Current update: 12:42 p.m.
Despite warning signs for patrons and training of employees regarding certain people with physical disabilities not being allowed on the Ride of Steel at Darien Lake, Sgt. James Hackemer was able to embark on the rollercoaster.
Hackemer should have been able to see a warning sign prior to boarding the ride that said patrons must have two legs, and the employee training manual mentions in more than one place that people with specific disabilities cannot be allowed on the ride, according to Sheriff Gary Maha.
“Darien Lake violated their own policies and procedures by allowing him to get on this ride,” Maha said.
Maha presented the findings of Sheriff's Office investigators at a press conference in Batavia this morning.
Hackemer, who lost both of his legs -- one leg was amputated up to his pelvis -- to a roadside bomb in Iraq, died at Darien Lake on Friday after being ejected from a seat at the front of the ride's red train.
Operators at the Ride of Steel were well aware of Hackemer when he boarded the ride and knew that he didn't have legs, Maha said.
The operators -- typically teenagers -- had no explanation for why they violated Darien Lake Theme Park policy by allowing Hackemer to board the ride, Maha said.
The ride rules, which are posted at both the entrance and exit, read "For the restraint devices on this ride to fully and safely engage, guests must have two legs and be within a certain range of size and physical dimension. In addition, guests must have sufficient body strength and the complete use of a least one arm and hand to hold the grab bar. No guests may ride holding anything or with artificial limbs attached."
The ride's exit ramp, in compliance with the American With Disabilities Act, serves as the entrance for disabled patrons. Hackemer boarded the ride after coming up that ramp. According to Sgt. Steve Mullen, Hackemer would have passed the sign to board the ride.
When Hackemer was ejected, his body was thrown forward and then struck the front of the train. At that point, Hackemer's body was thrown clear of the train and the tracks and landed on a grassy area below the train's third hill, which is on the Route 77 side of the ride.
"With the amount of force of the ride, he didn’t have the physical attributes necessary to be on the ride," Maha said.
Like many theme park rides, the rollercoaster has automated cameras near the end of the ride which takes pictures of patrons that can later be purchased. The picture of Hackemer's car, according to Maha, shows an empty seat with the lap bar still down and the safety belt still buckled.
"He just came out of his seat," Maha said.
Maha emphasized that the ride is safe. It was inspected the Department of Labor in May and again following the accident and no mechanical problems were found.
"I would get on the ride," Maha said. "It is safe ride."
Hackemer's nephew helped the Gowanda resident into the ride and was sitting next to him in the front car.
"There was very little discussion between the ride attendants and Mr. Hackemer or his nephew (while he as getting on the ride)," Mullen said.
There's no indication that Hackemer was in any trouble during the ride prior to the ride's third hill.
Maha described the nephew as "in shock" when investigator's interviewed him after the accident.
Darien Lake provided grief counselors to employees, Hackemer's family and any patrons who sought help the night of the accident, Mullen said.
The Ride of Steel has two trains -- a red one and a blue one -- and each is comprised of eight cars that hold four people each. The red train Hackemer was on was not full, so only about 24 people where on the train at the time of the accident.
Because ride attendants did not hold all of the riders at the location following the accident, investigators have only been able to interview those riders who have made themselves known.
While investigators would have liked to have talked with all the riders, Maha said that the few investigators could interview gave consistent reports of what they saw.
As the ride pulled into the boarding area, riders were screaming and yelling, according to Mullen, making it very clear there had been an accident and that a rider had been thrown from the train.
The accident has been investigated by both the Sheriff's Office and the NYS Department of Labor. The DOL's investigation is not entirely completed, but DOL officials met with the Sheriff's investigators yesterday to go over their findings.
The Sheriff's Office investigation was aimed primarily at determining if there was any criminal liability in the death of Hackemer and the investigation, after consultation with District Attorney Lawrence Friedman, concluded the death was accidental. Criminal charges are unlikely.
This was devastating for all
This was devastating for all involved. I'm certain the park employees feel just awful. I hope they get some support. I can only imagine they were fired. What a terrible life lesson at such a young age.
Yeah Lisa, this is a
Yeah Lisa, this is a lose/lose for everyone involved. Maybe he should have seen the sign, but maybe he didn't. Some teenager probably saw him come up and didn't want to make a scene, so he let him go. I have always said, life is nothing more than a series of moments. It's the choices we make or have made for us in those split seconds that lead to the next event.
