New Lawsuit against Dreamworld

[joz]

24 minutes ago, StingRay said:

So we should shut down the entire industry?

I said when this stuff inevitably happens, you payout. No where did I say or imply that the industry shuts down.

[Brad2912]

I don’t think DW owes her a cent unless CCTV shows a stumbling and bleeding girl and her mother being ignored or palmed off by staff.

If CCTV proves contradictory to the mothers account - DW should sue their asses off for slander and defamation. 

Completely stinks of trying to stick the boot in riding on the coattails of TRRR and hoping a public uproar will cause DW to settle large and fast. 

[colonelbmx]

Read between the lines the statement from dreamworld saying she was told how to ride and position her self along with being shown by the operator sounds like they will say the girl didn’t follow instructions, 

the whole story doesn’t make sense if the mums a nurse she could have taken one look and called the ambulance not taken her to the on duty nurse for assistance. 
 

Any injuries on ride/slide/show that have blood everywhere aren’t handled by showing them which to go to see the first aid office. 
 

I hope the little girl is fine as has no health issues into the future but something stinks about this story and Mum thinking even if she didn’t ride it correctly it’s still dreamworlds fault and if that’s not then it’s their fault how the handled it after the accident because she’s a registered nurse and she would have handled it better, because you know why wouldn’t she at least have a look at what had happened before walking her daughter around with blood pouring out of her. 

[joz]

37 minutes ago, colonelbmx said:

sounds like they will say the girl didn’t follow instructions,

It also sounds like the account of this happening are factual

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

On 31/01/2018 at 11:37 PM, joz said:

so when idiot number 1 does a dumb thing and falls out a boat, no one noticed.

So a guest doesn't follow directions, and he's an idiot, but because the girl is younger, the park is at fault?

8 year olds are capable of following directions, as evidenced by the fact that a teacher is generally capable of instructing 30-odd students for 6 hours or so a day.

If the force of the water was too much and she wasn't able to keep her legs together, the manufacturer needs to revise their designs or their restrictions.

End of the day we're all speculating. None of us have seen video of the incident to know whether the forces caused her to uncross her ankles or whether she just ignored the instructions of the operators.

There's a lot of info surrounding this story that is inflammatory and unlikely, (such as staff not rendering assistance in any way) - Sure, they'll probably get paid somewhat and its likely they'll push for out of court settlement. The big losers here are other guests, as the park will no doubt be required to implement new restrictions on rides such as the age restriction on giant drop, disappointing many, and further reducing the number of attractions any person will go on. It's no longer enough to have your kid measured with a height stick before riding, they now have to be a certain height, weight, age, and come with their own psychiatrist's report stating they're mature enough to handle big red boat.

[StingRay]

55 minutes ago, AlexB said:

The big losers here are other guests, as the park will no doubt be required to implement new restrictions on rides such as the age restriction on giant drop, disappointing many, and further reducing the number of attractions any person will go on. It's no longer enough to have your kid measured with a height stick before riding, they now have to be a certain height, weight, age, and come with their own psychiatrist's report stating they're mature enough to handle big red boat.

This right here folks is the major fallout from this accident. Mum gets to be a hypochondriac and like mentioned now we will most likely pay the price. Could very well become an industry-wide requirement within the aquatic division now.

[rappa]

1) This discussion is kinda creepy given we are talking about an 8 year older girl. 
 

2) People get hurt at parks, and they get paid out. It’s a take as old as time and it’s totally fair. These sorts of injuries used to happen A LOT at Wet N Wild and the old water parks and it’s why most of the speed slide type things got removed. 
The park can’t make these things beyond safe so nothing can occur. But also it’s not reasonable to expect you might get hurt, especially severely. 
 

It’s like it a rule was to hold on at all times on a coaster. But if you put your hands up you actually hit the ride structure and broke your arms. You didn’t follow the instructions, but it’s not a reasonable expectation that would result in injury. 
If this kid was standing up trying to ride and got a head injury then I’d be like tough shit. But in this case Dreamworld isn’t negligent, but neither is the child. And as Dreamworld is the business and the kid is the customer, they need to pay. This is why they have insurance, they will settle out of court, happens waaay more often than you’d think. 

