Boy Killed on Kansas Water Slide

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Absolutely heartbreaking. And to think the boy's brother witnessed it. Pray this never happens to anyone else.

Obviously this is awful for the family, but after reading that article, I also feel really badly for the other two women in the raft. I can't imagine how you get past witnessingthat. I'm not going to quote the part of the story about it for the squeamish in this thread, but that's got to be nightmare-inducing for a long, long time.

I would be sue to cover the therapy bill! I was deeply disturb after witness a child getting hit by a car that hit black ice. I can't even begin to comprehend that level of PTSD!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I might have missed this earlier, my apologies in advance. How is the testing/inspection done in this area different than what is done in Kansas? Do we have state agencies doing the inspections and they do not? Or are there no requirements for daily inspections by park staff, etc?

I saw a news show in the last year or two at Six Flags that said park staff walk the tracks, run the rides w/o people, and then w/ park workers every morning before they open. Just trying to follow how this is different than what is done (or not done in Kansas).

All parks do daily inspections like at Six Flags. Even the ones in Kansas. In MD, someone from the state inspects on an annual basis. In VA, someone certified by the state inspects before operation. DC has no amusement parks. PA requires monthly inspection by a qualified inspector.

Everyday a state worker inspects every ride? Or do you mean once before the ride is first put into use?

In VA, someone certified by the state inspects before operation. Does not have to be employed by the state. Most likely the parks have someone on staff who has taken the certification exam, who oversees daily inspections.

Ahhh. Thank you!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The money doesn't matter. I lost my youngest son in a fatal accident where damages were awarded to us. That money is blood money and Ive never spent a dime (other than paying our lawyer). I throw away the statement every month before even opening the envelope. Its an amount that could significantly change our lifestyle and I have no interest in a penny of it. What I want is my child. What these parents want isn't money. It annoys me that pages upon pages keep bringing up how much money they should be able to get, will be able to get, etc etc. I would spend the rest of my life working min wage jobs in the worst conditions imaginable if it meant all my children were living.

I'm sorry, PP. I totally understand this. Discussing the money for me is more like "how can the people responsible for this suffer for their irresponsibility" than assuming the parents want a payout. I know they don't. I'm very sorry for your loss.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on earth can netting cause decapitation? I understand the raft was traveling at high speeds, but this is just insane to me.

There was at least one gap on the slide that did not have netting - this gap appears to be there as part of the design, not because the net got torn or anything. If a person launched up from the raft at that gap and their neck collided with the edge of that netting structure --- ^ ---- at 65 or so mph they would be badly injured.

Someone isn't going to randomly launch upwards. They're only going to launch upwards at the point where they have upward momentum, and the raft starts to turn down, which is at the top of the second hill.

See 13:34. There are water jets that launched the raft up the second hill and caused it to go airborne before it crested the hill.

My point is that the gaps, at the bottom of the first hill, are not at a point where the raft would go airborne.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who looked up the bill and unless I am totally reading wrong, the cap DOES include punitive damages.

Agree. I think "non-economic" is just another word for punitive.

I can't find where I originally saw it clearly spelled out but unless I am totally mistaken, and I don't think I am, there is no cap on economic damages (I.e if you can prove you suffered $1 million in economic damages you can get that) but for non- economic damages, including medical malpractice and WRONGFUL DEATH, the cap is right now, since 2014, $300k period, full stop.

I don't think so.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who looked up the bill and unless I am totally reading wrong, the cap DOES include punitive damages.

Agree. I think "non-economic" is just another word for punitive.

I can't find where I originally saw it clearly spelled out but unless I am totally mistaken, and I don't think I am, there is no cap on economic damages (I.e if you can prove you suffered $1 million in economic damages you can get that) but for non- economic damages, including medical malpractice and WRONGFUL DEATH, the cap is right now, since 2014, $300k period, full stop.

I don't think so.

Please show me where in your reading of the statute this isn't correct. I'm happy to admit I'm wrong if I am.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on earth can netting cause decapitation? I understand the raft was traveling at high speeds, but this is just insane to me.

There was at least one gap on the slide that did not have netting - this gap appears to be there as part of the design, not because the net got torn or anything. If a person launched up from the raft at that gap and their neck collided with the edge of that netting structure --- ^ ---- at 65 or so mph they would be badly injured.

Someone isn't going to randomly launch upwards. They're only going to launch upwards at the point where they have upward momentum, and the raft starts to turn down, which is at the top of the second hill.

See 13:34. There are water jets that launched the raft up the second hill and caused it to go airborne before it crested the hill.

My point is that the gaps, at the bottom of the first hill, are not at a point where the raft would go airborne.

And as it turns out a rider didn't need to hit the edge of the net to cause catastrophic injury. Any of the net support poles could have done this wherever the ride had the potential to lift up like that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The money doesn't matter. I lost my youngest son in a fatal accident where damages were awarded to us. That money is blood money and Ive never spent a dime (other than paying our lawyer). I throw away the statement every month before even opening the envelope. Its an amount that could significantly change our lifestyle and I have no interest in a penny of it. What I want is my child. What these parents want isn't money. It annoys me that pages upon pages keep bringing up how much money they should be able to get, will be able to get, etc etc. I would spend the rest of my life working min wage jobs in the worst conditions imaginable if it meant all my children were living.

