One of those things you have to pass around. READ

[2ndgenz28]

One of those things you have to pass around. READ

No amputees allowed???

PostAuthor: Streetmedik » 03 Aug 2011 01:55 pm
Please read the enclosed link.. ESPECIALLY the part about "King's Island Boomerang Bay Waterpark". http://www.caringbridge.org/visit/trumanhedrick

Can you imagine how Truman felt after this? By the way, Truman is my nephew.
Hard to imagine! Contrast that with their experience later at Tulsa's "Big Splash Waterpark".

Original post link
http://viragotechforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=39&t=28106

[brandotron]

Unfortunate situation, but with my lack of water slide knowledge, I'd have to defer to the manager's judgement.

[Steve Dallas]

As much as I think it would be great that he could ride the rides, I feel that the business also has the right to exclude him from the rides if want.

An amputee died recently on a roller coaster, and though the reasons may not yet be known, I've read it may have been because he could be securely fastened. Because he did ride and die, the park will probably have to pay the family. So, there can be good reason for not letting some people ride rides.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...r-veteran.html

[Stingr69]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

As much as I think it would be great that he could ride the rides, I feel that the business also has the right to exclude him from the rides if want.

An amputee died recently on a roller coaster, and though the reasons may not yet be known, I've read it may have been because he could be securely fastened. Because he did ride and die, the park will probably have to pay the family. So, there can be good reason for not letting some people ride rides.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2...r-veteran.html

+1

Common sense is being pushed aside as fear of litigation causes paralysis of thought. There IS a reason we don't give licenses to blind cab drivers.

-Mark.

[stryder09]

Safety is safety. While it would have been most excellent for him to be able to ride, it was or has been deemed unsafe by the people in charge. Similar to height requirements...I cannot and will not fault them for that.

[Steve Dallas]

Let me add this...and I will try to keep this as non-political as possible.

I believe that a business should also be able to tell someone "ride at your own risk" if they were able to sign a document as such. The problem with that is that I believe a lot of state/federal laws pretty much prevent this kind of thing from happening because the property owner can still be found liable in many cases, regardless of whether a contract otherwise was in place.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong on this.

Personally, I would like a society that would allow someone to take their own risks, and if something happens...it's on them....not the property owner.

[Stingr69]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

Let me add this...and I will try to keep this as non-political as possible.

I believe that a business should also be able to tell someone "ride at your own risk" if they were able to sign a document as such. The problem with that is that I believe a lot of state/federal laws pretty much prevent this kind of thing from happening because the property owner can still be found liable in many cases, regardless of whether a contract otherwise was in place.

I'm not a lawyer, so I could be wrong on this.

Personally, I would like a society that would allow someone to take their own risks, and if something happens...it's on them....not the property owner.

Not a lawyer here either but my take is that the statements such as "use at your own risk" are just there to discourage the common man from considering legal action. It would not stand in the way of an attourney who wanted to go after the money. It might be usefull to make an average person think there was no recourse so in that respect, it does work. JMO.

-Mark.

[TOMS1SS]

Can someone summarize this for me? I got tried of reading the run-on paragraphs on the link site.

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

Can someone summarize this for me? I got tried of reading the run-on paragraphs on the link site.

Amputee's mom mad because a private business told her daughter she couldn't ride the rides.

[TOMS1SS]

Originally Posted by Steve Dallas

Amputee's mom mad because a private business told her daughter she could ride the rides.

Could? For some reason the image of an amputee rolling the go-kart track just popped into my head.

[Steve Dallas]

Originally Posted by TOMS1SS

Could? For some reason the image of an amputee rolling the go-kart track just popped into my head.

Meant couldn't. Typo. Woops!

[Cristoff]

While I understand the reasoning behind not letting the amputee ride, I think the manager and staff could have been a ton more compassionate - that is IF the story is unembellished. we really only have the one side of the story, and that is from an irate mother.

The park SHOULD have refunded the money and at least tried to make the situation less awkward for an 11 year old child. There were simply more humanistic ways to deal with the situation.