[webslave]

If Dreamworld weren't negligent they wouldn't be paying anything...

[rappa]

There is a different between willingly carelessly negligent and technically negligent. And also responsible. 
It’s also the right thing to do, guest gets injured on your property, you give them compensation. I’m honestly surprised that this whole situation is such a hard concept for many to get their head around. 
This exact situation has been playing out in our parks for the past 30+ years. 

[Flynn_Smith]

Talking about lawsuits, did the case of the woman who fell off the flower bed at Movieworld ever come to a conclusion? 

[Richard]

A bit of perspective folks.

Something happened to a guest that shouldn’t happen. Instructions were possibly not followed — that’ll be a matter for investigation between the two parties  — but if the safety of an attraction relies on an excited young child following verbal instructions then it is by definition not 100% safe. It might be 99.999% safe and that’s OK. And when that 0.001% happens then lawyers and insurers get involved and a resolution is found.

These sorts of incidents are not infrequent and payouts for injuries sustained at theme parks happen all the time so the idea that this'll result in overhanded new restrictions is absurd.

It's entirely likely that these discussions would have happened entirely behind closed doors like they typically do, were Dreamworld's reputation not what it was. Say what you will about the family/lawyer's media strategy, but no one can reasonably say that Dreamworld's safety standards shouldn't be under a microscope. Decades of mismanagement left the business with a weakness that will be exploited in situations like this, and the onus is on Dreamworld to repair that reputation so that such strategies don't work.

The consensus in this topic that an eight year old child should be fully cognizant of the ramifications of adjusting their body on a low-intensity family slide is taking the whole "Dreamworld's the underdog" shtick a little bit too far. It's possible to simultaneously support Dreamworld, recognise that they have duty of care and the attractions they operate carry a non-zero risk,  that injured guests are typically entitled to compensation in these kinds of situations and that trial-by-media is dirty but perhaps also shrewd.

[Naazon]

14 hours ago, colonelbmx said:

the whole story doesn’t make sense if the mums a nurse she could have taken one look and called the ambulance not taken her to the on duty nurse for assistance. 

Just want to clarify, being a Nurse doesn't make you a super know it all. Depends what type of nurse she is, where her specialtys lie and also she may assume that being within a park, the fastest way for her daughter to get to hospital is have the park call an ambulance, seeing as the park needs to be aware of the ambulance movements to extract the girl safely and quickly.

 

Going to the first aid to try and get an ambulance rather than calling one yourself is completely logical in this instance.

[elemist]

4 hours ago, rappa said:

It’s like it a rule was to hold on at all times on a coaster. But if you put your hands up you actually hit the ride structure and broke your arms. You didn’t follow the instructions, but it’s not a reasonable expectation that would result in injury. 

I think this is probably the crux of the issue. It's about foreseeable risk and managing those risks. Like you say on a roller coaster the rule is hold on at all times, but of course people never do this and regularly throw their arms up in the air. Manufacturers and parks know this, and thus ensure to plan accordingly to ensure there's sufficient clearance.

I would expect the same thing would have been done on this ride - it would be anticipated that people will uncross their legs for a variety of reasons, and the ride would be designed with that in mind.

TBH emotions aside - and it does seem like the situation is being blown out of proportion a bit - it sounds like just a freak accident that occurred. Likely no negligence on either side, but i assume there would be a small payout to the family for pain and suffering.

1 hour ago, Naazon said:

Going to the first aid to try and get an ambulance rather than calling one yourself is completely logical in this instance.

It is - but on the same token, as a medical professional or even just as a mother, if your not happy with a first aid response or as is alleged it took too long then you take action yourself..

I can give you a good example - i was at Crown Casino in Perth. They have their own roaming first aid teams of what i assume are basically paramedics. Someone was choking - we called 000 for an ambulance. The staff at the restaurant called their internal teams, and then for an ambulance as backup as well. Luckily an off shift doctor happened to be there, and was able to render assistance to the person before the first aid team arrived to take over. The ambulance showed up just a few minutes after the first aid team did.

