News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[lazyboy97o]

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.

The investigations are completely separate from personal civil litigation. Even if Universal and Mack settled with the family now it would not be grounds to stop the investigations.

 

[mkt]

So was he seated in the front seat, or was he in the back left as was reported early on?

 

[Rich Brownn]

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.

Big Thunder caused a death due to negligence yet people still flock to it. This news was a 24 hour story and has already faded from the national press.

 

[DisneyHead123]

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.

I keep seeing this point being made so maybe I’m missing something, but to me it seems entirely possible that this was unique to a particular angle or curvature on this particular ride.

From my limited, common sense view of physics, flying forward on a coaster doesn’t seem like a commonplace thing. Flying forward is usually from: 1. Moving suddenly and forcefully into reverse 2. Being hit from behind or 3. A sudden stop.

I have read that this ride had a portion with a bunch of rapid up-and-down mini drops, so if those were almost a straight downward movement, possibly it could have been an issue there. Typically anything with a slope pushes you backwards in your seat, at least to some extent. Again, if that portion was unique to this ride I would think it wouldn’t necessarily apply elsewhere.

 

[mkt]

Here's another lawsuit that's relevant to this attraction.

 

[disneylandtour]

I keep seeing this point being made so maybe I’m missing something, but to me it seems entirely possible that this was unique to a particular angle or curvature on this particular ride.

From where I sit, I think this is one of maybe three or four likely outcomes. This particular track course combined with this particular vehicle and restraint design could be a reasonable cause for the tragedy. But again, there's a lot left we don't yet know.

 

[disneylandtour]

Big Thunder caused a death due to negligence yet people still flock to it. This news was a 24 hour story and has already faded from the national press.

We've already talked about this. Big Thunder was open for decades before the tragic fatality. From a brand perspective--and only from a brand perspective--guests already had a set of memories associated with it. Stardust has a branding problem now. It's been officially open since late May (plus some time in preview). What associations do most people have with it? Not much. I'm not sure how this story played out overseas. But in the US, the primary reference point that most people (i.e. potential customers) now have is that this is the coaster where a rider died from multiple blunt force impacts (i.e. getting hit over and over). The audience that Universal is now trying to court (families on vacation, particularly parents who can be protective) is going to remember this in a way that young adults (such as at Six Flags) might move past it in a few months.

Also--since someone else who didn't read the full thread is likely to bring this up--both riders on Mission Space died from pre-existing conditions. That was the cause of death. One was a child whose parents didn't know about his heart condition--a tragedy. But both of those are very different than dying from repeated blunt force impacts while on a ride. These are two very different categories.

 

[disneylandtour]

Here's another lawsuit that's relevant to this attraction.

What's the plaintiff version of "an opportunistic ambulance chaser"?

My sense is that there's financial liability for the death on Stardust, but that this other quickie lawsuit, filed today, is someone looking for a fast buck. I know Disney's strategies fairly well (they wouldn't settle this knock-off suit and they'd simply let the plaintiff's legal bills continue to pile up), but I don't know how Uni is likely to react.

 

[mkt]

What's the plaintiff version of "an opportunistic ambulance chaser"?

My sense is that there's financial liability for the death on Stardust, but that this other quickie lawsuit, filed today, is someone looking for a fast buck. I know Disney's strategies fairly well (they wouldn't settle this knock-off suit and they'd simply let the plaintiff's legal bills continue to pile up), but I don't know how Uni is likely to react.

Professional victim, opportunistic plaintiff, or litigious opportunist.

Odds are Uni hasn't even been served yet.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

In other words, nothing new or groundbreaking from their attorney. If the ride was functioning properly, then Universal did nothing wrong. It is a safe coaster. I highly doubt both Universal and the state investigation would have said the ride operated as designed if it didn’t.

Nothing will come of this except maybe a settlement. Stardust will reopen with no changes and maybe a few more ride restrictions.

 

[flynnibus]

In other words, nothing new or groundbreaking from their attorney.

No, they did offer things that weren't clear before - like where he was riding. They also acknowledge he was unconscious for 'most of the ride'. They also put their weight behind the witness account about parts of the train being out of place - which is contentous. They also make it clear that they don't expect the ride to be removed or that it must go away.

This is all info that wasn't really solid before, and at least here we know this side are claiming those to be true.

If the ride was functioning properly, then Universal did nothing wrong. It is a safe coaster. I highly doubt both Universal and the state investigation would have said the ride operated as designed if it didn’t.

That's the thing... saying it operated as designed doesn't necessarily mean it's safe. It means it operated as it was expected to. These kinds of accidents can expose new concerns. All of this is still TBD.

 

[Jayspency]

I've seen a bit of comments in this thread worrying about Stardust closing for good, but I don't think anyone here should worry about the fate of Stardust Racers.

The thing with rides like Stardust racers is that their designs are not definite. You can redesign aspects of the attraction such as the trains, operations, dueling, etc as long as its not the core of the attraction. Which in this case would likely be the coaster layout (Which is probably not the issue here). We've even seen this happen before the attraction opened when it had trim brakes installed on the 2 top hats because the transition of negative to positive forces exceeded ASTM standards. As long as its not the coaster layout itself, Stardust Racers will open eventually. Its also worth noting that unlike the Orlando freefall accident, the family of Kevin Rodriguez Zavala have not stated that they want the ride to be dismantled, rather they want to see it closed until the investigation concludes.

Keep in mind that just because Stardust was operating normally during the accident doesn't mean its entirely safe, it just means that it was operating as it was designed to, even if there was a safety risk in its design. It seems from the press conference held today that Kevin could have hit his head on the railing in front of each car of the train, which would line up with Crump's claim that he was in row 1, or previous speculation saying he was in row 9. Assuming Crump's claim is true (Which I believe is plausible but not 100% sold on it. I don't think Crump is being completely honest about the details), then there's a good chance Universal or MACK will be held liable for the accident depending on if pre existing conditions/body type allowed Kevin to hit his head on the metal railing.

If pre existing conditions/body type did play a role in Kevin's death, then Stardust will likely have stricter safety protocols and restrictions to wheelchair guests to make sure that something like this can't ever happen again. Similar to the new restrictions that were placed on Hyperia at Thorpe Park recently.

If not, and this could happen to anyone regardless of health, Stardust will likely see even more downtime to receive modifications to the trains to remove the clearance hazard or receive new redesigned trains from MACK.

In both cases though, I think universal will settle privately. The whole accident seems like a PR nightmare and I can't imagine Universal wanting to risk more PR damage by taking the case to court. Universal has the money and will pay big bucks to move on from this.

Stardust Racers is going to be closed probably for the rest of 2025 while investigators figure out the cause of Zavala's injuries, but I wouldn't say that its gone for good.