What happened was unfortunate, but come on.

Not to mention there could be some psychological damage. As I recall those injured got free passes for TTD and the girls said they would never ride it again. An accident like this, who can blame em? A lawsuit like this will help show CP and Intamin that this is not ok (like many other lawsuits that are worse for Intamin, but in reality they dont really get the message that its not ok, lets jsut hope CP does and helps Intamin from their mistakes, or as I like to call them, their rides ) It will help in setting a standard to make sure something like this doesnt happen. Are they entitled to that much, absolutly not, but asking for what they are entitled to is a slap on the wrist, and cant deliver the right message.

I could be wrong but this is jsut how I feel. I really dont feel this is another one of thos McDonalds lawsuits, and this actual has meaning and hopefully they can learn. I am sure many will disagree, but oh well, Im willing to listen.

What if it was YOU who was pelted with wire shards? That kind of stuff is not supposed to happen. Was the cable inspected for problems? If so, did that inspection work? I know that I would sue.

How long did it take for all of those cuts on their face and body take to heal?

I once again have an unpopular opinion...sue me.

During *any* incident in which there is any type of damage or hurt caused to an individual from any type of machine or in this case a ride, it is almost always impossible for the park/manufacturer to win this case. Unfortunately, we live in a world where it is always unethical when the people are hurt from these devices. That's not the way it was before, but that's the way it us now. There are new standard codes of ethics for engineers thesedays that were not there 20 or 10 years ago. If they push this, chances are they will get their money. It rarely goes the other way around.

Just my two cents as a practicing engineer...

How much you want to bet that these two will be on another roller coaster this summer? Mental stress would mean they could never enjoy riding another roller coaster without fear of this event. I fear someone will yack on me everytime I ride Mean Streak. I fell and cut my leg at PKI pretty bad. Did it hurt? Yes. Was I in pain? Yes. Was I suffering? Yes. But the park had taken every precaution to make sure what happened to me didn't happen and it was out of their control when it did. Hey, it doesn't mean I hit three Cherries on the great sue corporate america slot machine. Unfortunate Accident. That is what this and the incident on TTD was. End of story. At this point anything else is for self benefit on behalf of the Plaintiff.*** This post was edited by ldiesman 2/16/2005 12:16:33 AM ***

You knew it was coming.

Has CF changed either the cables that they use, the mechanicals behind the ride, the maintenace schedule, etc....if not, then there's no reason to believe it couldn't happen again...and next time it COULD be someone's eye, or worse...

I'm NOT saying that there was a significant amount of pain and suffering, I got a paper cut the other day that hurt like heck, and it hardly bled at all...how much is that worth, and why don't they make paper safer, like with rounded edges or something?

Obviously, there should be some idea of reasonable, LOL...but regardless, CF (or any company) would rather settle a case like this than risk a BAD verdict.

Whether they were in "pain" at the time doesn't really seem to matter. They were hit with metal fragments of the Dragster cable. I remember when the incident first happened it was described as feeling like "bee stings". The incident caused the victims to bleed. I honestly think Cedar Point is LUCKY that they aren't suing for more.

$50,000 for an incident that should never have happened seems generous.

I don't like stupid lawsuits but I think this one has some merit. Should they get millions of dollars? No. And, if it can be shown that they needed a band-aid and went back into the park then maybe they don't deserve anything. But, if I were hit by shrapnel on a ride that was known to be having major maintenance issues then maybe I'd be asking for something more than an, "I'm sorry."

That being said, all they needed was "*MINOR*" first aid treatment.

The reason these putz's (sorry jeff) want payment is because the park refused to pay for them to go to the emergency room of a nearby hospital. They were demanding this, and all they had was a few little tiny pin prick injuries.

The media, and the victims have blown this entire situation wayyyyyy out of proportion, and made it sound like it was some horribly devastating accident. Last time I checked, the launch cable and the lubrication on it travel at the same speed as the coaster train. So claims that they were hit by projectiles going 120mph, isn't quite the whole story, cause they were also going 120mph! in the same direction!

People will sue for anything these days, regardless of how petty or rediculous the reason is. When riders were trapped on a local coaster here because of a safety switch malfunction, the season pass holders became irate when the non passholders were given a free return ticket, but passholders weren't! they threatened to sue! and probably will. Yet at no time was anyone in danger. Park officials were passing out bottled water to all stranded guests, while the maintenance team worked to release them. The Fire Dept asked the park to keep trying to get them down by lowering the vehicle, because the more dangerous and scarier method (extracting them by the fire dept) should be done as a last resort.

Consequently, a traffic copter just happened to be in the area and proceeded to beam this incident to televisions WORLD WIDE!

So basically, even though amusement park incidents can be potentially horrific, the reality is, most of them are silly safety switch shut downs caused by those little green sensors along the track.

SAM*** This post was edited by Sam A. Marks 2/16/2005 9:01:47 AM ***

If this case gets to a judge that's insane enough, I would expect TTD to be closed all of next year, if not further, if not for modifications than for "public safety". They hopped onto a machine that produces 10,000 horsepower, is created of multi-thousand pounds of steel, is controlled by a computer system that couldn't have existed 15 years ago, and they expect this thing to be failsafe? There's something called inherent risk to anything, and the more power and more "umph" you put into something, the more you push the limits of the abilities of materials and machinery, the more the risk increases, no matter how much design engineering and safety systems you put into something. Try and control a fire in a fireplace, easy right? Now try and control a fire in a magnesium factory, little harder, eh? But both are still concievably "doable".

I'm sorry, I get on this tirade every time something like this comes up because it's completely stupid. Furnish proof of your medical bills, have CP and Intamin pay for them, and leave it at that. Money never has and never will cure "pain and suffering" and there's no real way to qualify those two feelings with cash. The only way it gets qualified is by what the lawyers need to put their kids through college and buy that new boat they've had their eyes on.

In the modified words of Eric Cartman, "Boohooers piss me off ... "

If I went to the movie theater, bought a box of popcorn, and it had metal shards from the popcorn maker in it that cut me while I was swallowing...THEN I'd be upset and want compensation. Further...if that popcorn machine had been having problems for over a year and the movie theater knew these metal shards were being produced I'd expect a little more as they ignored the problem to sell more popcorn.

I hate, hate, hate frivolous lawsuits. If you spill hot coffee on yourself it is your own damn fault. But, I think a case can be made here. I don't think these yahoos should get millions but I don't think getting hit by metal debris is an inherent risk in riding a rollercoaster. Anyone here ever been hit by metal debris before? I've ridden coasters thousands of times and never been it by wood or metal debris.

Edit: Ok, I shouldn't say CP ignored the problem because they didn't. But I think their zest to keep the new ride open as much as possible may have played a role in this.*** This post was edited by wahoo skipper 2/16/2005 9:23:42 AM ***

Hell, Playette once got $300 for uck in the middle of a McDonalds shake. Did she hire a lawyer? File a lawsuit? Nope. Just called a consumer hotline to complain.

-'Playa

There is inherent danger. There's inherent danger of getting nailed with plastic from wheels, there's inherent danger of getting smacked with spew, there's inherent danger of getting nailed with paint chips. There's moving parts, going at high speed and you're flying past it - you honestly expect that to be 100% safe? If this had happened ten, twenty times in the life of the ride, maybe I could see a suit. One incident? Forget about it.

But, the metal shards had been found on multiple occasions. Had anyone been hit by them before? Not that we know. But, I don't think it is a huge leap to imagine they might fly off a fraying cable and hit patrons.

I'm a CP fanboy, I suppose, but sometimes the park needs to take responsibility. Nobody expects to get off a rollercoaster bloody.

And you expect reasonable-minded people to believe that this is worth $50,000???

Tiny cuts that are so insignificant that the participants were able to return to the park are not worth $50,000. A hangnail draws blood. Is a hangnail worth thousands?

Yes the park is wrong, and yes this should not have happened. However, get some perspective folks. $50,000 is a joke based upon the information that has been presented to date.

It is the ridiculous financial compensation that makes this suit so laughable. If they were asking for $50 instead of $50,000, then I would not have a beef. I’m sure the park is well aware that IF they ever pay out $50,000 for such insignificant injury and damage, then they will NEVER see an end to the suits.

P.S. During one of the Coastermania’s I cut my leg on an exposed piece of metal while getting on the Blue Streak. How much should I sue for?

But, I think CP left themselves open to this type of thing with the way they handled the entire situation over the two years. None of us wanted to see the ride closed but that may have been the right course of action until it was resolved completely. In fact, I'm sure if we went back and looked at the posts I said they should close it until they were absolutely sure the problems were fixed.

Oh, and one more thing: Reasonable minded people often don't make up juries. Witness: The OJ Simpson case.

This is all likely an attempt to get Cedar Fair to settle out of court. If they have the documentation to support their version of the facts then maybe they will win. But, at what cost?

The day this story hit the news I was disappointed with the park. This was bush-league and should have never happened. It is something I'd expect from a Six Flags park.

Even if money never exchanges hands I hope it is a lesson they take heed to an never allow to happen again. Keeping your new ride up and running is important. Keeping your guests safe is more important.

The McDonald's "coffee" incident is a prime example. Everyone keeps saying, "If you spill coffee on yourself, that's your own stupidity". Well suprisingly enough, the coffee was made at a temperature ABOVE the standard limit. The spill should have never caused the injuries it did if the coffee had been made at the appropriate temperature. So yes, the lady did spill coffee but McDonalds was at fault for the burns.

My point is that it may not be so cut and dry. Sure there are dangers with everyday life. However, if those riders boarded that train and obeyed those safety instructions, then they should not be at fault. There seems to be many "crazy" lawsuits out there but this isn't one of them. This one SEEMS to make sense IMO.

My bad, this really makes sense...

Suffering according to the American Heritage Dictionary is "An instance of pain or distress. "

Pain according to the same dictionary is "An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury."

So the question is, did they have an instance of pain on the ride that was, by all accounts, not one that should be expected or forseen by the average rider.

The answer is, yes, no matter what the CP fanboys might say. Nobody in the general public could forsee cable shards flying into riders. Heck, CP might not have even thought of that (although there have been reports that shards had been found prior to this incident). But even if CP had no prior knowledge, they are still liable for the injury because it was a fault of their product that the riders were using wholly within the rules that CP laid out - they were not goofing around or acting in an unsafe manner.

Besides, how would that affect needle-like wire spraying into their face and ears?

There are two things significantly wrong with that statement. First, the do you wanna bet part, is an assumption, something nobody can use as evidence in a courtroom. Second, the mental stress definition, WAY off. I was in a serious car accident a year and a half ago. I consider myself as having endured mental stress, that doesn't mean I don't ever enjoy driving anymore and that I fear for my life everytime I get behind the wheel.

Many have said: They returned to the park after the incident the same day, that can't be suffering.

Back to my car accident story. I recovered fully from my car accident and was released from the physicians care some 9 months afterward. For some 3 months I was as normal as I was before the accident, but since then, I have been suffering from persistent back aches and other accident related injuries. Many of the most serious injuries one can endure are ones that are not completely apparent at first.

Frivolous law suits, everybody thinks they are ridiculous except the people who file them, but who knows better than those people? I love how everybody on this board is an engineer, investigator, doctor, detective, lawyer, judge, and common sense philosopher all rolled into one. The fact of the matter is, you just don't know all the aspects of it, and that is why it is going to court...where all of those above occupations will be involved before any judgments are passed. Let's not freak out before they get the money, and if they do, then it was decided under the most sophisticated of circumstances, and usually shouldn't be disputed.

