Six Flags Over Georgia (SFOG) Discussion Thread

[Teacups Make Me Sick]

^I don't agree, I think that MattyD was giving a bit more thought onto frivolous cases such as the McDonalds case. Not that he cant speak for himself...I just cant believe what I'm reading...people actually think that the McDonalds case wasn't frivolous.

 

It wasn't the amount that was frivolous...its the fact that the person who sued McDonalds put a cup of hot coffee on her lap. McDonalds didn't put it there...and she didn't order a cup of cold soda and got hot coffee...she ordered a hot item and willingly put it on her lap. Just like this kid jumped a fence in which he new it was restricted...that is common sense to see a fence, somebody wants you not to enter.

 

I don't understand why people find this lawsuit to be acceptable? When are people held accountable for their own actions? The only people that are making out are the lawyers when they get a cut of the pie.

[TheArchfiend]

don't cite the infamous McDonalds Coffee case if you don't know more about it other than it being "frivolous". It wasn't the first incident, McDonalds had settled in similar cases before, and the coffee was intentionally too hot (intended for later consumption, not instantly)

 

There have been tons of lame lawsuits - next time, pick another one to make an example of

 

Geez, settle down.

 

The point was that lame lawsuits exist that the media feeds to the mass public. Much like how this would be a lame lawsuit to find the park in any way negligent for this teens death would be a big media story. That point is made more than clear by citing the McDonalds lawsuit. So... no. I won't cite something else. Thanks.

[coasterfreaky]

The words "personal responsibility" have become an oxymoron in this country and on top of that our judicial system is set up to let the little person fight the big person, so to speak, regardless of wether or not you are rich or poor. Contrast that in Britain and elsewhere where the Plaintiff, if found to be at fault, is responsible for the cost of courts if the case is lost or deemed frivolous. There are pros and cons to both systems, but it would be nice to have some sort of combined system in the US just so that "personal responsibility" doesn't fall to the wayside.

[dammie16@vt.edu]

^^I agree

 

Unless McDonalds said "Hey lets make our coffee 4000 degrees and in a breakaway cup so this lady burns herself" Then its the ladies fault for not being careful.

 

There needs to be a common sense clause that rules out any case in which the victim could've avoided the "tragedy" by using some common sense.

 

It's hot let it cool, The RV CANNOT drive itself, The roller coaster is dangerous if you aren't where your supposed to be, You fell through the skylight trying to commit a crime so you shouldn't have been there.

 

case closed ::gavel:: (this is what I would've said as a judge even it it got me fired)

[mcjaco]

^ That's the point guys. The coffee was being served too hot for consumption, and McDonald's knew it was for quite some time. I'm not saying putting in your lap isn't the brightest idea....

 

I defended many cases in a world where dumpb people win. Trust me, I don't like cases like any of these. They should but open and close case, but when you put your faith in a jury you never know what can happen.

[TheArchfiend]

^ That's the point guys. The coffee was being served too hot for consumption, and McDonald's knew it was for quite some time. I'm not saying putting in your lap isn't the brightest idea....

 

I defended many cases in a world where dumpb people win. Trust me, I don't like cases like any of these. They should but open and close case, but when you put your faith in a jury you never know what can happen.

 

Well, then you could then make the argument that McDonalds had a protective barrier in place (the cup) much like how Six Flags had a protective barrier in place (the fence). And both knew that if that protective barrier was breeched that it could cause serious harm. Because a speeding roller coaster or scorching hot liquid is dangerous without its protective barrier.

 

Members of the jury I ask you to think about these facts as you make your judgement of this case. Don't let the prosecutions talk of this PMW sway your decision. That's just jibber jabber.

 

...Sorry, daydreaming.

 

Man, I should be a lawyer.

[TheHulk]

Well, then you could then make the argument that McDonalds had a protective barrier in place (the cup) much like how Six Flags had a protective barrier in place (the fence). And both knew that if that protective barrier was breeched that it could cause serious harm. Because a speeding roller coaster or scorching hot liquid is dangerous without its protective barrier.

 

Members of the jury I ask you to think about these facts as you make your judgement of this case. Don't let the prosecutions talk of this PMW sway your decision. That's just jibber jabber.

 

...Sorry, daydreaming.

 

Man, I should be a lawyer.

