Death on Disney Ride

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Lathum

why should the park be responsible for protecting people against themselves?

Because they operate very large machines that have the potential to kill someone.

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Because they operate very large machines that have the potential to kill someone.

If there are high fences, not alot you can do past that. There are a whole lotta places where the only thing separating you from safety and death is a fence and the intelligence to realize that if you climb it, bad things could happen.

[rkmsuf]

This doesn't qualify as death "on" a ride anyway.

Just an added bonus of man building these machines.

[Cringer]

It's kind of like jumping in front of a moving train or big truck, the person operating has no chance or even any hope of avoiding hitting and killing the person in front of them. I see no way that Six Flags is responsible.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

Because they operate very large machines that have the potential to kill someone.

It's people like you that are the reason we live in an overly litegous society. To claim the park had any responsibilty in this kids death or could have done more to prevent it is absurd.

[Marmel]

Some of you people are totally fucked up. You never hopped a fence or did something a little stupid when you were a kid? If not, then you were one fucking boring kid and now in your adult life you are just a fucking asshole who has some real mental problems to not have any simpathy for this kid and their family.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Some of you people are totally fucked up. You never hopped a fence or did something a little stupid when you were a kid? If not, then you were one fucking boring kid and now in your adult life you are just a fucking asshole who has some real mental problems to not have any simpathy for this kid and their family.

I hopped plenty of fences.

I didn't however, leap into the path of any moving roller coasters.

I have sympaty for them, but to claim the park has any responsibility is absurd.

And the kid was 17, almost an adult and plenty old enough to know what he was doing was stupid.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Some of you people are totally fucked up. You never hopped a fence or did something a little stupid when you were a kid? If not, then you were one fucking boring kid and now in your adult life you are just a fucking asshole who has some real mental problems to not have any simpathy for this kid and their family.

I think there's a big difference between your typical childhood hijinx, the kind of thing even a good kid does that has the potential for injury and even death vs. scaling two fences at an amusement park and jumping up at a moving roller coaster.

The later clearly transcends being "a little stupid", and is the kind of thing you only do if you're a total douchebag, have no respect for anything, and have a dangerous reckless streak that will eventually either kill yourself (if society is lucky) or other innocent people.

This story almost sounds made up, it's that ridiculous.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Some of you people are totally fucked up. You never hopped a fence or did something a little stupid when you were a kid? If not, then you were one fucking boring kid and now in your adult life you are just a fucking asshole who has some real mental problems to not have any simpathy for this kid and their family.

Are the reasons why you left FOFC starting to come back to you?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Some of you people are totally fucked up. You never hopped a fence or did something a little stupid when you were a kid? If not, then you were one fucking boring kid and now in your adult life you are just a fucking asshole who has some real mental problems to not have any simpathy for this kid and their family.

Nope never did, but then I always was smart and didn't have a deathwish. Oh plus I had the common sense to not do things that could possibly kill me.

[Bad-example]

The park will probably not add extra measures to keep people out at this point, as this could possibly give legitimacy to a lawsuit. (So, your company added more signs and fencing after the accident? We take this as proof the existing measures were inadequate!)

I believe that 2 fences with warning signs is already overkill. Well, maybe they could add some "What are you, stupid?" signs on the second fence.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Nope never did, but then I always was smart and didn't have a deathwish. Oh plus I had the common sense to not do things that could possibly kill me.

What a boring child you were!

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Some of you people are totally fucked up. You never hopped a fence or did something a little stupid when you were a kid? If not, then you were one fucking boring kid and now in your adult life you are just a fucking asshole who has some real mental problems to not have any simpathy for this kid and their family.

I never hopped a fence and tried to grab people on fast moving amusement park rides. The kid was 17 so he should have known better and he really could have injured somebody else who was just innocently enjoying themselves on the ride. The park has no responsibility.

[Jas_lov]

Originally Posted by Lathum

What a boring child you were!

He's just got his head on straight is all, pun intended. And another thing, how can anyone argue that 2 fences and a warning sign aren't enough? They shouldn't even need any warning sign as people should know better. Six flags is not responsible.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

I never hopped a fence and tried to grab people on fast moving amusement park rides. The kid was 17 so he should have known better and he really could have injured somebody else who was just innocently enjoying themselves on the ride. The park has no responsibility.

Again, I'm not sure why people feel the need to keep repeating that Six Flags is not responsible. Just about everyone in here agrees with that. Marmel didn't even mention park responsibility in his post.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

He's just got his head on straight is all, pun intended. And another thing, how can anyone argue that 2 fences and a warning sign aren't enough? They shouldn't even need any warning sign as people should know better. Six flags is not responsible.

