Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think the restaurant's business if finished, even without a lawsuit. Nobody wants to dine in a place where such a grisly death occurred. I certainly wouldn't want to go to that restaurant now. I'd be interested to find out how much their business has dropped off since this incident went public.
I think the restaurant's business if finished, even without a lawsuit. Nobody wants to dine in a place where such a grisly death occurred. I certainly wouldn't want to go to that restaurant now. I'd be interested to find out how much their business has dropped off since this incident went public.
I'm sure it's down right now since the restaurant hasn't been rotating. That's the prime appeal. Take that away and why go?
If it resumes rotating I don't think it will have a long-term negative effect. It might ultimately do better if thousands of people were not previously aware that such a restaurant with such a scenic view was available.
We might look to the amusement park industry for guidance. There are occasional horrific accidents on skylifts, roller coasters, and other adventure rides. There is usually a short-term dropoff in attendance. But long-term, most parks recover well. People forget or realize it was a fluke.
I think the restaurant's business if finished, even without a lawsuit. Nobody wants to dine in a place where such a grisly death occurred. I certainly wouldn't want to go to that restaurant now. I'd be interested to find out how much their business has dropped off since this incident went public.
Negative imo, a few yrs back a man died on a ride I believe it was a log ride at Disneyland (not exactly a hair bending rollercoaster) and it's regarded as an unfortunate accident, apparently Disneyland is still in business and not exactly struggling either, if anything they are constantly overflowing with people, children, handicapped, elderly so no I don't agree. If I knew a business or attraction or sight seeing venue was there almost half a century or some amount of time and one unfortunate accident occurred it wouldn't deter me from going if it was already somewhere I wanted to go.
Now if it was a place where frequent f ups and deaths occurred of course that would be totally different
Wow. Feels like some here are taking it personally. I work facilities. Escalators have caused severe damage when shoe laces accidently get stuck between Step and side. Small children stepping towards the edge, if there's a gap, have had their feet crushed.
A woman stuck her hand in to stop elevator doors from closing but they close, trapping her arm, elevator goes up and she's pulled to pieces.
Safety precautions need to be in place and operational. Even portable drills have clutches that release when there's too much pull on the motor.
If nothing else, a barrier to keep anyone from hazardous areas. I can't find any excuse that makes the restaurant not at fault.
The restaurant definitely has some fault here. They had to have known about this danger and the crush points. I wonder if there were signs warning of the risk of injury or death? Assuming they cater to families, and families usually mean kids, and they knew the danger, then they have fault.
The restaurant definitely has some fault here. They had to have known about this danger and the crush points. I wonder if there were signs warning of the risk of injury or death? Assuming they cater to families, and families usually mean kids, and they knew the danger, then they have fault.
I don't think at all that was true... having been there for 41 yrs with no injuries or deaths including toddlers so I don't think there was a conclusion of a 4-5 inch space behind a booth being dangerous -it was behind a booth, where in the first place is not somewhere people would be expected to traverse behind--- it was not for example in front of a sight seeing window or fish aquarium . It was not foreseeable by the restaurant nor apparently by his own parents who are a child's first line of defense anyways and were right there with him and saw the little space-- that they now accuse the restaurant of not seeing as an obvious hazard-- they obviously didn't see it that way as they walked by and observed their kid going towards and into.
The restaurant definitely has some fault here. They had to have known about this danger and the crush points. I wonder if there were signs warning of the risk of injury or death? Assuming they cater to families, and families usually mean kids, and they knew the danger, then they have fault.
If you go to their FaceBook page you'll see that the entire restaurant was ripped out and renovated in 2013. It may have been a design flaw when the wall was rehung behind the booths or it may have been a fluke. It looks like it was connected at the top, but may have not been done correctly at the bottom. Thus the wall may have had some movement as the restaurant spun. If it was then whomever the contractor was and whomever signed off on the inspection are the ones who have a partial fault here. As to the child, his spatial awareness may not have been up to the point to understand how much distance is needed between objects to be passable. This is similar to the numerous photos/videos we can see on the net of children squeezing their heads between rails. They can get their heads in, but getting them back out is a problem.
If one looks at this video with a child caught between two rails. If we trade out the rails for the wall and the booth then one can visualize what happened.
It was a restaurant whose floor MOVED, although very slowly. Not a place for a child to be walking around by himself.
It's a restaurant, a place open to the public. A place where children are allowed. Any hazardous condition or area should be marked off and barricaded and if children go there it should be made inaccessible to them, i.e. the doors should be closed and locked.
However, restaurant operators are not familiar with this kind of hazard (or any kind of hazard for that matter). Nor would parents taking a child to a restaurant be familiar with such hazards. What are they supposed to do? Do a safety inspection of the restaurant?
A child is free and is expected to walk around. In a factory with dangerous moving machinery, no. In fact, a child would not be allowed into such a place.
It's a restaurant, a place open to the public. A place where children are allowed. Any hazardous condition or area should be marked off and barricaded and if children go there it should be made inaccessible to them, i.e. the doors should be closed and locked.
However, restaurant operators are not familiar with this kind of hazard (or any kind of hazard for that matter). Nor would parents taking a child to a restaurant be familiar with such hazards. What are they supposed to do? Do a safety inspection of the restaurant?
A child is free and is expected to walk around. In a factory with dangerous moving machinery, no. In fact, a child would not be allowed into such a place.
But the parents lawsuit basis is they say it was an **obvious hazard**. Apparently it wasn't obvious to them was it?
"A child is free and expected to walk around"-- depends on where he is, doesn't it? Or are you a parent who believes in allowing youngsters to be "free" and walk climb etc wherever they want?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
