Menu
What's new
By:
Filters

Woman Falls From The Texas Giant To Her Death

I think it's a little unfair to blame Six Flags for not putting enough safety devices on the ride, which they buy from another manufacturer. It's a bit like Hertz being sued for the death of a driver because the car didn't have an airbag or enough crumple zones. You have to trust in the manufacturer.

That said, if there was a fault with any of the safety systems that wasn't checked or replaced, that IS their fault. I can see Gerstlauer being dragged into this now.
 
I think, honestly, it is the woman's fault. She weighed like 300-something pounds and probably shouldn't have been riding in the first place. It could also well be the park for no weight restrictions, which they actually need, but so far with what we know I am going with this.
 
Whilst she was probably too large for thre restraints, The decision "to ride or not to ride" should go down to the ride ops (regardless of how awkward turning her away would be). So the fault is either down to the ride ops for allowing her to ride if the security system, or lapbar said no, or gerstlauer if the safety system failed.
 
That was hard to read.

It is not the riders fault, ffs.

I'd say it is mostly Six Flags fault, seen as they have had a fairly high number of similar incidents.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using Tapatalk 2
 
Jason Voorhees said:
I think, honestly, it is the woman's fault. She weighed like 300-something pounds and probably shouldn't have been riding in the first place. It could also well be the park for no weight restrictions, which they actually need, but so far with what we know I am going with this.
Click to expand...

Actually, six flags and cedar fair parks do list a max weight suggestion in their websites. Its usually set to around 250 with a warning of any bigger and you may not be able to fit all attractions. And its not always about how fat you are, but its more or less where that weight is carried.
 
Once again, its where the physical size is carried.

Impossible to tell until TRAINED STAFF tell you otherwise...

If they let someone who cannot ride for safety reasons ride, then it is the parks fault for improperly training and monitoring staff.

Sent from my HTC Wildfire S A510e using Tapatalk 2
 
I thought it was basically concluded that it was the error of the ride ops and the restraint not fitting properly etc?
 
Nah, the lawsuit says that (and Joey agreed) it's Six Flags fault because "they've had accidents before" :roll:

The confusion is:

a) Some random stuff about a faulty safety thing - which was replaced right away because it showed up as being faulty.

b) The lawyers saying that because OTSR and seatbelts are available on other rides, and would have potentially prevented this, the trains should have had it - Six Flags should have demanded that.

So because of those two things, it's Six Flag's fault. I agree about the seat-belts, but if Gerstlauer says "this ride is safe", then you have to trust they're right. If they're wrong, it's their fault, not yours - you bought a defective product from a reputable company.
 
I got into this argument with a co-worker the other day. He agreed 100% with the law suit and cited some home construction case as precedent. I will admit I didn't look it up, but the basic point was because 6F was the operater of the ride, even though the builder had given the all clear and the ride system operated as intended by the builder, they were still liable.

I dont understand how a company could be at fault here (any company). Thats like saying you buy a car that has an unknown defect where the gas pedal will get stuck. You do all the stuff an owner is supposed to do, take it for inspection, maintain the fluid levels, etc... then you get into an accident because the gas pedal got stuck (after it has been cleared by multiple inspections). Would you really agree that the individual should be liable in this case?
 
That's what I said on the previous page, almost :lol:

I can see the point of view that "you know these things are dangerous, and there are safe guards to stop them from being dangerous - why aren't you enforcing those safeguards?"

It makes sense, clean cut like that and on paper. However, in context, it doesn't really follow.

Essentially, what they could be saying is "lap bars are safe, as long as the ride doesn't go over 4mph and never goes higher than 4ft off the ground - you know that high and fast rides kill people".

It shows a lack of understanding of what the practicalities and design aesthetics are. Though I do agree that maybe a seat belt should have been enforced by Six Flags - that's the one place where they could have been culpable. It wouldn't have affected the ride much and is throughput more important than a life?