All I know is, something that was suppose to be fun, has become a nightmare for so many. It's a shame. I hope everyone can heal from this.
Could we please hear from
Could we please hear from Nancy Clark? The Sheriff's report makes no mention of the "grapevine" story she relayed about how the victim was repeatedly told no before finally getting on the ride.
"Posted by Nancy Clark on July 9, 2011 - 7:55pm
I feel badly for this man's family - but I heard through the grapevine that he was told no repeatably about riding this coaster and would not take no for a answer. Went so far as a supervisor being called and telling him NO and he still insisted and obviously was helped on by someone."
Now that paints a very different picture of the culpability of the ride operators than what the Sheriff is reporting. I find it curious that none of the operators could offer up any sort of explanation with respect to why they let him get on the ride; nonetheless I respect the process and have to believe that the investigators are accurately reporting their findings.
At this point I'm assuming that Nancy's cryptic comments are nothing more than bloated hearsay - an embellishment of an embellishment of speculation that got amplified and distorted through each telling from friend to friend.
So, some feedback and explanation would be most welcome.
Presuming the thoughts of the
Presuming the thoughts of the teenage ride attendants or whether Hackemer read or didn't read a warning sign- all conjecture. The point is that a man who did not meet the minimum requirements for boarding a ride was not only boarded; he lost his life.
The park is responsible, because its employees did not follow policy and procedure. Still the onus is not on the attendants who helped the victim into the car; for whatever reason, that was their perceived obligation. The onus is on the park for not enforcing its own policies and procedures.
Part of this equation is suppressing the risk associated with such rides. That under-assessment prevails within the park management who manned a critical control point with personnel who clearly demonstrated a lack of qualification to be so assigned.
...Interesting, Friedman will
...Interesting, Friedman will pursue a case involving threat by imaginary animal yet won't trot this by the grand jury.
CM, who would you like to see
CM, who would you like to see hung for this? Hopefully not a 17-year-old kid who was looking to earn a little cash during the summer working at the park? It’s a terrible thing but sending some young kid through the justice system isn’t going to make this better.
Put in the same situation, I’m not sure I would have even been able to tell that injured vet he had to get off the roller coaster, either.
The kid is an employee of the
The kid is an employee of the park and the buck stops, I would think, at the park and its management, should a civil lawsuit be filed. The DA isn't going to pursue the case because the investigators determined there was no criminality in this tragic accident. As for the DA's office pursuing the "Ewok Case," all I can say is yuk! yuk! What a hoot!
CM, are you suggesting that
CM, are you suggesting that not following its own policy is a crime, subject to prosecution?
Phil & Charlie - Kudos. It's
Phil & Charlie - Kudos. It's nice to seen open minds and empathy for all parties. You mirror my thoughts and feelings. My best to all involved.
Billie, from what I heard in
Billie, from what I heard in the press, the family conceders this an accident. I think the family probably understands more than anyone the strength of this young vet. I have a feeling no one was going to tell him to leave that ride. He left us enjoying the freedom he fought and gave so much for and I'm sure if he was still with us he wouldn't be pointing his finger at the park or that kid who let him ride.
I don't think the ride
I don't think the ride attendants should be fired, if they were. If he was repeatedly told NO that he could not ride the ride and he insisted, then they are not to blame and should not be held liable. The supervisor apparently even told him NO. But he did not want to take NO for an answer. Such a terrible tragedy and I feel bad for the teenagers who were in charge of that ride.
Amy, nobody told him no. As
Amy, nobody told him no. As we note in the story, there was hardly any discussion between the attendants and Hackemer. He was apparently let on the ride without so much as a peep of objection.
If one of the attendants wants to come forward and tell a different story on the record, I'd report it, but based on all of the Sheriff's Office interviews, there is simply no evidence that any objection was made to Hackemer getting on the ride.
Charlie, one half of the family considers it an accident. We've not heard from his ex-wife. She might have a different view, especially with two kids she now must raise without their father's help or support.
Amy point of fact..... There
Amy point of fact..... There was no supervisor, and no one told him he could not get on. I think you might be confused from Nancy Clark's posting of grapvine gibberish that has nothing to do with the reality of what happened. The investigators said this which was apparently confirmed by witnesses and possibly security cameras...
"Hackemer's nephew helped the Gowanda resident into the ride and was sitting next to him in the front car.
