AllenA07

I've missed much of this round because of finals, however who would have predicted the Habs! They've got a chance to basically destroy almost all Eastern Conference Predictions!

^It would be a huge hurdle to clear! Not sure what German law is, but in the United States there are a lot of Jurisdictions where an expert (experts are required to prove a design defect case) is going to have to come in and state what he would have done differently (and some places even require a prototype). This is going to be a very difficult problem when you're dealing with a small industry. If it were me I'd want to seek out a designer from either another company, or a lot of times you'll bring in a professor to serve as your witness. Of course there are now engineering firms that do absolutely nothing other then supply experts, so there is always that option.

In real life I would of course wait for the inspection to be done, however suing for a design defect tends to be a pretty typical claim you would want to throw out there in this kind of a case. Just because a company has thousands of products out there that work fine and have never had a problem, you'd claim that this one just happens to be the first to have a problem. You're going to lose 100% of the causes that you fail to allege. With all that said I really want to emphasis that Design Defects are very expensive to sue for however, so it should be kept in mind that unless there is a real chance at recovery (which I just don't see in this case, since nobody was injured) these are going to be prohibitively claims to make.

^^The site isn't working so I can't see if it is on there, but please tell me that I didn't just create that Aquatrax rumor?

I smell an aquatrax!

From what I understand, when they turn the ride over to the park. Sure, they are still on hand for support, and if there is a flaw in the design of a ride it is my understanding that a manufacturer has certain contractual liabilities to address them, but in the case where a cable system or a train has been working just fine for 9 years of service, it might be more questionable where or if any blame lies. And you can continue to try to point the finger anywhere you'd like, but there are cases where "sh1t happens!" Looking at this from a purely legal standpoint Intamin is going to have some responsibility. If I were hired as the lawyer on this case (assuming that there would be a case to begin with, and assuming that the law in Germany is similar to Products Liabilities Law in the United States) I would sue Intamin citing design defects as well as Manufacturing Defects. I'd also throw a suit out there against Holiday Park for negligence in maintaining the ride. Those are the three things that you'd almost always want to claim in any case that is like this. In terms of the train I'd want to know if the park was maintaining it in the manner proscribed by Intamin, any history of problems, the expected life span of the part that broke, was the park using the broken part correctly, as well as a few other things. Also I'd want to know if there is a statute of repose in place, which could relieve liability if enough time has passed. Generally in the United States those tend to hover right around 15 years, not sure what they are (or if they exist) in Germany. If nobody was really injured I don't think the park will have that much to worry about. At least in the United States product liabilities cases are extraordinarily expensive to bring(especially if they decide to go with a claim of design defect, in which case many jurisdictions require you to design a "reasonable alternative design"). If nobody was really injured damages are going to be minimal, I don't really think it would be worth the time or the effort of an attorney to do much. Without an injury the cost of litigation would likely be far more than any potential award. So in that regard I would be surprised to see any legal action taken.

There are a thousand reasons why that could have happened. It could have been the fault of Intamin, the park, a wayward bird or any number of things. Depending on what caused this it could just as easily happen on a B&M or any other ride.

^^Oh I agree that I would have been much happier in this situation, I was just saying that I'm pretty sure had I been in that car I would have been needing a change of pants afterwards. I'm actually pretty impressed here with Intamin. The ride suffered a major malfunction, and the safety systems did just what they're designed to do, not to mention the fact that the entire train did not come off the track. Everything seemed to work correctly in a situation where it could have been much worse.

It really looks like the back of the train just popped off. Even though the park says that nobody was in any mortal danger, I for one would not have been a happy camper if I were in that car.

What is holding the car on at that point? Is it simply staying in place from being connected to the rest of the train?

Well theres your problem! Seriously though can anybody even venture a guess as to how that can happen? I would have to guess that the wheel assembly is missing or somehow came off, since I don't think it's possible for the car to just come off like that. Looking at that picture and judging from the fact people suffered contusions, that coaster most have come to a very hard stop!

The things I learn from this site. In other news this entire thing to me seems like Kings Island trying to justify removing a (fairly new) attraction that ended up being such a huge disaster. I strongly doubt anything will be done with the ride. Actually the park claiming that they are looking for a company to come "fix" the coaster almost reminds me of Flashback at SFMM. For years we heard about improvements that the park was considering, basically lasting up until the day that they started to cut the coaster apart.

^That sounds vaguly like an epsoide of Friends. Going on a break generally means things are done in my opinion.