Lots of people die in car crashes because of snapped necks. Should Ford issue a helmet and neck brace collar (can't remember their actual product name) that race drivers wear, and should they enforce drivers to always wear them? Is the seat belt and air bag not enough? And then are Hertz liable if you're killed driving a Ford that didn't come with a helmet, where the death could have been prevented by the helmet?

I remember arguing with UC about this kind of thing years ago. Essentially, if somebody sues you, you're considered in the wrong and have to prove your case that you're right in the US. In the UK, you are considered innocent until there is enough proof otherwise against you. This is both civil and criminal.

In the US, it's essentially "You trod on my toe, give me $10". "No I didn't". "Yes, you did, prove you didn't, I've got the bloody toe and everything". "But I can't". "$10 then please!"

In the UK, it's "You trod on my toe, give me £10". "No I didn't, prove it was me". "I have a bloody toe". "That could have happened at any time, by any reason". "I suppose it could, but it WAS you". "No it wasn't, tough!"

Erm though obviously not THAT simplistic.

So the way it's worded, Six Flags now have to prove that they were completely satisfied, due to prior experience, that the ride was 100% safe. Yeah, they're shafted and should have demanded more from Gerstlauer - tough luck Six Flags, this is all on you.
 
Well, in regards to criminal matters the burden of proof still relies on the accuser. Look at some of the high profile cases in the last year (Casey Anthony, George Zimmerman).

I would agree, in regards to civil matters, especially when it involves corporations, the burden of proof tends to slide to the accused. That is not how the law is intended, but yeah. :)
 
furie said:
Lots of people die in car crashes because of snapped necks. Should Ford issue a helmet and neck brace collar (can't remember their actual product name) that race drivers wear, and should they enforce drivers to always wear them? Is the seat belt and air bag not enough? And then are Hertz liable if you're killed driving a Ford that didn't come with a helmet, where the death could have been prevented by the helmet?
Click to expand...

HANS (head and neck support device) device :wink:

This is a very confusing and interesting case. I never knew the American justice system was so different.
 
furie said:
Nah, the lawsuit says that (and Joey agreed) it's Six Flags fault because "they've had accidents before" :roll:
Click to expand...
The only logical reason Six Flags have these accidents more than other companies is presumably because they purchase a high number of these kinds of rides that cause these kinds of accidents.

That's a reason alone to either STOP BUYING THEM or heighten H&S.

I agree in light of current information that this is the manufacturers fault, technically. But Six Flags could have done more to prevent it, especially given they've had ... 3? Accidents practically identical to this on their Intamin megas. The manufacturers/parks MUST KNOW that this is an issue to do with the restraints ill-fitting certain unusual body types.

Park's decide on the rider restrictions on their rides. Not the manufacturers. Six Flags should reduce the maximum size of riders on all their airtime machines and/or insist back ups like seatbelts... Problem solved.

To have an airtime machine operating at any Six Flags without seatbelts in light of the (AT LEAST) 4 times this has happened should be seen as insufficient H&S.
 
I actually kind of agree lol

Though things like the Intamin lap bars have thrown lots of people. So they're are also ride faults. Personally, I think ultimate responsibility should be the manufacturer, but yeah, the park should be able to spot possible deaths. Though at what point do you say "well, we don't ever install anything again in case it may kill somebody..."?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk
 
furie said:
It wouldn't have affected the ride much and is throughput more important than a life?
Click to expand...
How many people have been killed by being too fat for a ride? How many people have got pissed off by poor throughput? Yeah, I think that's a fair trade-off. Plus, how many enthusiasts have ever been killed through theme park based stupidity? (Yet we all know we all partake in it!) Yet we'll be the first ones to complain about throughput.

In essence, if the GP can't ride something without getting themselves killed, then (especially if it means I don't have to queue any longer than really necessary!) they deserve what's coming to them
 
Wait so who's fault did they decide it was, or is it not over? I don't understand all this legal stuff, but from reading the article David just posted, the family got a payout or something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top