39 ms·

edit: The owner was arrested just today, so I had missed that. Can someone explain why they are charging the 29 year old director of operations who started as

edit: The owner was arrested just today, so I had missed that. Can someone explain why they are charging the 29 year old director of operations who started as a lifeguard and had no formal training or connection to engineering/design and not one of the designers or owners, both of which are mentioned in the indictment multiple times? It doesn't make a lot of sense to me other than they needed to charge someone.

empath75 9y ago
The father of the kid that died is a state legislator and he got a huge settlement.
- crazypyro 9y ago
  Right. They settled for ~20 million shortly after it happened. The Kansas attorney general also took over the investigation. Still not understanding why the criminal indictment isn't for the designer or owner who are mentioned several times...
  - shock-value 9y ago
    One of them seems to have also been arrested: http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html
    - crazypyro 9y ago
      Thanks, I missed that this came out today. This is what I was expecting.
Maybestring 9y ago
>Evidence suggests that the park planned to delay maintenance until the park closed for the season. When a safety feature was out of service, they decided to keep running it. That sounds like a director of operations decison. And much easier case to prove than design deficiency.
- crazypyro 9y ago
  I think its likely that its an easier case to prove, but they are charging him with some things that take quite a high bar to prove. For instance, the involuntary manslaughter charge is going to be hard to proof when the evidence that he was planning on going on the ride the same day is presented. They have to prove recklessness which includes proving the person knew their actions were likely to cause harm. Also worth noting they are basically throwing the book at him with the number and severity of charges on the indictment.
  - AnimalMuppet 9y ago
    Running it with a broken safety feature isn't recklessness? I think it is. Also gross negligence. (IANAL, though. Legal definitions of those words may not match my intuitive understanding of them...)
    - crazypyro 9y ago
      Disclaimer: This isn't legal advice. The legal definition of recklessness requires that the person know (or should know) that the ride is dangerous. Legally, it is more difficult to prove when that person took actions that suggest they did not think it was dangerous. To your point about broken safety features: One could potentially even argue that the brake isn't a safety feature. It could be there to help riders that are scared of going too fast to more easily control their speed, simply for their own enjoyment. I don't think that use of the brake would be required under normal operations and therefore, it could be argued that the brake wasn't a safety feature. I personally don't think it makes sense that a "safety" feature is optional and relies on the rider, but I could be wrong. The designers were certainly negligent in other ways.... Not sure if that follows or if it makes any more sense to you, but legally, its a potential argument.
      - Maybestring 9y ago
        >I personally don't think it makes sense that a "safety" feature is optional and relies on the rider, but I could be wrong. While in general safety features can require a competent user, e.g. the brakes in your car, in the case of amusement park rides that allow children that does indeed not make sense. But... I would argue that this is just evidence of substandard design of the speed control system. There is ample evidence of a history of injuries due to excessive speed.
jack_kc 9y ago
One of the co-owners was arrested today. http://fox4kc.com/2018/03/26/schlitterbahn-co-owner-arrested-in-texas-in-connection-with-10-year-olds-water-slide-death/ http://fox4kc.com/2018/03/26/schlitterbahn-co-owner-arrested... Edit: remove amp link
smitherfield 9y ago
The owner was just arrested as well,[1] and I'd bet that more will follow. My guess is the director of operations will get a plea deal in exchange for testifying against the others. [1] http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html
- jessaustin 9y ago
  Yeah typically the defendant they want to testify (often the lowest-level, least-responsible defendant) is charged first. In exchange for a deal, that person will provide as much evidence as possible against everyone else. It is interesting that this firm has an "owner" rather than a CEO and a board. It's my impression that executives and board members would be less likely to face criminal charges in this sort of situation.
  - donarb 9y ago
    Schlitterbahn is a private family-run business.
fezz 9y ago
"Schlitterbahn co-owner Jeff Henry arrested in Texas on Verruckt-related charges" http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html
tzs 9y ago
As others have noted, there has been another arrest. The operations director was merely the first. So, the question then becomes why him first? According to the article: > As investigators were looking into the death of the boy, Caleb Schwab, in August 2016, Mr. Miles, then the operations director, hid or destroyed documents detailing injuries sustained by riders, the indictment said. I'd guess that this might have something to do with it. Even if it turns out that no one did anything actually criminal in regards to the building and operation of the ride itself, destroying evidence to impede an investigation is criminal. The criminal charges for this are probably also easier to prove than the ones related to the ride itself. Furthermore, even if it turns out there was nothing actually criminal in the operation of the ride, so that none of the owners or designers are guilty of anything, he can still go down for destroying evidence. In short...he's potentially double screwed. So indict him first, point out that even if he gets off on the ride-related charges (which is plausible...he can try to argue that he is not an engineer, so he trusted the judgment of the engineers who designed and built the thing), they've got him on the destroying evidence thing. His only realistic hope, therefore, is to accept a deal. Tell him you really want to nail the owners and designers, and offer him a deal.

empath75 9y ago

The father of the kid that died is a state legislator and he got a huge settlement.

crazypyro 9y ago
Right. They settled for ~20 million shortly after it happened. The Kansas attorney general also took over the investigation. Still not understanding why the criminal indictment isn't for the designer or owner who are mentioned several times...
- shock-value 9y ago
  One of them seems to have also been arrested: http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html
  - crazypyro 9y ago
    Thanks, I missed that this came out today. This is what I was expecting.