[colonelbmx]

3 hours ago, Naazon said:

 

Going to the first aid to try and get an ambulance rather than calling one yourself is completely logical in this instance.

Logical maybe but listen to what Mum says she was standing there in a pool of blood in pain and no staff around to help, 

1) there’s always staff at the base of a waterslide, 

2) No one from whitewater world is going to apologise and say sorry we were short staffed. 
 

3) as a parent I’m going to check my kids injury as soon as I see the smallest amount of blood or that their in pain. 
 

[Jdude95]

9 hours ago, rappa said:

1) This discussion is kinda creepy given we are talking about an 8 year older girl. 
 

So, we should just not discuss it or should we just say "person" ?

Also DW followed all instructions given to them by the manufacturer and someone still got hurt? Surely that's a manufacturers issue then? 

[Naazon]

31 minutes ago, Jdude95 said:

So, we should just not discuss it or should we just say "person" ?

Also DW followed all instructions given to them by the manufacturer and someone still got hurt? Surely that's a manufacturers issue then? 

Wouldn't that be on DW to sort out then? Family sues DW, DW sues manufacturer, Wet n Wild celebrates because you can't get hurt on a new slide if you don't have any.

[Jdude95]

1 minute ago, Naazon said:

Wouldn't that be on DW to sort out then? Family sues DW, DW sues manufacturer, Wet n Wild celebrates because you can't get hurt on a new slide if you don't have any.

Yes, but I mean DW would at least have somewhere to point the finger

[Richard]

33 minutes ago, Jdude95 said:

So, we should just not discuss it or should we just say "person" ?

No this can be discussed given it's a widely covered news story. However the amount of pseudo-medical opinions and finger-pointing concerning an eight year old child is definitely on the weird side. Maybe being a theme park fan on the internet doesn't give people the authority to discuss a young girl's period, weight, swimwear choices, etc?

33 minutes ago, Jdude95 said:

 Also DW followed all instructions given to them by the manufacturer and someone still got hurt? Surely that's a manufacturers issue then? 

As others have said, these sorts of incidents are not uncommon at water parks around the world. I know similar injuries have happened in the past at WNW and I would imagine through sheer numbers of guests over the years it's also happened before at WWW.

There could be a design issue with the attraction, but more than likely it's one of those rare occurrences that can and does happen by virtue of the style and design of an attraction that Dreamworld willingly purchased and operates; theme parks have insurance for this reason.

The most likely outcome is that Dreamworld quietly compensates the family and everyone moves on. 

[DaptoFunlandGuy]

18 hours ago, Naazon said:

Just want to clarify, being a Nurse doesn't make you a super know it all. Depends what type of nurse she is, where her specialtys lie

ANY level of nurse is going to have a level of first aid knowledge higher than your average 'senior first aider'. It is in the skills quality framework for all levels of nursing. Under the ASQA framework, first aid related modules (which used to be PFA or CPR) are now 'HLT' codes, as they form part of the larger HeaLTh related courses.

18 hours ago, Naazon said:

she may assume that being within a park, the fastest way for her daughter to get to hospital is have the park call an ambulance, seeing as the park needs to be aware of the ambulance movements to extract the girl safely and quickly.

 

Going to the first aid to try and get an ambulance rather than calling one yourself is completely logical in this instance.

Oh absolutely, getting the park to call an ambulance is the fastest way to get one there - you can bet the EMDs will have the property flagged for fast response, and the control room would have their own protocols for calling. That all said, the facts presented to the nurse\paramedic on scene would have dictated the response time, and the reported 'hour' it took for the ambulance to get there may have a: been reasonable in the QAS operational load, and b: appropriate to the condition. The fact that it took an hour for the ambulance to arrive casts a very large doubt over just how much blood there was.

But given the mum was a nurse, of any level, she should know the first thing you do after making sure the casualty is breathing is stop the blood loss by having the casualty remain still and applying pressure to the wound.

