STORM2K

Boy climbed into restricted area and was struck by the Batman roller coaster.

http://www.wsbtv.com/news/16736653/detail.html

How was it "preventable" if he was in a restricted area? It was his own fault surely.

Six Flags is still liable. Six Flags has a duty of care to insure no one is in the danger area...MGC

MGC wrote:Six Flags is still liable. Six Flags has a duty of care to insure no one is in the danger area...MGC

I guess his parents aren't liable at all. Right?

Cryomaniac wrote:How was it "preventable" if he was in a restricted area? It was his own fault surely.

That's what I mean by preventable. Stupidity wins out I guess.

I don't fault the park at all. Where were his parents? The news said there were 2 other people with him and he grabbed someone who was riding on the coaster's foot before he was hit.

Wow, I hope no kids on or around the ride had to see that happen, probably were though. Horrible. Thoughts and prayers to the family.

MGC wrote:Six Flags is still liable. Six Flags has a duty of care to insure no one is in the danger area...MGC

There were apparently (according to CNN's story on this) "multiple warning signs". I think that absolves Six Flags of an liability.

Yeah the story is sad, and my thoughts go out to his family, but I don't think the amusement park are in any way liable, and I would hope, were it to come to it, that a judge would agree with me.

Cryomaniac wrote:

MGC wrote:Six Flags is still liable. Six Flags has a duty of care to insure no one is in the danger area...MGC

There were apparently (according to CNN's story on this) "multiple warning signs". I think that absolves Six Flags of an liability.

Yeah the story is sad, and my thoughts go out to his family, but I don't think the amusement park are in any way liable, and I would hope, were it to come to it, that a judge would agree with me.

I agree. According to CNN the "kid" was also 17. A normal 17 year old has enough sense to know it's not a smart idea to jump a fence with "Danger zone" marked on it.

is it possible the teen was mentally deficient, sad story this is a classic case of read the signs because that means danger in this case

The Kid's parents were there, but he was with a church group from South Carolina. And if he were trying to get this amazing hat that apparently blew off his head on the ride, SixFlags clearly tells you before the ride that if you lose something you can wait untill they close to get it. Which makes me think that the two witnesses used that to make him seem less stupid, or so that they wouldn't get into as much trouble for trying to grab people's feet. It's really sad that teenagers, or this generation period, are so Stupid. probably because most of their parents were born in the 60s, which was when our grandparents were busy getting high, taking LSD trips and makin love children.
but anyways, my real point is that SixFlags isnt going to get sued. And I'd be pretty embarrassed if my kid were that damn stupid. I wouldn't even try to defend him.
Does anyone else think that there was a dumb bet made? and that maybe he was pressured into it by these two witnesses?
It was a church group. they do some pretty crazy poop on those kind of trips.

This is not the first time the Batman roller coaster has killed someone. Am employee was killed in 2002. In another incident a young girl had both legs severed on a different ride. Very unfortunate.

I've read this tragic story several times, online and in my morning paper now. A rash decision made by a teenager resulted in a tragedy. His own death. And all for a hat. Brent, you are correct - this amusement park accident could have been prevented. But the park cannot post guards near these fences either. This young man's family do not have grounds to sue the park (if that's a possibility), IMO. This boy acted in a split second decision, with tragic results, resulting in his fatality. Security fences meant to keep out non-personnel are there for a reason.

Such a sad, sad story all around. And horrific at how it played out (decapitation).

There really isn't anywhere to put blame here, it's just - sad - period.

Just my 2 cents.....
Mary

AbbeyStrudel wrote:The Kid's parents were there, but he was with a church group from South Carolina. And if he were trying to get this amazing hat that apparently blew off his head on the ride, SixFlags clearly tells you before the ride that if you lose something you can wait untill they close to get it. Which makes me think that the two witnesses used that to make him seem less stupid, or so that they wouldn't get into as much trouble for trying to grab people's feet. It's really sad that teenagers, or this generation period, are so Stupid. probably because most of their parents were born in the 60s, which was when our grandparents were busy getting high, taking LSD trips and makin love children.
but anyways, my real point is that SixFlags isnt going to get sued. And I'd be pretty embarrassed if my kid were that damn stupid. I wouldn't even try to defend him.
Does anyone else think that there was a dumb bet made? and that maybe he was pressured into it by these two witnesses?
It was a church group. they do some pretty crazy poop on those kind of trips.