Maybestring 9y ago

>Evidence suggests that the park planned to delay maintenance until the park closed for the season. When a safety feature was out of service, they decided to keep running it. That sounds like a director of operations decison. And much easier case to prove than design deficiency.

crazypyro 9y ago
I think its likely that its an easier case to prove, but they are charging him with some things that take quite a high bar to prove. For instance, the involuntary manslaughter charge is going to be hard to proof when the evidence that he was planning on going on the ride the same day is presented. They have to prove recklessness which includes proving the person knew their actions were likely to cause harm. Also worth noting they are basically throwing the book at him with the number and severity of charges on the indictment.
- AnimalMuppet 9y ago
  Running it with a broken safety feature isn't recklessness? I think it is. Also gross negligence. (IANAL, though. Legal definitions of those words may not match my intuitive understanding of them...)
  - crazypyro 9y ago
    Disclaimer: This isn't legal advice. The legal definition of recklessness requires that the person know (or should know) that the ride is dangerous. Legally, it is more difficult to prove when that person took actions that suggest they did not think it was dangerous. To your point about broken safety features: One could potentially even argue that the brake isn't a safety feature. It could be there to help riders that are scared of going too fast to more easily control their speed, simply for their own enjoyment. I don't think that use of the brake would be required under normal operations and therefore, it could be argued that the brake wasn't a safety feature. I personally don't think it makes sense that a "safety" feature is optional and relies on the rider, but I could be wrong. The designers were certainly negligent in other ways.... Not sure if that follows or if it makes any more sense to you, but legally, its a potential argument.
    - Maybestring 9y ago
      >I personally don't think it makes sense that a "safety" feature is optional and relies on the rider, but I could be wrong. While in general safety features can require a competent user, e.g. the brakes in your car, in the case of amusement park rides that allow children that does indeed not make sense. But... I would argue that this is just evidence of substandard design of the speed control system. There is ample evidence of a history of injuries due to excessive speed.

jack_kc 9y ago

One of the co-owners was arrested today. http://fox4kc.com/2018/03/26/schlitterbahn-co-owner-arrested-in-texas-in-connection-with-10-year-olds-water-slide-death/ http://fox4kc.com/2018/03/26/schlitterbahn-co-owner-arrested... Edit: remove amp link

smitherfield 9y ago

The owner was just arrested as well,[1] and I'd bet that more will follow. My guess is the director of operations will get a plea deal in exchange for testifying against the others. [1] http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html

jessaustin 9y ago
Yeah typically the defendant they want to testify (often the lowest-level, least-responsible defendant) is charged first. In exchange for a deal, that person will provide as much evidence as possible against everyone else. It is interesting that this firm has an "owner" rather than a CEO and a board. It's my impression that executives and board members would be less likely to face criminal charges in this sort of situation.
- donarb 9y ago
  Schlitterbahn is a private family-run business.

fezz 9y ago

"Schlitterbahn co-owner Jeff Henry arrested in Texas on Verruckt-related charges" http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html http://www.kansascity.com/news/article206886324.html

tzs 9y ago

As others have noted, there has been another arrest. The operations director was merely the first. So, the question then becomes why him first? According to the article: > As investigators were looking into the death of the boy, Caleb Schwab, in August 2016, Mr. Miles, then the operations director, hid or destroyed documents detailing injuries sustained by riders, the indictment said. I'd guess that this might have something to do with it. Even if it turns out that no one did anything actually criminal in regards to the building and operation of the ride itself, destroying evidence to impede an investigation is criminal. The criminal charges for this are probably also easier to prove than the ones related to the ride itself. Furthermore, even if it turns out there was nothing actually criminal in the operation of the ride, so that none of the owners or designers are guilty of anything, he can still go down for destroying evidence. In short...he's potentially double screwed. So indict him first, point out that even if he gets off on the ride-related charges (which is plausible...he can try to argue that he is not an engineer, so he trusted the judgment of the engineers who designed and built the thing), they've got him on the destroying evidence thing. His only realistic hope, therefore, is to accept a deal. Tell him you really want to nail the owners and designers, and offer him a deal.