iChase

I would love to have HB back but Italian Chef, as you said, it would be very illogical. I really do think renewing is the very best decision. A decade from now we might have a different situation.

I think you have a very good point here stewwill. The park takes a huge risk with every ride they install. The more rides, the more variables and more possibilities for injuries. True, injuries need to be taken into account. If someone fell and bruised something, too bad for them. No lawsuit needed. If someone got their feet severed at the ankles then there's a problem with a lawsuit almost guaranteed. I think you're probably the most correct on the prevention of the cable whiplashing. With any device that uses cables there's always a chance of the cable breaking. Something should have been in place to stop that cable from whiplashing. That's where the manufacturer takes the fault. Where or if KK takes any blame is unknown. Really, we should probably stay out of it. The facts are known by the parties involved, all we can really do is speculate and wish her and her family well. BTW: stewwill, I'm in your area right now. I'm vacationing on Hilton Head.

That is really sad. I can't imagine if it were us in Geauga's fans' position. It would be pretty unfathomable if KI turned into an exclusive water park.

I now see what you're saying. Yes I think the parents may be out to prove a point, but then again, I probably would want to too. That's exactly how I feel. I don't think they need a profit but enough to keep their old way of life and to not feel any stress from dealing with paying for all the costs associated her new disability.

It is very sad. But since they did not do that, then it's fully in the family's rights to sue. I highly doubt they can comfortably, if at all, pay for the extensive hospital bills.

The right or "fair" thing to do on the park's part is to offer to pay for all damages incurred. That's good PR, that's showing that you actually care.

I would completely support her suing for those reasons, if she was indeed suing for those reasons. If it's just another reason to get money then I don't support it. That's more of what I was talking about. Like I said, sue for necessity.

It was an accident but if I were her parents I would be darned if I was going to pay for those hospital bills. The park has the money and the park holds more responsibility in this case. I'm saying sue for the hospital bills, don't sue for any of that mental damage crap. Get the money that's necessary, not frivolous money. They're shouldn't sue for profit but for their inconveniences. So why do amusement parks exist? Why do they purchase insurance? They exist for us to go enjoy ourselves on their rides with the expectation that their rides will not maim us. They have insurance in case of this kind of accident. It shows that they're taking the liability. That insurance is there to provide the money needed to the injured parties.

Disney even had a child die on a ride. Was it deemed their fault, no it wasn't. Come to find out the child had a heart condition that the family never knew of. And yes, I do understand the 2 are totally different, but if you put yourself in harms way, you can't expect to sue. I just feel if you put yourself in front of a semi and the semi runs you down the semi is not responsible. Samething here, you sit in that sit and you waive all rights to any lawsuits above medical needs, comfort needs. An accident on a ride should never make you a millionaire. And no I am not saying it may not take a million for kaitlyns bills, and needs, KK should help out with that and not think anything of it and anything else she needs to live a comfortable life, but should not make her a millionaire over that cost. The child's situation couldn't be helped. They were unaware of the issue and Disney was just running the ride as they always do. There's no reason to sue. The semi issue is a common sense thing though. That's an accident on the trucker's fault, the moron jumped out in front of the semi. When we get on a ride we expect not to die. Sure there's always a chance but that chance is extremely slim. In RE to Interp: It very well may be a manufacturer's issue. KK most likely did everything right. And as you said, it was a prototype.

Absolutely not. For the record, I was just playing devil's advocate. The park is completely at fault for the accident. People go to amusement parks trusting that they will leave in the same condition as which they entered. If we didn't get on these rides then there would be no reason for an amusement park. The park exists to amuse and to do so safely. The park holds more responsibility here.

I can understand what you were saying. But speaking from more of a legal point of view they didn't sign a waiver to release the park and did the park do all that it could do to prevent the accident?

All I did was a quick Google, there's several articles talking about it.

I think you read this wrong. No one under 18 can operate rides, not ride them. AP Article

June 4th 2007. I got interested in KI again and decided on becoming a member. In fact, I think the thread that made me the most interested and enticed me to join was the "Is KI Haunted" thread.

Probably a hyperbole to make the point of how important it is not to distract the operators. As morbid as it is I found it pretty funny. ...I'm awful.

The Racer Backwards, yes I was a daring little kid. And my first amusement park was, big surprise, Kings Island!

I don't know about that, it sounds suspicious...and remember this is coming from a former admissions employee. But, I don't know for sure. If there is a reason that the plan wouldn't work, that's probably not it. Actually that's what I did last year and I think I HAD to get my pass processed the day I used my e-ticket. I don't really see it as that big of a problem though.

That's a pretty good point. Why get rid of a good thing? Nick U is doing just fine. Now, if the numbers were dwindling I could see it going. Also, one would have to think about costs. It would probably cost less to keep the Nick license than it would to completely retheme the Nick area. A lot of patrons come just to bring their kids to Nick U; if not then they have another reason just to come to the park. The Peanuts are unfortunately slowly dying. They're not as recognizable to the young kids as the Nick characters are. If this were the 70s or 80s I could see the Peanuts area being really popular. Now, I can't see it being worth all that money to retheme. Don't get me wrong, I love the Peanuts but really, how many kids sit down and watch them now?

It's sure nice to know the park is beginning to breathe again. It's always a little sad when it's not functioning and empty.

Welcome dakota! You're right, it does slow very dramatically when it's not being used. I think other chains slow down when not in use but no where as severe as Top Gun.

Eh, I'm not so sure about that. Toting an already heavy train up an incline is no easy task, let alone a full train.

^My God that ride sucks. They've really let it go.

But if they were given rights to it then they wouldn't have to change the ride. Which they are currently doing, which tells me that they probably don't have the rights. I kind of like the statue, but maybe that's because it's so well themed to the ride. ...Not anymore.

I highly doubt it, it's pretty undeniable that it's related to Tomb Raider.

does it still have a photo booth? I think, I'm not sure if any of the equipment exists any more though.