 

I agree. It's not like the park had signs pointing to the track of a speeding coaster (With the fence open) that said "All guests welcome". This kid made his own decision to jump over the fence and get in the way of a roller coaster train.

[haux]

Don't bring the McDonald's coffee incident into this. That's tired and worn, and it's not comparable to this in the least.

[PURE]

I think the park is screwed to an extent, simply because there are no "Warning: Restricted Area" signs anywhere along the black fence, and in areas of the parking lot, that's the only thing between the low points and the guests. You can clearly see there aren't chain linked fences surrounding the low point at the last corkscrew.

 

 

According to people on here who've been to the park, these are the existing fences. The Green line is the perimeter fence, and the red line is the restricted area fence.

 

 

If I owned the park, not only would the perimeter of the ride be surrounded (the green line), but so would every low point of the ride where someone could be in danger if somehow they got in there anyway (illustrated by the yellow line). The fence that's inside the perimeter now (the Red line) doesn't cut it, IMO. There should be 2 fences between guests and low points at any time, in order to keep the dumb and the rebellious out of a low zone.

 

 

Not that it would have stopped this kid, but atleast the park would have a better case that they did the most they could to avoid this from happening.

[haux]

^ I imagine there are no warning signs on the perimeter fence because there don't need to be any. The signs are in low zones. To compare to Cedar Point, the far fences outside Raptor don't have signs on them, but the fences surrounding the areas where the ride goes low to the ground do. I imagine that's how SFOG is.

 

Besides, there's a fence there. They hopped two. That's ridiculous in itself. But if someone could confirm that the fences by the ride's low zones have signs, that'd be great.

[RIP Psyclone]

*Gasp!*

 

Is that an...

open gate?!?!

[knottslover77]

^The park is closed.

 

--Jay

[TheArchfiend]

Man, if this comes down to a point of there were not enough or not any signs to deter this and the courts rule that as negligent than I am just going to vomit.

 

What would be next? Fences, tunnels and flashing warning signs every 5 feet around every single road in the country?

[dammie16@vt.edu]

Who wants to bet that if the parents do sue that some dip**** lawyer takes that google photo and says,

 

"Six Flags is clearly negligent in safety, as you can see here they leave a gate wide open into a dangerous area as if to say, 'Come on in this way!'"

 

I'd vomit but it'll happen I bet 50 bucks on it!

[coasterfreaky]

^Pure, I think you've missed a few fences. They are hard to see though, it's tough to tell from those pics. Check out some of the other angles (N,S,E,W) on Live Local and you can see that there are second fences generally where the turf stops and the dirt or whatever begins. Plus that image of the helix is six years old.

 

To me, nothing says 'do not enter' more than a fence, signs or no signs, much less two fences. But there are signs 'every 20 feet' according the park reps and there are pictures of them if you're inclined to search.

[PURE]

^Thanks for the advice, I found an even better view of the ride.

 

Green- existing fence - Perimeter

Red- existing fence - Restricted

Yellow arrows - Low Zones

 

 

That's a pretty good view, and it doesn't look like I'm missing an existing fence.

 

Not having an additional gate at the low zones (Arrows 1, 2 and 3) means theres not 2 gates between guests and the danger zones in certain areas of the parking lot. And not having a restricted zone sign on the black perimeter gate because its acting as both a perimeter and restricted gate, is not a good thing for Six Flags.

[Scaparri]

Good grief, why should Six Flags have an extra fence or signage? Why are Europeans smart enough to stay away from rides, even when they don't have fences, but in America, we're simply too stupid? That is the bigger, better question surrounding this whole fence debate.

 

Sorry, I know some of you are just talking about how Six Flags could be in a tough situation if they are faced with a lawsuit, but that's half the problem. We are sitting here conjuring up ways they could be screwed. It pisses me off how our country has become so sue happy.

 

Seriously, it isn't a white picket fence. It wasn't put there for decoration. Why is it the park's responsibility to excessively protect people from their own stupidity? I argue it isn't. The kid did something incredibly stupid and got what was coming to him. That is that. There shouldn't even be consideration for a lawsuit. It shouldn't even be allowed because the idea of a lawsuit over something like this is completely insane in my eyes. However, our nation has sadly became a place that is home to such pathetic lawsuits.

[Airtime&Gravity]

^You'd think a single fence would be enough, but like you said, it is America. People here just have no sense or responsibility or common sense. Plus you get those who want to protect us from ourselves by having more fences added and air gates required. If you look at European parks, many ony have a single fence, and some coasters even lack air gates. How is it that they manage to be safe, but here in America, we still find ways to get killed with all of the safety measures in place?

 

I've been watching Six Flags stock today, and even though other factors are hurting it, this accident is probably why the stock is at $1.05. If Six Flags does go bankrupt (I hope it doesn't), hopefully a company like Merlin or Parques Reuindos can come in, buy all(or most) of the parks, and continue to operate them. I know Six Flags going bankrupt sounds bad, but if Parques Reuindos buys the company, then it might be a good thing. I've been impressed with what they've done with their other parks, and I think they would be a great owner of Six Flags.

[dandaman]

If Parques Reuindos buys the company, then it might be a good thing. I've been impressed with what they've done with their other parks, and I think they would be a great owner of Six Flags.

 

If they cloned their Bonbonland attractions, SFMM could become the sole enemy of the FCC.

[BeemerBoy]

Many of you are acting as though Six Flags can't afford it's own great legal team. I understand there are cases that moronic juries occasionally screw up. But seriously, Stevie Wonder could defend Six Flags and win this one.

 

Here, I'll take my own shot.

 

Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury, I'm going to present to you three points.

 

1) How many people in the history of SFOG have walked past that fence without jumping over?

 

2) Seems as though the ride and surrounding area were deemed safe by the state, right?

 

3) PMW, people. PMW.

 

I rest my case.

 

Also, for those interested:

 

RISK OF ACCIDENTS-THERE IS A RISK OF ACCIDENTS OCCURRING AT OUR PARKS OR COMPETING PARKS WHICH MAY REDUCE ATTENDANCE AND NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR OPERATIONS.

 

Almost all of our parks feature "thrill rides." While we carefully maintain the safety of our rides, there are inherent risks involved with these attractions. An accident or an injury (including water-borne illnesses on water rides) at any of our parks or at parks operated by our competitors, particularly accidents or injuries that attract media attention, may reduce attendance at our parks, causing a decrease in revenues. For example, in June 2007, a young girl was severely injured at Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom. We believe that incident, which attracted national media coverage, contributed to a decline in attendance at both Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom and our other parks and, as a result, adversely impacted performance at both that park and our other parks during the 2007 operating season.

 

We maintain insurance of the type and in amounts that we believe are commercially reasonable and that are available to businesses in our industry. We maintain multi-layered general liability policies that provide for excess liability coverage of up to $100.0 million per occurrence. For incidents occurring at ourdomestic parks after November 15, 2003, our self-insured retention is $2.5 million per occurrence. For incidents at those parks during the twelvemonths prior to that date, the retention is $2.0 million per occurrence. For incidents during the twelve months ended November 15, 2002, the retention is $1.0 million per occurrence. For most prior incidents, our policies did not provide for a self-insured retention. The self-insured retention relating to our international parks is nominal with respect to all applicable periods. Our general liability policies cover the cost of punitive damages only in certain jurisdictions in which a claim occurs. Our current insurance policies expire on December 31, 2008. We cannot predict the level of the premiums that we may be required to pay for subsequent insurance coverage, the level of any self-insurance retention applicable thereto, the level of aggregate coverage available or the availability of coverage for specific risks.

 

 

Six Flags is screwed concerning the SFKK incident, but they did NOTHING wrong concerning the headless wonder. If anything, if a lawsuit is filed, I'd love to see Mr. Snyder flex his muscle and countersue for damages concerning reputation, etc. Take that, Lamar.

[dandaman]

#3 would win over the jury without deliberation, guaranteed.

[TheRapidsNerd]

Screw the Chewbacca defense! PMW defense all the way. Aw great, nowit's stuck in my head again. Argh!

[mcjaco]

^ I'm actually surprised they're self insured. I know Disney is, I figured they'd be the only ones.

 

Good argument. But would a Georgia jury buy it?

[Calaway Park]

Screw the Chewbacca defense! PMW defense all the way. Aw great, nowit's stuck in my head again. Argh!

 

Don't worry, Batman can definitely get rid of that.

 

-Sean

[Hikaru-chan]

I'm sorry i'm at a lost for terms, what does PMW mean?