Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide • Hacker News Board

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#71

Post by linohh » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:46 PM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #51

linohh wrote: post #15

When I was a kid, we went to TX (I'm from Germany) and everyone recommended going to New Braunfels because it's so German. We were quite shocked to see how german it was. It seemed like a hideout for traditional german values (as in conquering Poland) - no pleasant memory.

.

Just a personal memory about the weirdness of having expat communities serving as a time capsule. They took the then German culture and forked it. From today’s perspective it would be similar to playing bioshock where a similar cultural fork happened.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#72

Post by linohh » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 10:49 PM UTC

HillaryBriss wrote: post #38

wyldfire wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow, what in particular do you mean?

my guess is that New Braunfels, Texas is planning to invade Warsaw, Indiana in the second half of 1939.

I expected being downvoted but I didn’t expect this kind of spot on humor. YMMD

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#73

Post by watwut » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 11:07 PM UTC

edmccard wrote: post #42

watwut wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't that hurt men even more? If they spread legs there are privates and men tend to be sensitive when those are hit.

>Wouldn't that hurt men even more? More than the internal injuries that could be caused by water forcibly entering the vagina? Probably not.

Vagína is pretty strong, it holds during childbirth. Males parts can be injured easily.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#74

Post by PeterisP » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 11:14 PM UTC

duxup wrote: post #31

Word of warning... the descriptions in this article are pretty horrifying.

Well, the event was pretty horrifying; any truthful description will be as well.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#75

Post by sokoloff » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 11:19 PM UTC

skookumchuck wrote: post #44

nradov wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same thing can happen water skiing.

That's why you always wear a wet suit when water skiing, even on a hot day.

I’ve done a lot of water skiing and have never seen any recreational skiers wearing anything like a wet suit.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#76

Post by teraflop » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 11:21 PM UTC

patrickg_zill wrote: post #53

From an engineering viewpoint, one thing that jumps out to me at least, is that "100,000 people including many kids" had already ridden when this sad accident happened. In terms of real-world testing, not even 100,000 tests (or maybe ~33,300 if each raft had 3 people on it) exposed the problem.

That's giving them way too much benefit of the doubt. The problem had been exposed by tests before the fatal incident. A number of passengers were injured by airborne rafts over the course of two years -- and these injuries were reported and documented by lifeguards. The problem was known even before the ride opened, thanks to independent test results from an outside engineering company.

Schlitterbahn ignored and/or attempted to cover up all of these reports, as is documented in the indictment.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#77

Post by rdiddly » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 11:31 PM UTC

brian-armstrong wrote: post #39

This article seems to romanticize the ride's creators. Why? They built a ride that injured and killed from their own intentional neglect. The men should be regarded as murderers.

And they're being charged as murderers. I wouldn't say they're being romanticized, per se, but reality is seldom black-and-white enough to paint someone one-dimensionally as a monster and still be telling the truth. Seldom does a baby come out the womb and people go, "What a monster, he is going to kill someone someday."

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#78

Post by duxup » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 11:32 PM UTC

soapboxrocket wrote: post #41

duxup wrote: post #31

Word of warning... the descriptions in this article are pretty horrifying.

Caleb was my nephews best friend, and the families did a lot together. My brother-in-law said that he talked to the father after and he said the hardest part was that they all got in the car to go home after and had an empty seat.

As a parent I can't imagine losing a child...

A parents whole routine with life is do things, check kids, do thing..... every moment you would be aware that something is terribly wrong.

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#79

Post by AdamM12 » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 11:46 PM UTC

wyldfire wrote: post #66

soapboxrocket wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Caleb was my nephews best friend, and the families did a lot together. My brother-in-law said that he talked to the father after and he said the hardest part was that they all got in the car to go home after and had an empty seat.

What did the family do with the settlement money? If my son had died I would feel so terribly conflicted. Survivor's guilt would be so much worse if I got to live a life of luxury in exchange for my son.

You do realize you could like not spend the money lavish manner right?

Re: Schlitterbahn’s Tragic Slide

#80

Post by tzs » Sat, Jul 21, 2018, 11:47 PM UTC

donarb wrote: post #69

The really tragic thing is that the father of the killed 10 year old was a Kansas legislator who voted for a cap on damages (max $300K) when someone is killed due to negligence. A quirk in Kansas law allows for Kansans injured by out-of-state parties to apply the laws of the state where the other party is located. So Scott Schwab parlayed the payout for his son's death from $300,000 to $20 million, all while denying…

Any of his constituents injured by out of state parties can do exactly the same thing he did. Any injury he suffers at the hands of a Kansas company will be subject to the same damage limits that such injuries suffered by his constituents are.

I don't see how this is either hypocrisy (as alleged in the article you link to) or denying his constituents some benefit that is allowed to him (as you claim).

I am curious why Kansas law allows in the case of an out-of-state tortfeasor applying the laws of the tortfeasor's state for damage limits. (I assume that it is still Kansas law determines whether or not a tort was committed?)

If the tort occurred in another state, and the Kansas victim elected to sue in Kansas, then I believe that normal choice of law rules would have the Kansas court apply the laws of the state where the tort occurred, both for determining whether there is liability, and determining the damages (Kansas law, though, for rules of procedure and rules of evidence).

But here the tort occurred in Kansas, so I'm confused. The only theory that comes to mind is that this is meant to make Kansas more attractive as a home state to companies.

For instance, suppose you are going to set up a company that primarily serves customers in Kansas and Texas. If you make Texas your home, you will be subject to Texas damage limits on your torts in Texas against Texans, and because of the Kansas tort quirk you will also be subject to Texas damage limits on your torts against Kansans in Kansas.

If, on the other hand, you make Kansas your home, you will will be subject to Texas damages on your torts against Texans in Texas, but on your torts against Kansans in Kansas the damages will be limited by the $300k Kansas limit on Kansas companies.

If this is the reason, I wonder if it could be challenged on interstate commerce grounds? Making the damage limit on torts committed in Kansas lower for Kansas companies than for companies in states with higher damage limits advantages Kansas businesses.