Way too many generalizations about way too many different groups of people!!!! It was a tragedy and we will never know for sure what happened. Pray for his family and his friends during this very difficult time and take the generalizations and unfounded accusations elsewhere please.

Miss Mary wrote:I've read this tragic story several times, online and in my morning paper now. A rash decision made by a teenager resulted in a tragedy. His own death. And all for a hat. Brent, you are correct - this amusement park accident could have been prevented. But the park cannot post guards near these fences either. This young man's family do not have grounds to sue the park (if that's a possibility), IMO. This boy acted in a split second decision, with tragic results, resulting in his fatality. Security fences meant to keep out non-personnel are there for a reason.

Such a sad, sad story all around. And horrific at how it played out (decapitation).

There really isn't anywhere to put blame here, it's just - sad - period.

Just my 2 cents.....
Mary

I share the same feelings about the whole situation. My prayers go out to that young man and his family.

I can't EVEN IMAGINE what the passengers must've seen/felt like after the accident.

AbbeyStrudel wrote:The Kid's parents were there, but he was with a church group from South Carolina. And if he were trying to get this amazing hat that apparently blew off his head on the ride, SixFlags clearly tells you before the ride that if you lose something you can wait untill they close to get it. Which makes me think that the two witnesses used that to make him seem less stupid, or so that they wouldn't get into as much trouble for trying to grab people's feet. It's really sad that teenagers, or this generation period, are so Stupid. probably because most of their parents were born in the 60s, which was when our grandparents were busy getting high, taking LSD trips and makin love children.
but anyways, my real point is that SixFlags isnt going to get sued. And I'd be pretty embarrassed if my kid were that damn stupid. I wouldn't even try to defend him.
Does anyone else think that there was a dumb bet made? and that maybe he was pressured into it by these two witnesses?
It was a church group. they do some pretty crazy poop on those kind of trips.

I'm a 17 year old who just yesterday was at Busch Gardens. There are plenty of signs around there, and I certainly would not jump out where I am NOT supposed to be. He could of simply asked the staff to retrieve it for him, and followed the instructions given. Not all of us "teenagers" are stupid. I just graduated High School in the 70's out of a Class of 290.

Every generation has fearless, invincible teenagers. My generation did. I have two brothers, 13 months apart in age (my poor mother!).....anyway, one obeyed my parents and towed the line. We say he would have made an excellent priest. Anyway, my other brother is lucky to be alive. He was just wild! He's 61 now and still living. I don't even think I know half of all he pulled when younger and as recently as probably his 40s (he has a Harley, if that tells you anything, goes on rallies all over the country).

What I am saying is this - there's a percentage of teenagers and college students (think hazing) that believes nothing harmful will happen to them. This boy probably thought he'd pick up the hat and climb back over the fence, going on the next ride.

I'm not excusing his behavior but saying it's unfair to label this current generation as careless. Mine was too! I had an old boyfriend who intentionally drove 90 MPH on dirt, country roads just because there wasn't a mile limit sign posted. It's a wonder he never got into a serious accident. Yes I married him (the jerk). But wised up....he became my ex, thank goodness.

Back to the story at hand - my thoughts and prayers certainly go out to this young man's family and friends.

Who was supervising these kids? Surely they deserve to be held accountable as well.

Category 5 wrote:Who was supervising these kids? Surely they deserve to be held accountable as well.

Not so sure about that. There were almost certainly more teens than supervisors, and one would expect a teenager to be old enough to exercise better judgement.

Ed Mahmoud wrote:

Category 5 wrote:Who was supervising these kids? Surely they deserve to be held accountable as well.

Not so sure about that. There were almost certainly more teens than supervisors, and one would expect a teenager to be old enough to exercise better judgement.

That may be true but the church should have some responsibility as the child was left in their care.

Category 5 wrote:

Ed Mahmoud wrote:

Category 5 wrote:Who was supervising these kids? Surely they deserve to be held accountable as well.

Not so sure about that. There were almost certainly more teens than supervisors, and one would expect a teenager to be old enough to exercise better judgement.

That may be true but the church should have some responsibility as the child was left in their care.

To a degree, but the 'child' in question was 17.