"There was very little discussion between the ride attendants and Mr. Hackemer or his nephew (while he as getting on the ride)," Mullen said.
There's no indication that Hackemer was in any trouble during the ride prior to the ride's third hill."
That leads me to believe that there was no one telling him no and there was no supervisor called in to tell him no as well.
I do agree that the operator shouldn't be fired. Darien Lake needs to make sure people operating the rides are trained for the specific ride they are operating. I imagine the DOL is going to be wiping the floor with the employers and alot of training is going to be happening in the near future for ride operators.
I'm under the impression the
I'm under the impression the operators were trained in this specific ride. They were also given a manual that, according to Sheriff Maha, says in more than one place, that two legs are required to ride on the ride.
And the Sheriff was also very clear that the attendants were completely aware that Hackemer didn't have legs.
Charlie, I stated quite
Charlie, I stated quite plainly that the teenage attendants should not be held accountable.
If written policy and posted regulations prohibit ridership for individuals, citing specific criteria, and individuals meeting those criteria are allowed to ride and suffer injury or death, the question of negligence is raised. I won't stretch my credentials and debate criminal or civil liability, but this situation would seem to invite some penalty.
CM, thats real nice legal
CM, thats real nice legal speak. As the kids say, lets get real. How exactly does the kid tell the injured vet to remove himself from the ride? What words would that kid use, precisely? Tell me...
"Sorry, sir, you cannot get
"Sorry, sir, you cannot get on this ride."
Why? I paid to ride. Come on
Why? I paid to ride.
Come on Howard! A kid is going to explain to a vet that he has no legs and he can't ride a roller coaster and that place isn't going to go crazy? Are you kidding me???
Your right CM, send the park manager to jail and toss away the key. Then sue the park into the ground because someone made a choice after seeing a warning.
Charle, that's what security
Charle, that's what security is there for. A patron hassles you over the rules, you call security.
Honestly, thinking of my 17-year-old self, I'm not sure I would have had the confidence to pipe up. I'm not sure I wouldn't have, either.
There's two issues here, and probably something for a civil court to decide, was the training adequate? If you're going to put a 17-year-old in charge of a ride, you better make sure he or she has sufficient training to stand up and enforce the rules. The second issue is reasonable expectations for the kids put in charge. And that gets into a lot of speculation on your part and mine.
I know there are former ride operators who read The Batavian. It would be interesting to hear from somebody who has done the job before and what they can tell us about training and whether they've ever handled a situation like this and how could/ would handle it?
I feel horrible for the kids who were in charge of this particular ride and don't mean to second guess them, but I answered your question previously, because in the abstract, I don't believe there should be any difficulty in telling an unqualified person -- Iraq vet or not -- you can't get on the ride. But I wasn't in their shoes in this particular case.
And in this particular case, the fact Hackemer was a vet wasn't even something the ride operators knew when he got on the ride. You're hanging a lot of your assumption on the "he was a vet" argument, but that just wasn't a factor, and even if it was, I know if I was in the line behind him and he started causing a commotion, my sympathy would have been with the attendants, for his safety and mine.
BTW: When we're talking about who's going to sue who, the ride operators might have a cause for action if they can show they were insufficiently trained, supervised and prepared to deal with this situation. I'm sure it's been very traumatic for them.
Posted by Charlie Mallow on
Posted by Charlie Mallow on July 13, 2011 - 2:44pm
....
Put in the same situation, I’m not sure I would have even been able to tell that injured vet he had to get off the roller coaster, either.
Finally, Howard has raised a point I've thought about since I read Charlie's post earlier today.
How did the ride operator know that this man was a vet?
His loss of legs could be caused my any number of things; diabetes; a vehicle accident; or even - and this is a stretch - birth defect. What indication did the operator have that he was a vet? How would Charlie know that he was an injured vet?
As much as I appreciate the man's service to our country, does that really enter into the story?
I say George W. Bush and
I say George W. Bush and Richard Cheney should be sued, because they started the needless war in Iraq which cost this man his legs.
Bea, your absolutely right.
Bea, your absolutely right. We have no idea what any of these people where thinking or what really happened. So, it is completely foolish to talk about who should be sued or arrested because of this terrible tragedy.
If only it were possible,
If only it were possible, Dave.
This is a heartbreaking story
This is a heartbreaking story and I can't imagine being a party on any side of this.