Side note: The McDonald's coffee incident. This case was HUGE, and seemingly nobody realizes the extent of it. The truth is a 79-year-old woman was served coffee from McDonald's that was considerably above the reccommended temperature. She happened to spill some of it out of the ridiculously flimsy cup into her inner thigh and groin. Her frail skin gave way leaving her with 3RD DEGREE BURNS! She spent EIGHT days in the hospital and went through SEVERAL surgeries to graft skin into her GROIN. She is permanently disabled from the ordeal and the sad truth is, there were hundreds of reported incidents of the flimsy cups before somebody finally sued. Now, I don't know about you seemingly know-it-alls about frivolous lawsuits, but if I went through the hell of having my groin burned to the 3rd degree and having several skin grafts to repair it while spending 8 days in the hospital, I'd sue for A LOT especially since McDonalds was aware of problems with the cups. It should have never happened, and McDonalds paid the price for it.

Afterward, McDonalds purchased sturdier cups with a warning on the side "Coffee is HOT!" May sound ridiculous, but why it wasn't on there after the nearly 700 complaints before this extreme incident, they were asking for it. These cases are sometimes most efficient in protecting consumers.

Again, nobody is questioning CP’s fault/liability in this case. What we are questioning is $50,000… Of course the park should compensate the plaintiffs. In my opinion, some exit passes and maybe a free season pass seems just about right.

You can bring in all sorts of personal stories of pain and anguish; it still seems like a simple case of the requested punishment not fitting the crime. Nothing more and nothing less…

AGAIN---does $50,000 seem reasonable based upon the known information? This is really the only question to be debated as I think everyone agrees CP is responsible.

---

...McDonalds purchased sturdier cups with a warning on the side "Coffee is HOT!" May sound ridiculous, but...

---

I think that speaks volumes about the people initiating lawsuits like this. They need to be told coffee is served hot.

Maybe someone needs to tell amusement park patrons that rides are as safe as they can be, but sometimes freak accidents happen. By riding the ride, you accept the risk, hwever slim, of being involved in such an incident. I always though it was assumed and understood, but hey, if you have to tell people coffee is hot...

The whole bleeding heart thing is so tired. If any politcal faction should be called bleeding hearts, it should be the far right (Waaaa, government is too big! Waaa, I don't wanna pay taxes! Waaa, fire the malcontents, get rid of everyone's right to sue because, waaaa, it makes me MAD!)

Sorry, but you had it coming!

I just thought people were getting way to sentimental (bleeding hearts) over the alleged pain and suffering the plaintiffs have endured. We’re not talking about lava coffee, skin grafts, and 3rd degree burns here…

I apologize to any of you easily offended lefties... :-)

But yah, believe it or not, I'm with Jeffrey on this. 50 grand for something that not only didn't send them to the emergency room, but didn't even send them home for the day sounds an awful lot like someone in need of a new mobile home.

That being said, CP probably should have at least given them free passes. When I worked at Great America, we gave passes when folks got stuck on rides for an extended period of time. That sounds a little more reasonable to me.

Now as for the lady who was knocked cold by a huge piece of wrought iron that fell off the second story of Columbia and who bled all over the plaza...I could see that.

*** This post was edited by janfrederick 2/16/2005 6:21:10 PM ***

---

What if it were your children that got hurt, you would sue too.

---

Under the circumstances of the accident and the injuries received - I wouldn't...

...I'd have given them cute little Spongebob band-aids.

First: There is nothing wrong with my statement as it was an opinion. A statement based on the premise that I don't feel that this is a justifiable case. |sarcasm| And I am NOT a lawyer as you pointed out later so I won't be presenting this as evidence.|/sarcasm|

SFGAMDie HARD also said: Second, the mental stress definition, WAY off. I was in a serious car accident a year and a half ago. I consider myself as having endured mental stress, that doesn't mean I don't ever enjoy driving anymore and that I fear for my life everytime I get behind the wheel.

|opinion| You may not have experienced long term mental stress. If your mental stress is limited to a short time frame of the accident is it worth $50k several months later? Compensation for mental stress is justifiable if the mental stress prevents you from functioning in the same way as before the incident. If part of their suit includes mental stress caused by the event. And their stress lasted that day or even a week than that isn't long term and doesn't consititute enough stress to be life changning and require some form of compensation. They are milking the system because they can.