Again with the responsibility. I said over and over again that they weren't responsible, but it would be a good idea to make the area more restrictive.

I mean, what if it happens a 3rd or 4th time? Do you just keep saying, "that's a stupid person" and move on. Just tell everyone, "that's the ride that kills stupid people"?

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

I mean, what if it happens a 3rd or 4th time? Do you just keep saying, "that's a stupid person" and move on. Just tell everyone, "that's the ride that kills stupid people"?

I'm going to say after the 4th severed head maybe they just start leaving the heads there - that should be a good warning.

[Jas_lov]

Isn't this the first time it's happened? I think the first incident was a park worker standing in the wrong spot so it wasn't quite the same thing. What do you propose putting up instead to make the area more restrictive and would it still prevent dumb people like this kid from getting through? I just think 2 fences, a warning sign, and common sense are enough. Also, Six Flags is not responsible!

[molson]

Originally Posted by Jas_lov

Isn't this the first time it's happened? I think the first incident was a park worker standing in the wrong spot so it wasn't quite the same thing. What do you propose putting up instead to make the area more restrictive and would it still prevent dumb people like this kid from getting through? I just think 2 fences, a warning sign, and common sense are enough. Also, Six Flags is not responsible!

Ya, this is obviously way different than both the employee, and that poor girl who had her feet cut off on a different ride.

This, to me, doesn't even really involve the park. It's like if a the kid decided to drive his car on a highway with a blindfold. We wouldn't ask what the car company/government could have done differently, because it's just so far into ridiculousness that the story is the kid, not the car. (And I'm not saying anyone here is saying the park is responsible, just that a few have pointed out things the park could have done differently).

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Again with the responsibility. I said over and over again that they weren't responsible, but it would be a good idea to make the area more restrictive.

by you saying the park could do more to make the area more restrictive it is suggesting they could have been more responsible. IMO.

[Lathum]

maybe they should give IQ tests before they allow entry.

Oh wait, the kid was sneaking back into the park instead of using the entrance.

[larrymcg421]

I guess the thing is bugging me is that people are trying to make assumptions about certain arguments:

You have sympathy for the family, so that must mean Six Flags is responsible or you think Six Flags should do more, so that must mean they are responsible.

More varied opinions are possible, which you can discover if you actually read the text of someone's post.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

by you saying the park could do more to make the area more restrictive it is suggesting they could have been more responsible. IMO.

Could? Is anyone arguing that they couldn't do more? If so, that's a pretty bizaare argument to make. Obviously they could do more. The question seems to be whether they should do more.

And how am I suggesting that when I have pretty clearly said in plain text several times throughout this thread that they aren't responsible?

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

You have sympathy for the family, so that must mean Six Flags is responsible or you think Six Flags should do more, so that must mean they are responsible.

I think it's more like people are telling us that we SHOULD be sympathetic (and if we're not we have some kind of emotional problem), and then we're trying to explain why we have no sympathy. Of course the park could have done more (and when someone states that, if sounds like an implicatiokn that they should have done more) I'm not trying to say they couldn't, though I could see how it sounds like that. I'm just saying that we could spend a lot of resources protecting the biggest morons in society, and I would say those resources aren't well spent.

Obviously you either have sympathy or you don't, there's no right answer there.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by molson

I think it's more like people are telling us that we SHOULD be sympathetic (and if we're not we have some kind of emotional problem), and then we're trying to explain why we have no sympathy. Of course the park could have done more, and and I'm not trying to say they couldn't, though I could see how it sounds like that.

Obviously you either have sympathy or you don't, there's no right answer there.

I see several posts saying you shoull have sympathy, but my point is that people are somehow trying to tie those posts into park responsibility, which is annoying.

Several people in this thread seem to want to argue against: "OMG you should have sympathy! The park is responsible and the family should get a bazillion dollars. I'm a litigious prick!!1!!". I fail to see such posts being made.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

And how am I suggesting that when I have pretty clearly said in plain text several times throughout this thread that they aren't responsible?

It seems like you are trying to burn the candle at both ends.

If the park bears no responsibility then there is nothing more they could have done.

If there is something more they could have done, then they have responsibility.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Some of you people are totally fucked up. You never hopped a fence or did something a little stupid when you were a kid? If not, then you were one fucking boring kid and now in your adult life you are just a fucking asshole who has some real mental problems to not have any simpathy for this kid and their family.

Gee Marmel, I'm sorry so few of us managed not to do something so stupid that it literally got our heads knocked off. I guess my life experience will always be a little lacking because of that shortcoming.

