News Guest dies, found unresponsive after riding Stardust Racers

[Vegas Disney Fan]

The ride will stay open, they will settle out of court, Crump will get his money..... Oh yes, Kevin's family will get A LOT of money too. RIP Kevin.

Depends on what you mean by “a lot”.

I think Uni would happily pay them a couple million to disappear, I don’t think they’re getting anything near what the family of Tyre (the Orlando freefall victim) got though, they got $300+ million, I think Crump took this case expecting another 9 figure outcome, I think a 7 (possibly low 8) figure settlement is far more likely at this point, it’s a lot of money for normal people but compared to the freefall incident (and for a company the size of Uni) it’s not all that much.

 

[Chi84]

So any change you make to the ride, would be used to support that argument by Crump's team. "If it was safe, why did you need to change it?". They would use such actions as evidence to their argument the ride or operations were inadequate and hence why they had to change them. Everything UNI does to improve or enhance, is an opportunity for the plaintiffs to point out a weakness on the day the victim died.

Im not familiar with Florida law in particular but as a general rule this isn’t true.

The law doesn’t want to discourage landowners or businesses from making safety improvements, so generally subsequent safety improvements (remedial measures) are not admissible to prove negligence or culpability.

They can be admissible for other matters. There is a good deal of published law in this area.

 

[flynnibus]

Im not familiar with Florida law in particular but as a general rule this isn’t true.

The law doesn’t want to discourage landowners or businesses from making safety improvements, so generally subsequent safety improvements (remedial measures) are not admissible to prove negligence or culpability.

They can be admissible for other matters. There is a good deal of published law in this area.

And when the company first says it's not needed - but then changes it anyway?

That's the distinction I'm sure they would try to draw on - the contradiction.

Ultimately it would be the jury they are swaying..

 

[Chi84]

And when the company first says it's not needed - but then changes it anyway?

That's the distinction I'm sure they would try to draw on - the contradiction.

Ultimately it would be the jury they are swaying..

There are limited circumstances where evidence of such repairs would be admissible on issues other than negligence, such as impeachment if they claimed safety measures were not feasible.

It would be very much driven by facts and there aren’t many out there now.

 

[Mr. Sullivan]

I frankly at this point would be shocked if this actually went to court. Crump has done a lot of grandstanding, but I believe even he recognizes at this point that his claims and suggestions aren’t really going to stick in any meaningful way.

I also agree with some posters above in that it has probably been determined already that what happened was a freak accident based upon the condition of this singular individual and as such Universal has decided to strengthen their language and determination process for rideability on more extreme attractions.

He could still take it into court if he wanted to, but if he really wanted to do right by Kevin’s family, then the better outcome for them would be leaving this to an out of court settlement that I’m sure Universal would be all too happy to do. If they get into that courtroom, I think the chances of Universal coming out of it in shackles (metaphorically speaking of course) are very slim.

 

[celluloid]

Real talk, others and myself have posted on how the lapbar is not often comfortable for certain body types, particularly as ride goes on.

Today was the first I had heard about the Team Members pushing down four times to make sure his build got the Greenwich on the coaster. If not initially, it being that tight and Kevin's fragility/tightness could have very well caused multiple blunt impact death, when everyone js presuming head. The lacerations on head still are wild with this thought with the body type and restriction specific changes to attractions where legs may be loose from such restraints, I truly wonder if somehow his build in the seat and weak loose legs caused the impacts by body meeting legs.
This would also align with how someone thought they saw his leg broken.

 

[Fido Chuckwagon]

Maybe it’s different in Florida but personal injury lawsuits are often filed just within the statute of limitations.

It’s not different in Florida. There’s no reason to file right now.

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

No need to shout children. There is no reason why we can't all be civil in here.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Depends on what you mean by “a lot”.

I think Uni would happily pay them a couple million to disappear, I don’t think they’re getting anything near what the family of Tyre (the Orlando freefall victim) got though, they got $300+ million, I think Crump took this case expecting another 9 figure outcome, I think a 7 (possibly low 8) figure settlement is far more likely at this point, it’s a lot of money for normal people but compared to the freefall incident (and for a company the size of Uni) it’s not all that much.

A lot is different for everyone. The family will get a life changing amount in my opinion.

The free fall death was absolutely related to the ride. Sensors were adjusted to allow the ride to operate when the victim was not secured.

In both cases the operator was trying to accommodate someone who should not have been allowed to ride, but adjusting the sensor on the drop tower seat is criminal negligence in my opinion.

There is no fault in the Stardust hardware or system and no one adjusted sensors to accommodate anyone.

There is a chance Kevin’s case his family could get a significant amount, one, because Universal has deep pockets and two, it can be argued that Universal procedures and warnings were lacking so let’s see what happens.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

Im not familiar with Florida law in particular but as a general rule this isn’t true.

The law doesn’t want to discourage landowners or businesses from making safety improvements, so generally subsequent safety improvements (remedial measures) are not admissible to prove negligence or culpability.

They can be admissible for other matters. There is a good deal of published law in this area.

Right on. Federal Rule of Evidence 407 and the corresponding Florida statute is section 90.407.

 

[lewisc]

Right on. Federal Rule of Evidence 407 and the corresponding Florida statute is section 90.407.

I have no doubt your legal citations are accurate.

I have no doubt making changes to the restraint system would get reported, be known to jurors and would probably used in deliberations EVEN IF THE JUDGE gave explicit instructions to the contrary.

 

[Comped]

I have no doubt making changes to the restraint system would get reported, be known to jurors and would probably used in deliberations EVEN IF THE JUDGE gave explicit instructions to the contrary.

Juries tend to ignore instructions from a judge if they've already made up their minds.

 

[lewisc]

Juries tend to ignore instructions from a judge if they've already made up their minds.

Isn't that the purpose of the press conferences?

 

[Comped]

Isn't that the purpose of the press conferences?

They're more to sway public opinion. Any lawyer for Uni worth their salt will (try to) make sure that a jury doesn't have people who watched these press conferences, just in case.

 

[TalkToEthan]

Any lawyer for Uni worth their salt will (try to) make sure that a jury doesn't have people who watched…..

Jury—- what jury ??

and in the off chance one is somehow selected and seated don’t expect them to deliberate or decide the fate of the parties.

 

[cjkeating]

If there was an obvious fault with the coaster or restraint system Universal would not have allowed the ride to reopen and Mack would have sent an advisory out to the parks that the numerous other coasters that have this restraint system use. Universal have opened the coaster and Mack have not advised parks of any concerns.

You can only assume that Universal and Mack have the facts that allow them to deduce that Stardust is a safe coaster and the restraint system is safe.

 

[celluloid]

You can only assume that Universal and Mack have the facts that allow them to deduce that Stardust is a safe coaster and the restraint system is safe.

This is what I believe is most likely and of course what everyone reasonable would hope is most likely.

They probably have video we don't know of/other pieces of evidence that point to the harm not being at all repeatable with these new rider requirements. I don't think it is a coincidence that the new requirements are so specific and apply to other thrill rides where legs are similarly not contained in elements.

 

[JT3000]

Jury—- what jury ??

and in the off chance one is somehow selected and seated don’t expect them to deliberate or decide the fate of the parties.

That is literally what a jury does.

 

[TalkToEthan]

That is literally what a jury does.

Well yes…….

My point is, based on likelihood, this will never make it in front of a jury——there will be no jury here

But if the planets align and a jury is selected place your bet that this case won’t go to deliberations and ultimately to a verdict. Expect non disclosure settlement.

 

[EricsBiscuit]

I have no doubt your legal citations are accurate.

I have no doubt making changes to the restraint system would get reported, be known to jurors and would probably used in deliberations EVEN IF THE JUDGE gave explicit instructions to the contrary.

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.