I'm sorry, PP. I totally understand this. Discussing the money for me is more like "how can the people responsible for this suffer for their irresponsibility" than assuming the parents want a payout. I know they don't. I'm very sorry for your loss.

Once you recover you can use the money for some good in the world, PP. please try to find something and some purpose.
Perhaps enhancing the lives of children. Perhaps some other children who are in need of attention might bring you some joy.
Wouldn't it bother you if there are children whose are still here but who are suffering? Maybe you could use some of your $$ to help.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I might have missed this earlier, my apologies in advance. How is the testing/inspection done in this area different than what is done in Kansas? Do we have state agencies doing the inspections and they do not? Or are there no requirements for daily inspections by park staff, etc?

I saw a news show in the last year or two at Six Flags that said park staff walk the tracks, run the rides w/o people, and then w/ park workers every morning before they open. Just trying to follow how this is different than what is done (or not done in Kansas).

All parks do daily inspections like at Six Flags. Even the ones in Kansas. In MD, someone from the state inspects on an annual basis. In VA, someone certified by the state inspects before operation. DC has no amusement parks. PA requires monthly inspection by a qualified inspector.

Everyday a state worker inspects every ride? Or do you mean once before the ride is first put into use?

In VA, someone certified by the state inspects before operation. Does not have to be employed by the state. Most likely the parks have someone on staff who has taken the certification exam, who oversees daily inspections.

Ahhh. Thank you!

In Kansas they inspect for very little .

There's a big aerospace industry there - I wonder if any of them take their kids to the water park designed by random rich geniuses.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Pp who looked up the bill and unless I am totally reading wrong, the cap DOES include punitive damages.

Agree. I think "non-economic" is just another word for punitive.

I can't find where I originally saw it clearly spelled out but unless I am totally mistaken, and I don't think I am, there is no cap on economic damages (I.e if you can prove you suffered $1 million in economic damages you can get that) but for non- economic damages, including medical malpractice and WRONGFUL DEATH, the cap is right now, since 2014, $300k period, full stop.

Right. If my 35 yo DH dies as a result of a company's negligence, my family loses $300k/year for the next 30 years. But with a kid that's hard. What a weird law.

Don't worry, there are a million other avenues and people and manufacturers to sue. It's not just 'suing the water park'.

And Schitterbahn hasn't 'lawyered up'. I guarantee you that they employ a staff of experienced lawyers 24/7 .

[Anonymous]

Making a water ride that has riders go 60 miles an hour is absurd. We need to ban these types of rides.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The money doesn't matter. I lost my youngest son in a fatal accident where damages were awarded to us. That money is blood money and Ive never spent a dime (other than paying our lawyer). I throw away the statement every month before even opening the envelope. Its an amount that could significantly change our lifestyle and I have no interest in a penny of it. What I want is my child. What these parents want isn't money. It annoys me that pages upon pages keep bringing up how much money they should be able to get, will be able to get, etc etc. I would spend the rest of my life working min wage jobs in the worst conditions imaginable if it meant all my children were living.

God bless. I don't know what else to say.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on earth can netting cause decapitation? I understand the raft was traveling at high speeds, but this is just insane to me.

There was at least one gap on the slide that did not have netting - this gap appears to be there as part of the design, not because the net got torn or anything. If a person launched up from the raft at that gap and their neck collided with the edge of that netting structure --- ^ ---- at 65 or so mph they would be badly injured.

You aren't going to launch at that gap. It's on the downslope. You are pushed into the back of the seat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't understand why these talented designers did not hire real engineers to double check the design of this ride.

The injury to this boy was horrific and that netting that they used may have prevented the raft from going airborne and being launched off the tube entirely. But did they not account for what would happen to a person on that ride if they were launched into that netting? It appears that there are even designed gaps at points along the netting. If someone slammed into the edge of the netting at one of those gaps they would sustain an horrific injury - whether they themselves went airborne off the raft or the raft was launched upwards into that area.

I'm wondering now how many near misses there were before this happened to Caleb.

I would think that without the netting, he would have been launched off the ride entirely, and died a horrific death when he slammed into the pavement instead.

That is not the point as I see it. They knew there was a danger of people or rafts flying off and instead of fixing it completely they added netting with apparently little thought about what would happen if a person hit the netting going 70 mph.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:How on earth can netting cause decapitation? I understand the raft was traveling at high speeds, but this is just insane to me.

There was at least one gap on the slide that did not have netting - this gap appears to be there as part of the design, not because the net got torn or anything. If a person launched up from the raft at that gap and their neck collided with the edge of that netting structure --- ^ ---- at 65 or so mph they would be badly injured.

You aren't going to launch at that gap. It's on the downslope. You are pushed into the back of the seat.

It doesn't matter where you launched on that ride. As it turns out, if you launched and hit that net you were going to be badly hurt and quite likely killed.

I think this was less of an IF and more of a WHEN. Which, if true, is completely unacceptable.