been deeply damaged--and that may be what cinches it.) If the ride was not "operating as intended," then there is a path to fix it, without elements being deeply redesigned.

I think when Universal says the coaster is "operating as intended" was meant to say there was no malfunction, nothing fell off it, etc.

I agree its worse because if there was a malfunction or something fell off it and became a projectile, then they could determine an actual cause.

Right now, no one knows why Kevin died.

 

[cjkeating]

In ways, I think coaster "operating as intended" is worse because this suggests death may have been the result of design elements. That, I think, is a small nudge toward either meaningful revisions or removing the ride. (ALSO, the brand of Stardust Coaster has been deeply damaged--and that may be what cinches it.) If the ride was not "operating as intended," then there is a path to fix it, without elements being deeply redesigned.

Whilst I haven’t ridden Stardust from what people have said whilst some people think it is intense there is nothing unique about the ride. It isn’t the tallest or fastest Mack coaster and the elements on it aren’t there extraordinary.

On this basis I don’t see how so many other rides couldn’t do the same if the circumstances aligned. Steel Vengeance at Cedar Point as one example literally feels like it’s trying to kill you with some of its elements and the ride train gives far less support to your body than the Mack (or similar Intamin) restraint.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Perhaps they will settle out of court.

They will absolutely settle out of court.

 

[Disstevefan1]

They will absolutely settle out of court.

One press conference - they settle out of court for 800M - Lawyers get 40 percent - Done.

 

[CoastalElite64]

In this, there are things that don't add up. Maybe "operating properly" in a technical term means the bogie and track elements, the launch elements, the brake systems, etc. But something here, in these statements, is not connecting. The witness statements seem believable--and those accounts do not support an attraction that was operating correctly, at least in how most people would use that term.

Again, I think in the coming days the discussion will move toward who is responsible. And that, I don't know. It's a six month old coaster, so maybe more of the blame here is on Mack. Don't know.

It may mean both have to settle with the victim's family, given the ambiguity. But there's also enough interest from the public for the investigation to finish as well.

 

[danlb_2000]

Both of these were stated?

One possibility for this is that he was seated in the front seat of a car but not the front seat of the whole train.