Having an hysterical, crying, injured, bleeding girl walk across the park is a bad idea, and if there really were no staff around (which I doubt) they should have sent someone else to get help brought to them.

The following information is contained in a Basic First Aid Manual for the HLTAID001 standard first aid course.

Quote

First aid of serious bleeds should follow 3 basic steps as listed below. By remembering the colour of blood (RED)you can remember these easy steps:

R–Rest.Any movement of the injured body part can potentially increase the bleeding and make it harder to control. The body part should be kept still until bleeding is controlled.

E –Elevation. By elevating the body part, gravity will make if more difficult for blood to reach the wound, reducing the amount of bleeding. If the injury is to the casualty’s abdomen or chest, then these areas cannot be elevated.

D –Direct Pressure.This step is by far the most important and involves using an absorbent material, ideally a dressing such as sterile gauze. If you do not have this, then a clean towel, a piece of clothing or even just your hand can be used if the bleeding is severe and there is nothing else available.

 

[gumb00t]

The part that bugs me is the "blood everywhere" and "blood was pouring out of her". If this happened around a week ago and we're only hearing about it now, that's odd. Between all my local fb pages from Pac pines to Ormeau, not one mention of anything. What I'm saying is, you'd think if there was such a huge amount of blood and screaming then someone local would have seen it or mentioned it. You know, "did anyone see that girl bleeding at WWW today??". But nothing. 

Like you've all said, the evidence will be in the cctv footage but the whole thing seems a bit "blown up".

[Gazza]

DW gets a wide variety of visitors from SEQ (And normally interstate) , I'm not sure what portion comes from the local post codes, but you're basically relying a local resident being in that part of the park at the right time.

This is different to something like an incident at a local shopping centre, where people go way more often, and the shopping centre really would be a higher portion of locals, so the chances of there being a local witness is higher.

Edited December 2, 2020 by Gazza

[StingRay]

19 hours ago, Richard said:

No this can be discussed given it's a widely covered news story. However the amount of pseudo-medical opinions and finger-pointing concerning an eight year old child is definitely on the weird side. Maybe being a theme park fan on the internet doesn't give people the authority to discuss a young girl's period, weight, swimwear choices, etc?

 

So even tho the media can discuss we cant?

Yet the aquatic industry is heavily governed by height/weight and clothing rules. Sure some might find it an uncomfortable topic to talk about. If you are mature enough tho you can easily look beyond the immature aspects and look at the serious nature of the event with the person.

Maybe it's best to change the gender and age to a person if so many people are wigged out by it.

[Jdude95]

I was informed that there were a few off colour jokes that had been posted (which I admittedly didn't see) but I feel like the explanation could have been done better

On 02/12/2020 at 9:06 AM, rappa said:

1) This discussion is kinda creepy given we are talking about an 8 year older girl. 

"some of the comments here have been a bit too far and have been removed, just remember the subject matter and try to keep in mind that it's a young person"

Would sound so much more like you're trying to restrain the stupid instead of trying to muzzle the whole conversation. 

[Richard]

1 hour ago, StingRay said:

So even tho the media can discuss we cant?

How did you come to that conclusion when you literally quoted me saying that this can indeed be discussed?

Note that the media have done nothing more than interview the mother and publish a statement from Dreamworld. They are not speculating about pre-existing conditions, menstrual cycles, swimwear or weight. There is no publicly available information to suggest that any of these have any bearing on this incident, a somewhat common injury that happens at water parks around the world.

We're not going to stymie discussion or tell you what you can and can't discuss beyond a pretty basic level of decorum we ask of everyone. But it's pretty weird the direction some members have taken the topic in their efforts to discredit the family... and that's me (and @rappa earlier) saying that as people, not as moderators trying to muzzle anything.

[westical]

44 minutes ago, Richard said:

They are not speculating about pre-existing conditions, menstrual cycles, swimwear or weight.

The article did mention a Dreamworld employee speculating she was having a period.