Three hurt in Harpers Ferry zipline accident-6/10/2012

[Willis]

Breaking News from the Journal:

Scanner traffic is reporting that three people have suffered "traumatic injuries" after a zipline broke this afternoon at River Riders in Harpers Ferry. One of the victims is an adult and the other two are children, and their injuries include a broken leg and facial lacerations.

For more information, see Monday's edition of The Journal.

[Steveo]

Being the journal are we sure it was a zipline and not a bridge? I was talking to a rep just today at the heritage festival and he was saying that they do one at a time on the ziplines. Just curious and hope a ll are ok or will be ok

[Tony]

Good point. Maybe he fell on the kids?

BTW, if anyone is thinking "lawsuit", forget it. The liability waivers you sign prevent that, and even if you didn't sign there's still a basic "assumption of risk" (the reason you can't sue at a ball park when a baseball hits you in the head).

[Willis]

Two people have "traumatic injuries" after colliding while ziplining this afternoon at River Riders in Harpers Ferry. One of the victims is an adult and the other is a child, and their injuries include a broken leg and facial lacerations. For more information, see Monday's edition of The Journal.

[Zeke]

Maybe they were riding in tandem. I didn't see anything new in the Journal about it.

[cindylu]

Good point. Maybe he fell on the kids?

BTW, if anyone is thinking "lawsuit", forget it. The liability waivers you sign prevent that, and even if you didn't sign there's still a basic "assumption of risk" (the reason you can't sue at a ball park when a baseball hits you in the head).

But like amusement rides they could be shut down for investigation.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

If they didn't take basic risk prevention, then what? You sign those waivers trusting that the operators operate safely. If they are found to be negligent, then what?

[Tony]

If they didn't take basic risk prevention, then what? You sign those waivers trusting that the operators operate safely. If they are found to be negligent, then what?

Actually, they have that covered also in the waivers. Some actually have you agree it is YOUR responsibility to inspect the line prior to using it.

Typical language:

1. Risk of injury from the activity and equipment utilized is significant including the potential for permanent disability and death.
2. Possible equipment failure and/or malfunction of my own or others’ equipment.

But some other language is even more specific. Of course right now we haven't seen which waiver these guys are using so it's hard to get into details.

http://www.bing.com/search?q=zipline+waiver

Waiver Agreement Enforced in Zip-Line Accident (Canadian, a collision, admittedly caused by employees!)

[StickonFreeze]

Maybe they were riding in tandem. I didn't see anything new in the Journal about it.

Very little info in the Journal. I wonder how hard they are digging for details. The reporters didn't have a problem gaining access for this piece just three days ago.

http://www.journal-news.net/page/con....html?nav=5011

I wonder how much River Riders advertises in the Journal.

[Kensey]

Liability waivers aren't carte blanche to operate something unsafely. Regardless of what the waiver says, an operator has a basic duty. Mistakes happen and with the right waiver, will be covered as non-actionable, but if an operator knows or should have known that something was in fact unsafe, it doesn't matter what any waiver says.

That said, there don't seem to be details about the actual cause here. It could be as simple as somebody thought the line was clear when it wasn't.

[Willis]

...I wonder how much River Riders advertises in the Journal.

Interesting observation, SOF, but of the 3 local print media outlets (Journal, Herald & Spirit), the Journal was the only one to even mention it at all. If the incident did occur, I'd certainly think it would be newsworthy.

[Tony]

Silly me, of course they have all their waivers right on their website: http://www.riverriders.com/liability

Although it specifically mentions collisions with other participants, it's not one of the better waivers I've seen. There's a whole page of single spaced legalese which I imagine someone could claim to not read - this has been upheld in software agreements - too much text and nobody can be expected to read it all, or even any part of it. I think they would be better off with less text but a specific initialed "I understand this is damned dangerous" section - as in the Canadian example I linked above.

[LFE]

Interesting observation, SOF, but of the 3 local print media outlets (Journal, Herald & Spirit), the Journal was the only one to even mention it at all. If the incident did occur, I'd certainly think it would be newsworthy.

Or could it be just another Rock Ferry like "incident"????

1. 1. 3:35
      Johnny Cash - Ghost Riders In The Sky (From "Live At Montreux" DVD)
      
      

[StickonFreeze]

Interesting observation, SOF, but of the 3 local print media outlets (Journal, Herald & Spirit), the Journal was the only one to even mention it at all. If the incident did occur, I'd certainly think it would be newsworthy.

Valid point. I agree that it seems newsworthy. I picture a line snapping and several people flying through the woods into a tree George of the Jungle style. But on second thought, if it was a significantly less spectacular injury, maybe it isn't any more newsworthy than, say, somebody slipping on a wet floor at a grocery store. I'm interested to know what happened though.

[Dhyana]

IMHO Wavier aside, the zip line should NOT brake. It's not like a tangled up finger, broken ankle, or wet pants. Slipping out of a harness or having equipment brake is not a responsibility of the participant that can 'wave' away liability.

[Tony]

I think the ironclad waiver of liability is what makes accidents on these things a bit different and more newsworthy. As evidenced by some comments in this thread, some people really don't believe it's entirely possible to waive all your rights to sue in this litigious age. But it is. Lawyers got all the practice they needed back during the mechanical bull riding craze of the 1980's, and long before that in all the "assumed risk" cases in ball parks where nothing is signed but you still can't sue.

[chipgallo]

I'm calling you out on this one, Tony. Are you saying that if an operator was negligent (speaking hypothetically), that waiver prevents an injured patron from recovering damages? If this were true, why would places like swimming pools still need million dollar general liability coverage? Just whip up one of these magic waivers and, poof, tort proof operations.

If injured in one of these "inherently risky" activities, you can always run your case by one of these 60/40 law firms.

[LFE]

Deadly fall at Helena ballpark prompts lawsuit against city

Lawsuit filed opposing uptown ballpark | News | Center City News

Reese returns with another anti-Knights lawsuit ... - Ballpark Digest

Fielders expand lawsuit, allege conspiracy | News - Ballpark Digest

Hot dog lawsuits: Will real wiener emerge? - CSMonitor.com

More filings in Super Bowl XLV seating lawsuit | Dallas Cowboys ...

Ballpark scuffle ends in court - Baltimore Sun

[chipgallo]

The so-called "canopy tour" release that Tony referenced has a 2nd page that quotes from WV legislation governing this type of attraction. Obviously swinging on ropes, jumping from planes, walking in baseball parks or even hockey rinks has inherent risk. I was nearly hit in the head by a puck that slipped through the net at the Frederick rink. My point is that the operators have to follow safety standards and per the WV statute, carry insurance. "Iron clad" waivers can end up in front of a judge and/or jury. I am not a lawyer, but it isn't clear to me that a single bit of legalese will hold the operators, designers and equipment manufacturers blameless in all cases.

Consider instead that a waiver is the opening volley in an award settlement, fired before any injury has even occurred. Recognize it as a negotiation and proceed accordingly.

[Chutney Daftcraft]

I have a relative who was working out in a gym. A popular chain of gyms. The treadmill they were running on full-speed broke, and it injured them severely. The person signed a liability release waiver. The person still pursued them, and got a settlement just days before it went to court.