DC Tom Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Thank you. Seriously? Read his post again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 So they could have refused to let him ride and faced a discrimination lawsuit. Or now, since they let him ride, face a negligence lawsuit for letting a guy with no legs ride a ride requiring leg restraints. And letting a legless guy ride a ride requiring leg restraints is crying for a negligence lawsuit. Not in a million years. I know there are screwy lawyers out there, but this was a no-brainer. You don't let the guy ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Seriously? Read his post again. So who gets his legs now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Not in a million years. I know there are screwy lawyers out there, but this was a no-brainer. You don't let the guy ride. So far the family seems reasonable. They say they won't sue, and that the guy died happy, doing what he loved and wanted to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Not in a million years. I know there are screwy lawyers out there, but this was a no-brainer. You don't let the guy ride. Perhaps you're not entirely familiar with some of the screwy lawsuits that get heard in this country... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guffalo Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 (edited) I think Mead was asking about his prophetic legs. Thank you. I knew he was going to say that Edited July 11, 2011 by Guffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shrader Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Perhaps you're not entirely familiar with some of the screwy lawsuits that get heard in this country... Especially since they currently have lawyers calling them every second of the day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Perhaps you're not entirely familiar with some of the screwy lawsuits that get heard in this country... Must...resist...urge...to...defend...civil justice system...arrrrghhhh. Let's just say frivolous lawsuits are exactly that -- frivolous -- and juries are more conservative now than ever before. If you hear about a big verdict you don't understand, you would be wise to assume there are facts you simply aren't aware of. So far the family seems reasonable. They say they won't sue, and that the guy died happy, doing what he loved and wanted to do. Interesting. Your definition of "reasonable" includes not holding someone accountable for doing something unbelievably stupid (negligent) that contributed to loss of life? Quick law lesson: most states consider something called "comparative negligence" -- meaning both sides could be partially at fault, but whoever a jury decides is "more" wrong is responsible for their portion of the harm caused. In this particular case, you could argue that the rider was "negligent" for getting on a roller coaster in the first place, given his condition -- but the responsibility of the coaster operator to not put passengers at risk was probably "more" negligent. In any event, it would be a "reasonable" question for a jury to decide. I certainly don't feel as though a family should be "congratulated" for saying they won't explore legitimate legal remedies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Must...resist...urge...to...defend...civil justice system...arrrrghhhh. Let's just say frivolous lawsuits are exactly that -- frivolous -- and juries are more conservative now than ever before. If you hear about a big verdict you don't understand, you would be wise to assume there are facts you simply aren't aware of. I usually do, and I usually make myself informed. You forget who you're talking to. Doesn't change the fact that there ARE frivolous lawsuits filed with rather sad frequency. Doubly so when you talk about some of the truly screwy attitudes out there interpreting "discrimination". This isn't "I spilled my coffee on myself, and it's Ronald McDonald's fault" we're talking about...this is "handicapped guy denied right to amusement park ride because he's handicapped." You think that suit can't be filed? You think the mere presence of handicapped-access features at the roller coaster couldn't be used to demonstrate the capriciousness of such a decision on their part if they did? A truly enterprising attorney would cite Title II of the ADA, and argue that it applies since amusement parks are subject to state regulation. A truly enterprising and stupid attorney would cite the transportation requirements of Title II and argue that a roller coaster is in effect "public transportation" - and considering the federal legal definition of such might even get away with it despite the transparent pandering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I certainly don't feel as though a family should be "congratulated" for saying they won't explore legitimate legal remedies. If I stick my head in a bathtub until I drown can I sue Evian? I mean they made the water and they know people drown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 If I stick my head in a bathtub until I drown can I sue Evian? I mean they made the water and they know people drown. I dunno, try it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 Must...resist...urge...to...defend...civil justice system...arrrrghhhh. Let's just say frivolous lawsuits are exactly that -- frivolous -- and juries are more conservative now than ever before. If you hear about a big verdict you don't understand, you would be wise to assume there are facts you simply aren't aware of. Interesting. Your definition of "reasonable" includes not holding someone accountable for doing something unbelievably stupid (negligent) that contributed to loss of life? Quick law lesson: most states consider something called "comparative negligence" -- meaning both sides could be partially at fault, but whoever a jury decides is "more" wrong is responsible for their portion of the harm caused. In this particular case, you could argue that the rider was "negligent" for getting on a roller coaster in the first place, given his condition -- but the responsibility of the coaster operator to not put passengers at risk was probably "more" negligent. In any event, it would be a "reasonable" question for a jury to decide. I certainly don't feel as though a family should be "congratulated" for saying they won't explore legitimate legal remedies. Like a bucket of cash? You talk like a parasite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 11, 2011 Share Posted July 11, 2011 I dunno, try it. It was just a hypochondrial question. I would never do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I think Mead was asking about his prophetic legs. Well that explains a lot- with his prophetic legs in Iraq No wonder he never saw it coming. On a serious note, I do wonder if with the referenced brain damage if he was capable to make a good choice here. A phrase like brain damage can span quite a spectrum tho. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Well that explains a lot- with his prophetic legs in Iraq No wonder he never saw it coming. On a serious note, I do wonder if with the referenced brain damage if he was capable to make a good choice here. A phrase like brain damage can span quite a spectrum tho. Agreed....one puff off a joint when he was 16 to completely disabled from a massive stroke. Both are brain damaged for sure, but it is a matter of degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frit0 Bandit0 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 So far the family seems reasonable. They say they won't sue, and that the guy died happy, doing what he loved and wanted to do. Accelerated free fall without a chute? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 It was just a hypochondrial question. I would never do it. But think of all the cash you could get. Better to do it now before someone else tries it. Then people would just say you're a copycat. Don't forget to sue the local water dept for piping water into your house without giving you any safety training on its use. Maybe even go after the local plumbers union for installing faucets also without providing any training on their use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Poojer Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 (edited) <Trumpets blaring>da da da da da....Here comes the government to the rescue..... But think of all the cash you could get. Better to do it now before someone else tries it. Then people would just say you're a copycat. Don't forget to sue the local water dept for piping water into your house without giving you any safety training on its use. Maybe even go after the local plumbers union for installing faucets also without providing any training on their use. Edited July 12, 2011 by The Poojer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 I think that the federal Government. is to blame for for the whole problem. If he had not been sent to war he would still have his natural legs and would not have fallen out of the ride. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Like a bucket of cash? You talk like a parasite. Unfortunately, sir, in the world of corporate negligence, money is the only thing that motivates companies to change their conduct. It's why you have safer cars, toys, cribs for your infants, etc. Did the guy who died have a family? Think they need to be taken care of? I've never met a person in my life who "wants" to sue for the hell of it. It's a huge pain the a$$, results in an invasion of one's privacy, often takes years, and there is absolutely no guarantee of success. But it's the only way for an individual to gain somewhat equal footing with a corporation, and it's what the country's civil justice system is all about. You sound like a member of the US Chamber of Commerce (which has nothing to do with the United States government, by the way). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts