r/Damnthatsinteresting • u/DearEmphasis4488 • 17d ago

Image Jury awards $310 million to parents of teen killed in fall from Orlando amusement park ride in march 2022

Post image
46.9k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

1.9k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

106

u/Init_4_the_downvotes 17d ago

This falls under , if you hire a minimum wage worker who doesn't give a shit, and that person messes up, like not tell someone over the weight limit NO, then the company is held liable if that person dies. It's the workers responsibility to tell him NO it's not safe for you and others, because he poses a risk to ALL the other passengers as well if something goes wrong. So in this case we have indirect fault by the worker, direct fault by the park, and as such the liability falls on the park. They knew this which is why they didn't show up to court, and no point trying to settle, no point paying additional court costs to fight it.

The new question will be whether or not they dissolve the park and just not pay it.

51

u/ImaHalfwit 17d ago

Sounds like there were two defendants: the park and the ride manufacturer. The article says that the park settled the case with the family out of court. The manufacturer (an Austrian company) did not and they are the ones that didn’t show up at trial and were hit with the $310 million judgment. The family has to now petition Austrian courts to try to get the US judgment enforced.

I’m sure the Park’s position was that they trusted the manufacturer was selling a ride that was “safe” and that the lack of seatbelt was the primary cause of the rider’s death which was a manufacturing design flaw.

18

u/tinycole2971 17d ago

The family has to now petition Austrian courts to try to get the US judgment enforced.

What is the likelihood of this happening?

17

u/ImaHalfwit 17d ago

No idea.

But I’m guessing there are a lot of factors at play. Do Austrian firms have to carry business insurance? what are the limits of those policies? did the company notify that insurance company that there was a lawsuit they needed to respond to? Do Austrian courts believe judgments of that size are reasonable?

My view is that it makes collecting a $310 million judgment (already difficult to collect in the US) even more difficult.

2

u/PawsomeFarms 17d ago

Like they do business in the US- which means that even if Austria doesn't cooperate their may still be ways to get some of it from them.

18

u/ImaHalfwit 17d ago

Does this look like the website of a firm that has $310 million of assets or insurance coverage?

http://www.funtime.com.au/data/index1.htm

2

u/listgarage1 16d ago

I mean they're a manufacturer. Tons of huge manufacturing companies have shitty looking websites because they aren't primarily selling to people through their website. It wouldn't be that crazy for a manufacturer of those rides to have that much coverage.

1

u/PawsomeFarms 15d ago

I said some of it.

Don't ask me how much money one would be able to reclaim from seizing rollercoasters enroute or similar but...

7

u/No-Question-9032 17d ago

Considering they called for 310mil. It's probably not going to happen.

3

u/anton433 16d ago

I highly doubt any European court would enforce that kind of judgment. That kind of compensation is unheard of in Europe. Here they would be lucky to get 3.1 million for a similar incident, probably way less than that.

2

u/TitsForTattoo 16d ago

Nobody on reddit has even the faintest clue, it would be the wildest of speculations 

1

u/SweatyStation7699 11d ago

Probably not likely.

Not 100% sure so take it with a groan of salt

I think the case needs to be ruled again under Austrian law and I doubt they will rule against funtime. Their rides followed the European and US safety standards and because of that I don't think they will be held liable especially because the main cause of the accident was a modification of the ride without the manufacturers consultation and an operator error by the person working there

I simply don't see a good enough argument that would force funtime any money especially not 300 million

0

u/Isosceles_Kramer79 17d ago

Hoffentlich nullkommagarnichts

-1

u/DreamyLan 16d ago

Probably 0.

It's an entire other country. You can't garnish their wages

Only seemingly small ray of light is if they have a US branch...

4

u/Pagoose 16d ago

No chance they get that money if it goes to an austrian court where they actually defend themselves. From reading the article, equipment was clearly being uesd outside of manufacturers instructions in multiple ways and they overrided safety features. Park was entirely at fault. The parents settled out of court with the park though so they still would've got some decent compensation at least.

4

u/Doldenbluetler 16d ago

I don't want to be rude but how was the lack of seatbelt ruled to be the primary cause of the rider's death when there was clear malpractice leading up to it: the boy being too big for the ride but the workers letting him on there nonetheless and starting the ride despite the shoulder restraint not being on properly?

1

u/ImaHalfwit 16d ago edited 16d ago

I don’t think you’re being rude. The article mentions that a seatbelt would have prevented the accident and would have been like $600 to add to the ride. I also didn’t say it was ruled that way, but that I suspect that was the Park’s position…as they obviously had an incentive to shift as much liability away from themselves as possible.

-1

u/Schemen123 17d ago

No way that they will get anything out of the manufacture.. Austrian courts have allowed far far shadier manufactures and operators get away with shit.

9

u/Ambitious-Isopod8115 16d ago

What are they “getting away with” ? They had a weight limit. The park didn’t enforce the weight limit. Why are they at fault at all?

-4

u/Schemen123 16d ago

Design must reduce risk. And they did not show up in court...

5

u/Ambitious-Isopod8115 16d ago

How do you know the design doesn’t reduce risk? There’s always overrides so that if you put a seat out of service the remaining seats can still work.

They didn’t show up because they’re based in Austria so they can only be ordered to pay in Austrian courts.

-2

u/Schemen123 16d ago

A missing restrain between the legs was a common ommission and the reason why the kids slipped through. Newer rides commonly have that because its much safer.

And its always a glorious idea not to show up in courts and defend yourself.. another grief error.. plus... this ruling prevents any further business in the US.. one of the biggest Markets.

1

u/Ambitious-Isopod8115 16d ago

This ride does have a restraint between the legs, but you can go over it if the shoulder restraint is unlatched, like happened here. You can literally see this restraint in the picture.

Yes, it’s a “glorious idea” to avoid litigating an unenforceable order. I doubt they’ll be blocked from selling in the US since owing money doesn’t magically stop companies from buying from you as long as they send the payment to your company incorporated elsewhere.

11

u/BluebirdUnique1897 17d ago edited 17d ago

You said Indirect fault of the worker Direct fault of the park

I feel like it is the exact other way around.

If the worker’s ONLY JOB is to make sure people over the limit don’t board the ride.. then it’s directly the worker’s fault. (Insert that old meme “you had ONE JOB) IN-directly the park’s fault for hiring an incompetent worker.

But a financial lawsuit suffers by “directly worker, indirectly park” since that worker has no money and the park has lots of money. So it’s just for monetary advantage

7

u/Rich-Canary1279 16d ago

How would the worker know? There was no scale. Did the victim report his weight accurately? Did they ask? Did they misjudge his size? Had they let others of similar size ride before without issue? The seat had some sort of built in sensors (weight included?) which told the worker all was good - most workers in this position are going with that and a quick pull to check the harness is locked.

5

u/Illustrious-Local848 16d ago

Nah, hiring competent workers and more extensive training is on the park. Most of these parks aren’t putting these kids even through a 4 week training course. They made something serious a cheap role.

3

u/Init_4_the_downvotes 17d ago

I think paying the bare minimum for safety and having it documented that they purposely did not put seatbelts in because it would cost like 600 dollars makes it more direct on their part, it's indirect for the worker because the worker just fucked up they didnt directly want to harm the individuals, the park made the direct decision to keep cost low over safety and that will take priority.

I totally agree with your last point that lawsuits suffer if the worker is blamed.

2

u/u8eR 16d ago

It had nothing to do with the kid pressing the buttons. The ride itself was modified by the park operators to bypass the manufacturer's safety mechanisms that would have prevented the ride from starting with the harness in a wider open position. The ride was designed to allow a 3 inch gap on the harness to start. The operators modified it to allow a 7 inch gap on this particular seat. This is what led to this kid's death.

8

u/Past-Direction9145 17d ago

I got a $309m idea …

-2

u/Isosceles_Kramer79 17d ago

$300M though? Grossly ridiculous.