WFChris Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Let the lawsuit games begin! http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Injured-Six-Flags-Riders-File-Lawsuit-Against-Amusement-Park--266621661.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GigaG Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Let the lawsuit games begin! http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Injured-Six-Flags-Riders-File-Lawsuit-Against-Amusement-Park--266621661.html Now this comment takes the cake- Novack questioned why Ninja, which opened more than 25 years ago, was built around the “wilderness,” referring to the trees that weave in and out of the approximately 2,700 foot long ride. “They owe the highest degree of care to its passengers,” Novack said. “You don’t build it going through trees.” I see what they mean, but from the enthusiast's perspective, it makes no sense. I really hope that these lawsuits don't destroy the last nice things that parks have. Parks have already bubble-wrapped everything else due to fear of lawsuits. The argument that Novack uses here disregards the dozens of other coasters within tree's height of a forest that have never had an accident. SFMM may or may not be at fault, but the solution is NOT to cut down EVERY TREE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFChris Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I agree, by that logic, we should't have wilderness lodges in National Parks, roads through forests, or really, ANY proximity with those evil evil TREES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KBrylczyk Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Let the lawsuit games begin! http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Injured-Six-Flags-Riders-File-Lawsuit-Against-Amusement-Park--266621661.html Seriously, man? You're one page late. Let the lawsuits begin.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WFChris Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Didn't see that, but it's a different article with different info. Calm down there bro! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANJLOVER14 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Now this comment takes the cake- Novack questioned why Ninja, which opened more than 25 years ago, was built around the “wilderness,” referring to the trees that weave in and out of the approximately 2,700 foot long ride. “They owe the highest degree of care to its passengers,” Novack said. “You don’t build it going through trees.” The thing I find funniest about this quote is how uninformed this line makes him seem. Just looking at pictures from near the ride's opening: rcdb-Ninja the ride, while admittedly not completely barren, was originally built with plenty of clear space. While he probably is just trying to argue his side of the case and how the ride is today, it's stupid to say the ride was designed improperly "through trees" when it really wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JamesMC Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 My .02 Here's what I hope doesn't happen but has a 50/50 chance of happening...... SFMM pays for medical bills, (which is justified), But now the ride re-opens with one less train..... Bad Rap with the ride.....and "Less" riders going on the ride....(due to diminished capacity)....spirals out from there.... 2 years from now......."Get your last rides in on NINJA"....new ride coming in 2018! Sounds like the end of the "Suspended-Coaster" era if you listen real hard....Ugh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simon8899 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 ^they could switch to Vekoma trains - even if unlikely... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excitement Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Ninja might have the narrowest track for its speed and it loads on a turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Parks in the U.S. should just put up a large sign at the entrance reading: "You enter the park and go on the rides at your own risk. [insert park name] is not to be held responsible for any injuries or deaths in the park. The parks safety is up to state regulated standards. Enjoy your stay". That way you might end up with some un-neutered rides that you hear complaining about every now and again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GigaG Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Parks in the U.S. should just put up a large sign at the entrance reading: "You enter the park and go on the rides at your own risk. [insert park name] is not to be held responsible for any injuries or deaths in the park. The parks safety is up to state regulated standards. Enjoy your stay". That way you might end up with some un-neutered rides that you hear complaining about every now and again. Do parks in Europe have such disclaimers? And if you are being sarcastic, are you targeting me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Excitement Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Eagle's Fortress was of the few untrimmed coasters. They only later decided to go super fast. Does Ninja have a set operational lifespan like that did? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agerikson Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Parks in the U.S. should just put up a large sign at the entrance reading: "You enter the park and go on the rides at your own risk. [insert park name] is not to be held responsible for any injuries or deaths in the park. The parks safety is up to state regulated standards. Enjoy your stay". That way you might end up with some un-neutered rides that you hear complaining about every now and again. Those sorts of disclaimers typically don't hold up in court. You can't release yourself from liability just by saying you can't be held liable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Parks in the U.S. should just put up a large sign at the entrance reading: "You enter the park and go on the rides at your own risk. [insert park name] is not to be held responsible for any injuries or deaths in the park. The parks safety is up to state regulated standards. Enjoy your stay". That way you might end up with some un-neutered rides that you hear complaining about every now and again. Do parks in Europe have such disclaimers? And if you are being sarcastic, are you targeting me? Not that I know of but there really isn't a need for it as you will not become an $ millionaire by spilling coffee on your own lap. Oh, and I see that the end of my last comment might be a bit unclear. It's not complaining about un-neutered rides but the lack of them in the U.S. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GigaG Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Parks in the U.S. should just put up a large sign at the entrance reading: "You enter the park and go on the rides at your own risk. [insert park name] is not to be held responsible for any injuries or deaths in the park. The parks safety is up to state regulated standards. Enjoy your stay". That way you might end up with some un-neutered rides that you hear complaining about every now and again. Do parks in Europe have such disclaimers? And if you are being sarcastic, are you targeting me? Not that I know of but there really isn't a need for it as you will not become an $ millionaire by spilling coffee on your own lap. Oh, and I see that the end of my last comment might be a bit unclear. It's not complaining about un-neutered rides but the lack of them in the U.S. The hot coffee lawsuit was actually not that frivolous when you look into it. You want frivolous, look up the $67 million pants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Parks in the U.S. should just put up a large sign at the entrance reading: "You enter the park and go on the rides at your own risk. [insert park name] is not to be held responsible for any injuries or deaths in the park. The parks safety is up to state regulated standards. Enjoy your stay". That way you might end up with some un-neutered rides that you hear complaining about every now and again. Those sorts of disclaimers typically don't hold up in court. You can't release yourself from liability just by saying you can't be held liable. Have the guests sign a ToS when paying at the entrance then. That would be a legally binding contract. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swede Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Parks in the U.S. should just put up a large sign at the entrance reading: "You enter the park and go on the rides at your own risk. [insert park name] is not to be held responsible for any injuries or deaths in the park. The parks safety is up to state regulated standards. Enjoy your stay". That way you might end up with some un-neutered rides that you hear complaining about every now and again. Do parks in Europe have such disclaimers? And if you are being sarcastic, are you targeting me? Not that I know of but there really isn't a need for it as you will not become an $ millionaire by spilling coffee on your own lap. Oh, and I see that the end of my last comment might be a bit unclear. It's not complaining about un-neutered rides but the lack of them in the U.S. The hot coffee lawsuit was actually not that frivolous when you look into it. You want frivolous, look up the $67 million pants. It was hotter than it should have been but the store didn't pour it over the person. She did it to herself. I'd say that it is frivolous by most Europeans standards. OMG $67 million pants! That, your theme parks and the 2nd amendment is why I love your country. Can't wait to go back there for thanksgiving. (I actually do love America). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GigaG Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Parks in the U.S. should just put up a large sign at the entrance reading: "You enter the park and go on the rides at your own risk. [insert park name] is not to be held responsible for any injuries or deaths in the park. The parks safety is up to state regulated standards. Enjoy your stay". That way you might end up with some un-neutered rides that you hear complaining about every now and again. Those sorts of disclaimers typically don't hold up in court. You can't release yourself from liability just by saying you can't be held liable. Have the guests sign a ToS when paying at the entrance then. That would be a legally binding contract. I think that would drive people away. The GP would consider that creepy. As for coffee, that coffee was actually very hot and the woman suffered third degree burns. The lawsuit isn't totally clean, but still a LITTLE rational, unlike the pants lawsuit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
singemfrc Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 I never rush to judgment about whether or not a lawsuit is valid until I know more about the case--but this sounds pretty "slapped together."Agree. If they're going to argue that the train or ride itself is unsafe they're going to lose and lose quickly. If they want to argue SFMM is negligent for not clearing vegetation, they may have a case. From the verbage in the LA Times story it looks like they're going for the former, which to me makes them look naive. “They owe the highest degree of care to its passengers,” Novack said. “You don’t build it going through trees.”Looks like we have a fan of Scream here. It was hotter than it should have been but the store didn't pour it over the person. She did it to herself. I'd say that it is frivolous by most Europeans standards. Watch this doc about that case: http://www.netflix.com/WiMovie/70167106?strkid=885329450_0_0&trkid=222336&movieid=70167106 I was surprised when I saw it, I always thought that was the prototypical frivolous lawsuit but its not frivolous at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robbalvey Posted July 11, 2014 Author Share Posted July 11, 2014 (edited) FACT! Americans will sue for anything... ANYTHING whether it's frivolous or not. If someone thinks they can get money, attention, a movie-deal, whatever, just by filing a lawsuit, they will. And it's certainly one of the reasons why we prefer traveling in Europe and Asia over the USA. Idiocracy has not set in as much in those territories. FACT! The last two pages of discussions about whether or not spilling hot coffee on yourself is a legitimate lawsuit or not is dumb... however still better than talking about Magic Mountain! Edited July 11, 2014 by robbalvey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RissaBooBissa Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Guys... I tripped on my shoelace this morning walking into work. I'm gonna sue sketchers! All jokes aside - I'm still excited to visit the park on the 22nd! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coasterchitchat Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 FACT! Americans will sue for anything... ANYTHING whether it's frivolous or not. If someone thinks they can get money, attention, a movie-deal, whatever, just by filing a lawsuit, they will. And it's certainly one of the reasons why we prefer traveling in Europe and Asia over the USA. Idiocracy has not set in as much in those territories. FACT! The last two pages of discussions about whether or not spilling hot coffee on yourself is a legitimate lawsuit or not is dumb... however still better than talking about Magic Mountain! Nice job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jew Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 Also a legal FACT: when accounting for any damages, assumed risk is factored into the equation. There is a certain amount of assumed risk in riding a roller coaster, so *IF* any lawsuits from this actually go to trial (they won't---insurance will settle), a judge or jury would determine how much it was SFMM's fault for negligence (if that's the case) and how much was the plaintiffs assumed risk. But lets keep talking about McDonalds and coffee instead. Way more exciting than talking about SFMM! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loomis321 Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 FACT! Americans will sue for anything... ANYTHING whether it's frivolous or not. If someone thinks they can get money, attention, a movie-deal, whatever, just by filing a lawsuit, they will. And it's certainly one of the reasons why we prefer traveling in Europe and Asia over the USA. Idiocracy has not set in as much in those territories. Then why do you live in the US???? It's because it's the best....FACT! Stop traveling in the USA then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SharkTums Posted July 11, 2014 Share Posted July 11, 2014 ^Murrica!!!!! F-YEAH! LOL! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now