BUT, Darien Lake knows they have a training issue. Earlier this summer I took my daughters to the waterpark for the day. I have a 6 year old (5 at the time) who is very petite. We went to the tornado and I asked the ride attendant at the bottom if she could ride the ride if I rode it with her and if her 12 year old sister rode it with her (it's a ride for 2 to 4 riders). The ride attendant said as long as she is with a parent, it is fine. We have it all the time. So I was like great. My 5 year old was excited to get to ride a big kid ride with her sister and me.
We waited 30 minutes in the hot sun, climbed all the way to the top lugging a big heavy 4 person float (mainly me carrying it), only to be turned away at the top by the ride attendant at the top. He said the 5 year old was way to small to ride. He was like are you crazy, she is way too small. It ended up that I had to take her all the way back down with her crying in front of all the people down the stairs. While my oldest took a ride with a group of three girls she didn't know. He did offer to take her down so I could ride the ride. There was no way she was going to go with him. As a mom, I wasn't going to do that to her.
I respect him for saying she was too small. I totally did not argue with that. I just wish the bottom operator had told us that before going all the way up. My child's safety is of upmost importance to me. What I wrote Darien Lake about was what happened before and after. 1) the ride operator at the bottom should have told me she was too small instead of letting us sit in the hot sun for 30 mins, dragging the float up, climbing all the stairs, and then having a crying child come back down. 2 different operators on the same ride not having the same view and apparently training. 2) afterwards, the ride operator at the top of the tornado came down with us and got into an argument with the operator at the bottom in front of me and my kids. The bottom operator yelling at the top operator saying what's the big deal kids ride with their parents all the time. The top operator yelling back saying she's too small! They didn't offer to let her get on another slide first to make up for it (there were other slides she could go on and was allowed to go on with me). I ended up telling the girls to lets go. We'll find her another ride to go on. I left the two operators yelling at each other.
I wrote Darien Lake describing what happened. They apologized profusely and sent fast ride passes and food coupons. Still the operators need to be trained consistently.
As a teenager, I don't know if I would have been able to tell an Iraqi war vet that he couldn't get on the ride either.
It's a terrbible situation all around.
The discussion has centered
The discussion has centered on whether a teenager is able to, "tell an Iraqi war vet that he couldn't get on the ride." If popular opinion holds that teenagers are incapable of being assertive, then the theme park owners have misplaced safety of its patrons in the hands of personnel incapable of protecting it. (Having worked with teenagers for three decades, I know better...)
It doesn't matter if Darien Lake Theme Park has teenagers, octogenarians or centipedes serving as ride attendants. Those who serve in that capacity must be trained and have the intestinal fortitude to enforce the policies and procedures established to protect the safety of riders. Manning those positions with capable personnel is the responsibility of management.
In this case failure to follow policy and procedure resulted in a rider being killed- directly attributable to management not having a qualified person at a critical control point.
Sabrina's anecdote (despite 30 minutes of inconvenience) demonstrates an attendant (at the top of the steps) did follow procedure and prevented her little one from being injured or killed. The question remains, why the attendant at the bottom of the steps felt it more important to be accommodating than enforce safety. It would seem that acquiescing and bending the rules to avoid confrontation is not uncommon.
Honestly the top operator was
Honestly the top operator was right if she was too small. I am glad he said it. He did his job. I trusted that they would tell me whether she was too small or not with a parent. Some rides it is ok to ride with a parent. I would rather they tell me no it is not ok than for her to have gotten hurt. That's why we went right down and did not make a fuss about it.
The issues that I was most upset about was two operators running the same ride with different views on whether the child could ride it and arguing about it in front of my kids. They were not quiet. They were yelling at each other. We just left them to yell and went to the older water slides where my 5 year old happily went down that slide. I told her maybe next year she can go down the bigger slide. Poor kid wears the same size clothes and shoes as my 2 year old!
I worked at Darien Lake years
I worked at Darien Lake years ago (1997) as a ride operator and then a lifeguard in the water park. If the weather was bad (thunder and lightning), the water park would close and the supervisors would either send us home or farm us out to other rides in the park that were short-handed. I was sent to work the Mind Eraser one evening...they first had me checking belts and harnesses, and then operating the train itself....my training consisted of another kid showing me what to do...no manual...no rules, no regulations etc. I would hope that the policies have changed since my days there, but this story makes me wonder if this is still a practice that is employed.