As for sympathy, yes, I'm sorry that this family raised a child who was such a moron that he managed to get himself killed doing something that even a double digit IQ should have known better than to do. I wouldn't wish that on anybody but I also can't prevent it from happening so that sympathy lands somewhere between shit & syphilis in the standard dictionary.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Lathum

What a boring child you were!

Yes I was so boring. But at least I'm alive.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It seems like you are trying to burn the candle at both ends.

If the park bears no responsibility then there is nothing more they could have done.

There are two fences. If they had three, then that would be more, wouldn't it? So obviously they could have done more. Now I think the two fences and the warning signs should have been enough, so they shouldn't be held responsible. However, I also think it would be a good idea for them to explore ways to make the area more restrictive. That has absolutely nothing to do with my belief in their legal liability.

[Logan]

I went outside of my office today on Madison Ave. Can you believe I almost got hit by a taxi when I darted out into the street? Shouldn't the City of New York be installing barricades on the sidewalks so my retardness doesn't have the chance to result in me getting struck by a cab? That would be something more that could be done.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I'm sorry so few of us managed not to do something so stupid that it literally got our heads knocked off.

I haven't found much in this thread to agree with, but I'm warming up to this.

[cartman]

I once got my head knocked off doing something stupid, but I got better.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by cartman

I once got my head knocked off doing something stupid, but I got better.

so thats what happened...

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by Logan

I went outside of my office today on Madison Ave. Can you believe I almost got hit by a taxi when I darted out into the street? Shouldn't the City of New York be installing barricades on the sidewalks so my retardness doesn't have the chance to result in me getting struck by a cab? That would be something more that could be done.

They tried barricading NY once, but that just resulted in the Duke of New York taking over.

He was A number one though

[digamma]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It seems like you are trying to burn the candle at both ends.

If the park bears no responsibility then there is nothing more they could have done.

If there is something more they could have done, then they have responsibility.

I think Larry is talking about legal responsibility. Without getting into a discussion of a topic that has literally volumes and volumes of case law and other legal writing on it, I can say that the way you frame the issue is not how a court in the US would look at the issue. Instead it would deal with questions like whether the precautions the park took were reasonable and whether another prudent park manager would have taken more or less precautions.

If every business had to do everything they could do to avoid accidents, we would do a whole lot of nothing in this country.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

However, I also think it would be a good idea for them to explore ways to make the area more restrictive.

Just a WAG here but ... y'think maybe they've already explored that at some point in the past? That two wasn't a number just chosen at random but rather one that was determined to be reasonable based on a variety of inputs? I know I might be out on a limb here but it just seems to me that there was probably some thought put into the number of fences that would be appropriate, based at least in part on the notion that without utilizing massive quantities of bubble wrap you can only protect a complete moron from themselves only so much.

I'll agree that the distinction between "could" and "should" has probably gotten lost in this thread more than it ought to have, but what you're saying here really brings to mind the saying about better mousetraps only producing more creative mice. Or do you honestly believe that a third fence would have magically stopped this kid when the first two presented no real impediment?

[Logan]

I think the point is, yes, there is always "more" that could be done. But as dig says, you can say that about literally anything.

[Oilers9911]

I guess I was a boring child. However I have managed to keep my head for all these years because I knew that climbing two fences and jumping into the path of a fast moving roller coaster MIGHT JUST HURT!

So the next time a kid gets hit by a train do we demand the railroad build fences all along the track?

[GrantDawg]

Originally Posted by digamma

I think Larry is talking about legal responsibility. Without getting into a discussion of a topic that has literally volumes and volumes of case law and other legal writing on it, I can say that the way you frame the issue is not how a court in the US would look at the issue. Instead it would deal with questions like whether the precautions the park took were reasonable and whether another prudent park manager would have taken more or less precautions.

If every business had to do everything they could do to avoid accidents, we would do a whole lot of nothing in this country.

And let me ask your legal opinion on this: If the kid would have succesfully grabbed someones leg and say ripped it off, how much liability would the park have in that? I have a feeling that case wouldn't be as much a slam dunk since the person recieving the injury had done nothing wrong. I think for that reason maybe a little barbed wire might be prudent.

[Karlifornia]

I like how he snuck back into the park to go grab some legs. It's like he was a junkie or something.

[Toddzilla]

Originally Posted by Lathum

It's people like you that are the reason we live in an overly litegous society. To claim the park had any responsibilty in this kids death or could have done more to prevent it is absurd.