I would like to say, however, that I do agree with who is at fault here. But, as said before, if the cables were properly stress tested, inspected and the ride was in proper operating condition and was being operated correctly than the agreement reached by the park and the victims should have been the end. Any attempt to gain more compensation is just an attempt at personal gain.|/opinion|*** This post was edited by ldiesman 2/16/2005 7:26:45 PM ***

Before you all get hot and bothered arguing bullcrap, why don't you actually read the damned article.

Obviously some of you need to get a dictionary.

---

Suffering according to the American Heritage Dictionary is "An instance of pain or distress. "

Pain according to the same dictionary is "An unpleasant sensation occurring in varying degrees of severity as a consequence of injury."

---

Also from this site,

---

Damages for non-economic losses are damages for pain and suffering, emotional distress, loss of consortium or companionship, and other tangible injuries. These damages involve no direct economic loss and have no precise value.

(snip)

The legal standards for assessing pain and suffering damages are imprecise. Evidence of pain and suffering plays on jurors’ emotions, not their sense of logic. Because jurors’ judgment on these issues is believed to represent the very sense of the community that justifies the jury system in the first place, trial judges are hesitant to reduce the amount of pain and suffering post-trial. Furthermore, the traditionally subjective nature of types of damage awards makes them difficult to consider on appellate review.

---

http://www.4utah.com/legalanswers/legal/topic.aspx?content_id=0BC43A11-562B-49EF-B25F-79E9C9B613AA

Way to prove yourself to be a boohooer. We are arguing bullcrap, the bullcrap that is this "lawsuit".

Please... shards of metal flying into passengers skin. That's just wrong.

Cedar Point is lucky these people aren't suing for more. Regardless of "how much they bled" or "if they still were riding rides", what happened to these poeple was wrong. Hell, I'd sue for at LEAST $100,000. That's just because I'm a jerk though.

Should we expect Cedar Point to take some sort of legal action toward Intamin? If anyone is at fault, it seems as though they are.

That's not the whole story though. As someone else mentioned, there had already been many complaints about their flimsy cups and the coffee was heated well above the standard limit.

"Well if you're all-knowing and knew it was only a matter of time before metal shards got tossed in the path of the train, then why didin't you pipe up and tell CP?"

Namely because this wasn't the first time that metal shards were discovered so CP was already aware of the problem.*** This post was edited by Coasterbuzzer 2/17/2005 9:46:20 AM ***
*** This post was edited by Coasterbuzzer 2/17/2005 9:46:49 AM ***

I found out from my insurance company that the woman I hit received several thousand dollars to fix the car, and several more thousand for "pain and suffering." No wonder insurance rates are so high.

OK, continue relevant discussion.

These days, why would anyone want to start a business to serve anyone when any service is just seen as an opportunity to slam a lawsuit to make you rich? If I ever open an amusement park, I'm making each person coming in sign a release with a lawyer there claiming you understand there is some inherent risk to walking through that ticket booth ... if you don't like it, I don't need you at my park ...

I know of an incident that happened at The Great Escape. My friend's mother was exiting The Trabant. Now if anyone had been to the park in 2003, they would know The Trabant had it's entrance and exit on the west side of the ride. It was kind of an odd position. Anyway, while exiting the ride my friend's mother tripped. It was very easy to do. She ended up with a broken ankle.

Is this the park's fault? Sure is.
Is it fair? Maybe not.

The next year we returned to the park and found The Trabant to have it's entrance on the east side of the ride. This was a huge improvement. I'm sure this particualr incident was not isolated. The park had probably received several complaints and, because of legal concerns, decided it was in their best interest to make a change.

How about Dragster? If this incident were to happen again, the park would be hit with another law suit. Would everyone disagree with that as they have with this incident? I would say no since the incident had already happened before. Should the victims of this hypothetical "future" incident be granted more money than the current ones? No.

Whether the park saw it coming or not they are still liable. It's like the, "if a salesman trips in your yard, you can sue him" bit. The only difference is the park is ALLOWING people to enter.

Impulse-ive: If you did that with your park, you would probably never be sued. Still, I'm not sure many people would take that risk.