A 17-year-old boy was decapitated by a roller coaster at Six Flags Over Georgia. It is only the latest mishap on such rides and the matter is being investigated to determine why the teen (with a friend) scaled two six-foot fences to gain access to the off-limits areas.
The teen was from Columbia, S.C. — part of a group from Oakey Spring Baptist Church near Springfield, S.C. He jumped the fences around the Batman roller coaster.
In terms of liability, it seems a pretty good case of assumption of the risk and should not be a serious threat for liability unless the family could show that better security is needed or that more could have been done to bar access to the most dangerous areas.
In 2002, a 58-year-old groundskeeper named Samuel Milton Guyton was killed in a restricted area under the Batman roller coaster. He was also struck in the head — by a passenger’s dangling leg. Five years later, in June 2007, the Superman ride cut off the legs of a teenage at Six Flags Kentucky Kingdom in Louisville, Ky.
For the full story, click here.
15 thoughts on “Teen Decapitated in Latest Accident at a Six Flags”
With your arguments, it appears you would fight for the lady who spilled that cup of coffee on herself from McDonald’s however many years ago. Really. You think it was right for McDonald’s to give her all that money, just because she burnt herself on something WE ALL KNOW IS STEAMING HOT?
This old woman had 11 surgeries from a McDonalds that had already been cited twice for coffee that was too hot.
She originally just wanted hospital costs, but McDonald’s wanted lawyers to fight it out…and we all know what happens then…
Also the amount of money is always brought up, but the reason there is a large penalty, is to get the situation fixed, which if they had a $20 fine they would just ignore.
Mespo, Mespo, Mespo…
It appears you are a lawyer. That’s just great. You know all those laws and things that make you smarter than most people. That’s quite a gift, you know.
I know, this is an incredibly long time after the fact to be making a reply, but I just couldn’t resist (and after reading some of your comments, I can see why people were done talking to you).
See, it’s not nice to make people look like idiots, even if you think you’re right. It’s rude and obnoxious, just as all lawyers act. It’s a sad thing..
With your arguements, it appeas you would fight for the lady who spilled that cup of coffee on herself from McDonald’s however many years ago. Really. You think it was right for McDonald’s to give her all that money, just because she burnt herself on something WE ALL KNOW IS STEAMING HOT?
The Superman incident was extremely unfortunate, no doubt, and that girl deserved every penny paid to her, possibly even more. But this kid had it coming to him. This is grade-A Darwin Award material right here. I think they should make an exception to their “no minors” rule, just for him. This was an act of idiocy at its finest.
In the minimal chance that you might read this, I leave you with some advice. Take your head out of your ass, and start looking at what’s fair, and what’s just, not just what’s in your playbook. You know, it’s entertaining how you think your logic is much superior to others. Yet you don’t even see how incredibly flimsy your case is. Ironic, no?
Anon A. Polk:
“It seems like the area was restricted for a reason. I’m sure Six Flags has signs saying, “Hey, this is a dangerous area, don’t play here,” in bold, red letters.”
I’m not so sure the signs were there or if they were an adequate warning. That’s the reason for a trial. There are lots of fact patterns that could allow for liability in this case. For example, if the fences were inadequate for the foreseeable risk, or if they had been breached before without any repair. If the teen suffered from some diminished capacity and could not fully comprehend or appreciate the risk, liability could attach if they were aware of his presence and did nothing to guard against it. Also, if there was a tacit invitation to go into that area, in spite of the signs, liability might be present. We once had a client injured severely on a roller coaster when he placed his hands above his head on the down turn and struck a workman’s scaffold. A sign clearly said to keep all arms within the roller coaster car, but we proved that in every advertisement (including promotional posters at the park) roller coaster riders were depicted raising their arms,and hence were encouraged to do exactly what my client did, thus creating a tacit invitation in contravention of the warning. The case was settled favorably to the client. So as you see things are not always that simple.
Forgot to add the fact that most parks usually use wooden fences without footholds to avoid the effects of more than a couple stupid people jumping over them.
It seems like the area was restricted for a reason. I’m sure Six Flags has signs saying, “Hey, this is a dangerous area, don’t play here,” in bold, red letters. It is pretty unreasonable that Six Flags would come under any fire since they have warned people in the past as well as having permanent barriers/notifications indicating that an area is dangerous/restricted. I’m only assuming that they have those signs though.
Is a 17 year old in an amusement park an ‘Anticipated/Foreseeable Child Trespasser?’
This is how bad I am on this toic.
“and also think that the law of premises liability is “fairly common knowledge” especially as applied to a minor”
I still can’t remember the different categories!
Oh, well that clears it up. Good for you, clever boy.
If you are willing to accept the newspaper account as factual and complete, and also think that the law of premises liability is “fairly common knowledge” especially as applied to a minor and in view of the Park’s prior knowledge of the dangerous propensities of this ride from the 2002 incident, I think you may want to join with martha h in the peanut gallery cheering on the adults.
As for her education, martha h was kind enough to disparage the public school system in a prior post, and of course her elitism and political beliefs are well established here–especially in the bio page where she has eloquently called for our removal from the Country, suggested a home;and for liberals in the North East (obviously not her region) and described us all as the “sorriest Americans she knows” because we won’t kiss the ring of George W. Bush. All in all the kind of person one can easily rationalize with without resort to name calling. But it is so much fun. Sorry for the self-indulgence.
In defense of martha, the facts (sufficient for comment) are stated in the blurb above and the linked article. The state of the law (sufficient for comment) is fairly common knowledge. Martha’s comments, I think, are spot on; at worst, a cynical assessment based on reasonable perceptions. Certainly not worth your snide assumptions about where she’s from, how she was educated, and her political inclinations. What’s up?
Does anyone have that list of different theories of land owner liability torts?
For the bar, I remember I had an easier time memorizing the 36 or so exceptions to the hearsay rule than the elements of those 10-15 different trespass to land torts.
Thank you Judge martha h. We certainly appreciate your ruling without the slightest knowledge of the facts or the law. Your intimate knowledge of the motivations of the bar are equally enlightening as is the breadth of your economic analysis which like most of your opinion finds no basis in fact.
However by all means please carry on, I am intrgued to learn the habits and reactions of the native born, private school educated, conservative, much like Margaret Meade, I find primitive cultures fascinating.
Let out that anger. It will set you free.
“it seems a pretty good case of assumption of the risk and should not be a serious threat for liability unless the family could show that better security is needed”
no doubt an ambulance chaser will attempt to prove the fences should have been 30 feet high with guards positioned every 25 feet. then he will produce an “expert” that will remind the jury that six flags was told someone could sneak on the facility and get hurt 27 years ago, then the jury, each of whom would want any other jury to award them millions of it was their case, will stick it to six flags.
fast forward 3 years to the jury bringing their kids to six flags and complaining how much it costs to get in and how expensive the rides are……….
Comments are closed.