Will TTD operations be impacted by Knott's incident?

Its pretty clear to me that the top of the seat moves as if it pops out of place on the rollback at the 13-14 second mark. The seat in relation to the other seats appears to have twisted to the passengers right.

In this picture you can clearly see that the top portion of the seat is separate from the bottom half.

David Sagert said:
Jeff, How many times have we discussed the Ohio law on this site?

How many lawsuits were claimed and won in any suits against Cedar Point and won?

As others have stated, most of it never goes to court. I can assure you with 100% confidence that the parks settle minor nonsense out of court every year. The law most certainly does not excuse the park from civil liability. Every consumer advocacy group on the plane would freak out.

There have been a number of suits filed against Kings Island in particular (thanks to Son of Beast), and we never hear about an ending because they're generally settled out of court. Heck, Six Flags got sued when they owned Geauga Lake because some douchebag's phone smacked another rider in the face on Villain requiring reconstructive surgery.

Coastern3rd said:
In this picture you can clearly see that the top portion of the seat is separate from the bottom half.

It's not clear at all. This picture just shows that there is padding around the head area. It is NOT clear (to me anyway) that there is any seperation between the seat and the head rest portion of the seat. It appears to be one molded seat/headrest combination. Just my observation.

If they're like the Dragster seats, I'm pretty sure the head rests are a separate piece bolted on to the back of the seat.

http://pointbuzz.com/Photos/Photo.aspx?id=705

cpcoasterhaven, you can't see the line that shows the seperation of the top portion from the bottom portion? Really?!

Edit:

Maybe this will help.

It seems to me that when the seat changed position, it moved forward just a bit. The t-bar restraint, however, did not move causing the the kid in the video to be slightly crushed. It doesnt look like they are worried about the kids legs, but rather they are trying to loosen the t-bar.

Take another look at the video and tell me what you guys think.

Ok now i see it, if you watch the arm rest between the two riders the gap does become bigger and the kids whole seat does twist out.

I posted this on my facebook page. My friends have all asked me if I am scared of roller coasters now (as they did with a picture I took of the Magnum incident a few years back)

The answer is no. There were no major injuries, the coaster is not severely damaged. I'll still get on a launched coaster. In fact, I would probably ride Dragster again if I was one of the riders when it had its accident.

I'd gladly show off any "battle scar" I would have.

But I'm a weirdo anyway....so I know most of you aren't surprised. :)

In terms of liability I believe the park is absolutley reponsible if it is a ride malfunction. I think these matters are normally settled out of court and out of the media but there is financial gain for those hurt.

If someone were however to ride a ride who has a medical limitation and they are hurt they are then responsible. For example if you died of a known or unknown heart condition the park would not be able to be responible for that.

The park is very responsible for their rides and the safey required.

I believe there is a long history of small parks closing because there are injuries that they are required to settle on and as a result suffer insurmountable financial loss.

The signs in question cover the park not being responsible for rider error or illness.

TTD 120mph said:
I'd gladly show off any "battle scar" I would have.

It's only a flesh wound. ;)

David Sagert said:
Jeff, How many times have we discussed the Ohio law on this site?

How many lawsuits were claimed and won in any suits against Cedar Point and won? The almost same accident happened in 2004 at Cedar Point and nothing came of it asside of season passes awarded to the victimes as far as I am aware of. If I am wrong please give me a article to refference so I can correct my statement.

As far as that goes, Cedar Fair (Son of Beast for specifics) has never been sued and lost due to a ride malfunction in recent history. I stated in my post the all pre exisiting conditions were excluded, this includes most of the accidents on SOB.

If I missed something somewhere down the line please let me know. I am not trying to bash you in any way. I am just curious if I just missed something in judicial precedent.

I worked at a sister park before it was a sister park. There was an incident which could have been serious but no one was hurt.

As a guest relations employee it became clear what would be handled quietly. I do not know the official outcome, only that the call was only to go the president (from the parent in this case) and that we would not speak to the media. There was no resulting law suit because the call did go to the president and I am sure $ was discussed and agreed upon. This is why you don't read about these things in the media.

Do you read about the suits at all? There would be law suits... but it appears parks who have accidents are not frequently sued. It is not because the cases are not relevent. You can sue anyone and these cases would make the news. They don't make the news because silent agreements are made.

There are a lot of reasons that businesses settle potential litigation claims that have nothing to do with whether under the law they should have any liability. Sometimes you don't want to incur the expense of defending a claim or do not want to suffer the negative publicity. You also have to factor in the fact that folks with the attitude that the business is big/makes a lot of money and thus can afford it will be sitting on juries. That attitude can lead to liability even if the law as written wouldn't provide for it.

There may be people who ride rides with no expectation that they may ever get injured. But I think that speaks more to the safety record that most amusement parks have. You are still dealing with machines with thousands of working parts. Even with all of the care/planning in the world, sometimes those parts can fail and accidents can happen. To me, anyone who rides rides that go hundreds of the feet in the air at high speeds with turns, loops, twists and spinning with no expectation that they may get hurt is naive. Risk is small but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Call me naive but I have no expectation that I will get hurt by riding a coaster.

Knowledge of a risk is nowhere close to a waiver of liability. I'm aware of the risks when I drive my car, but if someone rear-ends me, my knowledge of the risks associated with driving does nothing to reduce that person's liability and my right to recover through them.

Cedar Point holds itself out as a business that offers rides that, if ridden correctly, are perfectly safe. Just as with the above example, the knowledge that something could go wrong does nothing to reduce their liability (or more appropriately, their insurance carrier's liability) if something does go wrong.

Shades -- I wouldn't call you naive (and I didn't call you naive). I think that someone who does not expect that they "will" get hurt is sane/rational (based on the safety records/odds). I said someone is naive if they ride rides with no expectation that they "may" get hurt. Big difference.

Break Trims -- With your car example, there is an intervening cause if you get rear-ended: neligence of the driver who runs into you. What happens if you get into an accident because a deer runs out in front of your car or there is a mechanical failure (that is not the fault of the manufacturer of the vehicle but rather just a part that simply failed)?

No one is saying that businesses shouldn't be liable for their own negligence. The issue is whether they should be held strictly liable (whether or not the business is at fault at all).

I think you called me naive:) I have absolutely no/nada/zilch/zero expectations that I may get hurt on a coaster. Why would I think that I would get hurt riding a coaster? I understand people get hurt on them but I do not expect that I will. I expect my ride to be safe and injury free every time. Expecting something else seems silly to me.

I can correlate this to almost any activity in life. People throw their back out simply by getting out of bed. Just because that happens I certainly have no expectation that it will happen to me, or anyone else for that matter.

I don't think you understand the difference between "will" and "may." :)

Break Trims -- With your car example, there is an intervening cause if you get rear-ended: neligence of the driver who runs into you. What happens if you get into an accident because a deer runs out in front of your car or there is a mechanical failure (that is not the fault of the manufacturer of the vehicle but rather just a part that simply failed)?

No one is saying that businesses shouldn't be liable for their own negligence. The issue is whether they should be held strictly liable (whether or not the business is at fault at all).

I like your deer example but would argue it to be more comparable to the Fabio incident where the bird hit his nose. That is not the fault of the park but rather an act of god like scenario. I would think mechanical failure would be comparable to your car breaking down for no reaon on the highway causing an accident. This could be seen as the responsibility of the manufacturer if it were a new vehicle which was maintained properly. I am sure these issues have also been settled out of court.