Lawsuit over injuries on Kingda Ka

Register or Login to Hide This Ad for Free!
"The lawsuit in Camden federal court contends park employees did not warn the 6-foot-2 doctor that a person of his body size “was not a candidate for safely riding (Kingda Ka).”
Click to expand...

He's 74 inches. The max height restriction is 77 inches, which is pointed out later in the article.

"Signs on display during Fabricant’s visit “were in fact rendered inconspicuous” due to “small font size” and other features, the suit says. As a result, it asserts the park “failed to satisfy the requirements for triggering the applicable precondition notice requirement.”
Click to expand...

New Jersey actually has a specific font size recommendation for this and it is state law that all riders must read the entirety of the posted ride's guidelines before riding any ride.

This lawsuit is spurious and will likely get tossed out because the plaintiff did not follow the injury reporting guidelines and there is no definitive way to prove that the ride itself is the reason for his back injury.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Logang, Zachary, Nicole and 3 others
Indeed, hope it is thrown out soon. I thought it was an interesting read regardless and it will be interesting to see if this has any impact on the signage.
 
She only sued for her medical costs and she had horrible burns. McD marketing folks spun the ordeal in an effort to avoid negative press. By all apearences it worked as the urban legend continues to exist and it is still used as an example of abuse of the legal system.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Torts are what stand between you and dying on a roller coaster. The only people tort reform would help are corporations want to spend less money on product safety and avoid the negative impact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Logang, Ziva, Dave / Pink and 6 others
Zimmy said:
She only sued for her medical costs and she had horrible burns. McD marketing folks spun the ordeal in an effort to avoid negative press. By all apearences it worked as the urban legend continues to exist and it is still used as an example of abuse of the legal system.

I have said it before and I will say it again, Torts are what stand between you and dying on a roller coaster. The only people tort reform would help are corporations want to spend less money on product safety and avoid the negative impact.
Click to expand...

While true, there is a thing called 'inherent risk'. Like part of what I learned, if removing the list of a certain risk means that thing can no longer perform the same, then you are unable to sue over it.

The example I've learned: If you got hit by a baseball, you can't sue for being hit by a pitch, because the only way to remove that risk is to not have a ball.

So the only way to remove the risk here, is to eliminate the roller coaster.

(I say this fully understanding that I'm no lawyer and don't know the perfect workings of this, but that's the general idea)
 
  • Dislike
Reactions: Sly4Good
The true, gruesome extents of the hot-coffee lady's injuries had percolated (sorry) to my engineering classes, and were being pointed out, by students, back in the 90s. It has been well known for literally decades that she was perfectly reasonable in filing her suit.

Some urban legends just seem unkillable. Like the idea that Ross Perot somehow cost Bush Sr. the 1992 election. But that's an idiotic fallacy for some other thread.

Kingda Ka honestly runs like shit. But not due to “extreme speed and torqueing forces.” Maybe this guy is one of those pencil-neck geeks Fred Blassie was always whining about.
 
Back on target. I've not made it to sfga, I assume there is a demo seat out front, right?

So, like, if one was concerned they were too tall for the ride; wouldn't they check it out?

I'm also 6'2 but I'm well aware my torso is of a longer proportion than my legs. When seated next to a 6'6 friend of mine our heads are level. On most planes, my head sets above the headrest and it's hard to comfortably lean back.

I'm well aware of these things, and so if I had concerns about a coaster's headrest I'd be checking it out before riding...
 
warfelg said:
While true, there is a thing called 'inherent risk'. Like part of what I learned, if removing the list of a certain risk means that thing can no longer perform the same, then you are unable to sue over it.

The example I've learned: If you got hit by a baseball, you can't sue for being hit by a pitch, because the only way to remove that risk is to not have a ball.

So the only way to remove the risk here, is to eliminate the roller coaster.

(I say this fully understanding that I'm no lawyer and don't know the perfect workings of this, but that's the general idea)
Click to expand...
We actually discussed this class in my Business law course. The issue was corporate wide negligence. The coffee makers were set way above the temp required to brew the drink, as a result they were being served at temperatures significantly beyond what any "reasonable person" (legal term in this case) could in fact expect. It was not that she did not expect hot coffee or that she wanted huge sums of money, she only wanted for Mc D who was, lets remember negligent to assist her in a reasonable way.

This brings me back to the theme parks. The notion of "buyer beware," is a bit of a libertarian fever dream. The fact is corporations are NOT always responsible actors. Sometimes they post info that is not true. Perhaps their testing suggested that a average person of 77" would be safe but that could just be average. It assumes certain things like torso length in proportion to leg length. It does not say that a rider needs to know that if they have a long torso they may be in danger. It could in fact be that the testing was not sufficient are that the data are flawed.

Regardless it is irresponsible in the extreme for people in the press and public who do not have access to all the private data and hearings to say, "well it said 77" and he should have known better."

Bull shit. It is entirely reasonable to suppose that the company decided that the actual risk of someone approaching 77" was minimal and saying anything less could scare people off. I do not know that is the case, just that it is a possibility along with 100s of other issues. It could also be that the good doctor is an ass hat. But We can not know these things. You know what will possibly hear them out. A deeper investigation the kind that is brought about when money is on the line.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole
Zimmy said:
We actually discussed this class in my Business law course. The issue was corporate wide neglegence. The coffee makers were set way above the temp requried to brew the drink, as a result they were being served at temperatures significanly beyond what any "reasonable person" (legal term in this case) could in fact expect. It was not that she did not expect hot coffee or that she wanted huge sums of money, she only wanted for Mc D who was, lets remember negligent to assist her in a reasonable way.
Click to expand...

Sorry wasn’t clear. Talking more this case, more the Kinda Ka case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nicole and Zimmy
That thing can cause concussion due to the extreme vibration rattling the brain. If he didn't mention vibration being a factor, I have doubts.
 
Yeah, the outrage over that coffee burn suit is dumb. McDonalds made coffee at insanely high temperatures back then. It was ridiculous. You couldn't drink it like that. They got sued when somebody got, surprise, surprise, severe burns as a result of it and, guess what? They stopped making coffee at insane temperatures ever since. If you've ever bought coffee at McDonalds since then, you benefited from that suit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zachary
180° is actually a low brewing temp. If you have a brewer at home it should be brewing between 190°-205°
 
The science of coffee brewing is actually really interesting.

Basically the combination of temp plus exposure time controls what flavor compounds are extracted from the grounds. This is the reason why there are so many methods to brewing coffee (drip, pour over, press pot, espresso, cold brew to name a few)
 
Jahrules said:
The science of coffee brewing is actually really interesting.

Basically the combination of temp plus exposure time controls what flavor compounds are extracted from the grounds. This is the reason why there are so many methods to brewing coffee (drip, pour over, press pot, espresso, cold brew to name a few)
Click to expand...
I'm just talking your standard pot brewer. T yes what you are saying is correct generally though they all brew in a similar temp range (except for cold brew of course)
 
Of course, it all comes down to personal taste, but if I'm making an espresso or ristretto, I prefer the water on the hotter side of the range in contrast to the shorter exposure time.

It also varies on the beans themselves.

I've found some espressos to be nearly unpalatable brewed at 205 but lovely at 200.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BGWnut
You must log in or register to reply here.
Consider Donating to Hide This Ad