Robb I fully apologize, I admittedly quickly skimmed over the article and never took the time to click the link like I should have. That clearly lays out why Intamin was liable which is what I was trying to guess at. I really do attempt to make thoughtful posts on this site, and hate making obvious oversights like this. Now onto other matters... I would at this point however be interested to know what Intamin instructs were here. You would think after the SFKK incident they would be pretty clear in regards to inspection! However it seems like if there was any question between monthly inspection and inspections every 6 months, the park should have erred on the side of safety. I look at that statement and am confused by it. So as I read this Intamin wanted monthly inspections. Knotts was inspecting every 6 months. Ok I get that it was confusing and that Knotts was unclear as to if inspections should occur on a monthly basis or once every 6 months. However the article says: So doesn't this mean that it is a moot issue? Even if Knotts was wrong and was inspecting every six months, they were still 3 weeks behind. I simply don't see an excuse for that additional three week period that the park did not inspect the cable.

I wouldn't think of this situation as necessarily being a defective batch of cables, but I stand by the fact that there might have been something that occurred during the manufacturing process that cause this particular cable to have a problem. Now of course I have no evidence of this in any way, just trying to give a plausible reason for why Intamin might have been held to be jointly at fault in the situation. As a side question because I'm curious, does Knott's order the cable directly from the vendor (whom I believe is Otis) or rather do they order the cable through Intamin itself? Additionally is the the original cable on the coaster or has it been replaced in the past? As a disclaimer, I'm not claiming to know a thing about the science of making steel cable, I'm looking at this from a Products Liability stand point, trying to figure out what fault Intamin (or even Knotts) could have possibly had in the situation.

^Depending on the problem with the cable it may have been difficult to see with the naked eye.

If the state found that the cable had some defect prior to snapping they can place blame on Intamin. To play this out, lets say that there was a problem with the metallurgical structure of the cable, something that was a manufacturing defect that existed the entire time. Well it is possible that had KBF done a proper inspection they would have caught it (but maybe not) and been able to remedy the problem. However the fact remains that the cable had a problem when it left the manufacturer. So basically from the point of view of the State in that situation, yes KBF should have inspected and would have hopefully found any visible problems with the cable, but the fact remains that the cable itself was defective from the beginning. Depending on the exact facts of the case I really do think both Knotts and Intamin can be held liable.

In the Kings Island Thread talking about the future of Son of Beast.

^^I love TPR! I really do wonder though what the cost of removing a ride of that size would be, my guess though is that KI is going to have to deal with that question soon. I don't see SOB ever reopening.

Around this time of year (finals) I become a coffee addict. Lately I've been pouring down 4-6 cups a day which is something I want to back off of a bit.

It makes me wonder what kind of a refurb would be necessary in this case. Are we talking retracking or are we talking replacing the wooden track with steel. In the case of the later I wonder what the cost would be and if it would even make sense for the park to make an investment to save the coaster. Might be cheaper to remove the ride and put something new in its place, depending on the amount of work that needs to be done. The interesting tidbit in the interview that caught my attention was the mention of the "bandaid" method or repairs. Makes me wonder if the decision to close the ride came from Cedar Fair (or possibly an insurance company). I wouldn't be shocked if the company views the ride as being a liability at this point due to the number of incidents they've had involving it.

^Somebody was a fan of My So Called Life.

I'd love to know what this guy is on parole for! I'm curious (though I'm sure I'll never hear a thing about this case) what kind of penalty this guy is looking at. I'm not really all that up on my California Penal code (and yeah CA is weird in terms of their code, so I've really got no idea what the law there is) but as far as I know grand theft doesn't really carry that much prison time with it in the state. The prior felony however mixes everything up! *EDIT* On a quick glace the most you can get in CA for grand theft (generally) is 3 years. Now what can be done is that the DA can attempt to say that each incident of credit card fraud was a different offense, in which case you could get a 3 year (maximum) penalty for each offense. So for example if this guy took 5 cards it is at least possible that he could get 15 years total assuming that he got the maximum penalty for each card and the judge decided to run the sentences consecutively instead of concurrently. Not to mention that I'm sure he is going to get his original probation revoked and is going to have to serve out the remainder of that sentence, so depending on how long that is he could actually end up doing a decent stint of time.

Not sure if I would recommend for the park to take it that far, once the person is on the ground I'd suggest letting them up at that point. But I can promise you that Universal has an entire team of lawyers telling them what they can, and cannot, do. Again as far as this being a 12 year old claim, I think this was just an old story, since it was posted on the web in 2000. This makes even more sense considering that there is only a 4 year Statute of Limitations for most intentional torts (emotional distress is considered an intentional tort) so if they were trying to bring this now the Statute of Limitations has long since tolled.

If you look at the article it was published in 2000, which means this has likely already been dealt with. Otherwise if this had been pending for 12 years I'm sure a statute of limitations (and with those it's ironic that the initials are SOL, because if you miss the statute of limitations that is indeed what you are) would have tolled by now. Now I'm not sure how this was resolved, but I'll make my guess in case anybody finds out. I'm going to say that the park either settled for something in the range of $1000 or (and more likely) simply got the case dismissed during summary judgment. It is actually very difficult to prove Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress, so difficult that generally the party is unable to do so.