Newly Filed Lawsuit: Beware of the Cyclone Roller Coaster at Coney Island- -Especially the First DropNewly Filed Lawsuit: Beware of the Cyclone Roller Coaster at Coney Island- -Especially the First Drop
By
Rheingold, Valet, Rheingold, Ruffo & Giuffra LLP
We all enjoy a day at an amusement park, but the advancements in safety
have evaded the Cyclone Roller Coaster. Users would be shocked to know
the number of serious head and spinal injuries which occur annually-yet
are never reported to riders and the public. The owners and operators,
Cyclone Coasters, Inc., and Astroland Kiddie Park, Inc., have never significantly
upgraded the wooden roller coaster or made proper use of speed regulators.
Are client was involved in a 2008 injury and still sees doctors for treatment.
Some of the allegations in our lawsuit are as follows: negligence of the
defendants' management, maintenance and supervision of the aforesaid
rollercoaster; in designing, manufacturing, assembling, testing, customizing
and inspecting the aforesaid rollercoaster in a negligent, careless and
reckless manner; in using defective, inappropriate, inferior and inadequate
material in the manufacture and/or repair of said rollercoaster; in performing
customization work to the aforesaid rollercoaster which work affected
the integrity of the rollercoaster; in failing to inspect, properly inspect
and timely inspect the aforesaid rollercoaster to ascertain the dangerous
conditions existing; in failing to ensure that said rollercoaster was
in a proper, safe and reasonable condition for the use for which it was
intended; in failing to properly and timely remedy the aforesaid hazardous
and dangerous conditions although they had or should have had notice thereof
in view of the fact that said conditions and/or defects existed for some
time prior to the occurrence and were created by defendants; in failing
to close down and/or repair the aforesaid roller coaster ride in a timely
manner and after notice that other riders and passenger were injured;
in failing to warn the plaintiff of the inherent defects; in failing to
take any and all reasonable precautions to safeguard against this occurrence;
in failing to give the plaintiff an opportunity to avoid this occurrence;
in failing to warn their customers and potential users of the dangerous
and hazardous condition of said rollercoaster; in failing to safeguard
the life and limb of riders and passengers of the aforesaid rollercoaster;
in failing to have seating in the rollercoaster which had proper neck
and head supports; in failing to provide proper neck and head support;
in allowing a dangerous and hazardous "first drop"; in allowing
all of the foregoing to exist with notice; in failing to warn plaintiff
of the dangers existing thereat; in failing to place any signs, signals
or warnings of the dangers existing thereat; in testing, inspecting and
leasing the aforesaid rollercoaster in a negligent, careless and reckless
manner; in failing to maintain the rollercoaster in good repair; in failing
to ensure that the rollercoaster complied with all landmark regulations,
as well as with all building, housing, and fire codes; and in the gross,
wanton, reckless and willful acts of the defendants, their agents, servants
and/or employees; in violating the applicable laws, rules, statutes, ordinances
and regulations; and they were otherwise careless, reckless and negligent
and failed to exercise reasonable care and prudence and all without any
fault or lack of care on the part of plaintiff's intestate contributing
thereto. Plaintiff relies upon the doctrine of Res Ipsa Loquitur but reserves
the right to prove that defendant was negligent as more specifically set
forth herein.
.png)