If you honestly believe the park could not have done more to prevent what happened, you're either ignoring reality, purposely being ignorant, or legitimately stupid. In any case, you're still getting two issues confused. Whether or not the park *could* have done more - and universally I think it is obvious they could have - and whether or not the park *should* have done more - which is where the real arguement lies.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

If you honestly believe the park could not have done more to prevent what happened, you're either ignoring reality, purposely being ignorant, or legitimately stupid. In any case, you're still getting two issues confused. Whether or not the park *could* have done more - and universally I think it is obvious they could have - and whether or not the park *should* have done more - which is where the real arguement lies.

Yeah, a moat full of sharks with laser beams on their friggin heads might have been enough to do the trick.

[digamma]

Originally Posted by GrantDawg

And let me ask your legal opinion on this: If the kid would have succesfully grabbed someones leg and say ripped it off, how much liability would the park have in that? I have a feeling that case wouldn't be as much a slam dunk since the person recieving the injury had done nothing wrong. I think for that reason maybe a little barbed wire might be prudent.

Yeah, I agree that is a harder case. I probably wasn't clear enough in my first post, I don't think the case of liability (either saddling the park with liabilty or absolving them) in the present situation is cut and dried (based on the facts that I have read). The point I was trying to make is that when judging the park, you shouldn't look at whether they did all they possibly could do, but rather whether their actions were reasonable under the circumstances (which include that they are in the business of amusement park management). The determination of what precautions are prudent or reasonable is where there is probably room for disagreement.

[Lathum]

Originally Posted by Toddzilla

If you honestly believe the park could not have done more to prevent what happened, you're either ignoring reality, purposely being ignorant, or legitimately stupid. In any case, you're still getting two issues confused. Whether or not the park *could* have done more - and universally I think it is obvious they could have - and whether or not the park *should* have done more - which is where the real arguement lies.

and like many others have pointed out, there could always be more done. If I jump from a tall building does that mean the owner of the building should have had barbed wire that I couldn't get over?

Your the stupid one if you actualy think more fences or signs would have stopped the kid.

And I have said many times, it isn't about being in a resticted area, or being able to get into that area.

It's about the fact that the idiot leapt into the path of a moving roller coaster.

This kid was a fucking idiot, plain and simple. And so are you if you think anything different.

[st.cronin]

please stop causing problems.

[Lathum]

dola- and no, the park should not have done more. signs and 2 fences are enough.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Lathum

Your the stupid one

el-oh-el.


I agree with with you 100%, though.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Lathum

and like many others have pointed out, there could always be more done. If I jump from a tall building does that mean the owner of the building should have had barbed wire that I couldn't get over?

After a couple of well known instances of people jumping off my building, then yes I would definitely put barbed wire or anything that would make it more difficult for people to jump over. That doesn't mean I'm at fault. It means I don't want people jumping off my building. Similarly, if I owned Six Flags, I don't want people being decapitated by one of my most popular rides. IF, as people are suggesting, they are stupid and would have died somewhere else, then fine. I don't want it to happen in my park, so I try to do what I can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Your the stupid one if you actualy think more fences or signs would have stopped the kid.

They could have slowed him down, allowing security personnel to stop him in time. But it doesn't have to be fences. Maybe a wall or even extra security camera trained on that area. Maybe an alarm system if anyone is in that danger zone. Again, I'm not saying the park is at fault because they didn't have these things in place already. I'm saying they should consider putting them in place now.

And I have said many times, it isn't about being in a resticted area, or being able to get into that area.

It's about the fact that the idiot leapt into the path of a moving roller coaster.

This kid was a fucking idiot, plain and simple. And so are you if you think anything different.

It was definitely a stupid thing to do, and I don't really see anyone disputing that. However, I've been to SFOG and if there were no idiots there, they'd lose about 50% of their guests (not to mention their entire workforce.)

If this kid trespassed near any of the other rides, he would not have been killed. The Batman ride is a special ride because it hangs below the track. You'd have to try much, much harder to get killed by the Mindbender. I think if anything comes out of this, they'll consider the layout and height when building inverted coasters from now on, and maybe not put it in an area where it could hit someone below.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by Marmel

Some of you people are totally fucked up. You never hopped a fence or did something a little stupid when you were a kid? If not, then you were one fucking boring kid and now in your adult life you are just a fucking asshole who has some real mental problems to not have any simpathy for this kid and their family.

I knew there was a reason I love you man.

[Schmidty]

Originally Posted by dangarion

Nope never did, but then I always was smart and didn't have a deathwish. Oh plus I had the common sense to not do things that could possibly kill me.

If you are ever speeding (even 10 miles over) and happen lose control, and die, I'll be the first person on this board to say, "I have no sympathy for Dan. He was doing something dangerous, and was an adult, therefor may his soul rot in hell".