Injured rider claims R3.6m from Gold Reef City
THE thrilling Anaconda at Gold Reef City is described as a “must ride”, a truly unforgettable experience with a nine out of 10 fear factor.
However, for a Northcliff, Johannesburg woman, it is an experience she will never forget, but for the wrong reasons.
Candis Goodwin, 42, said in a summons issued in the North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria, that she shattered her left shin bone while she was riding on the Anaconda last year during a team-building outing with her colleagues.
She is blaming the theme park owners for the accident, and is claiming R3.6 million from Gold Reef City Theme Park (Pty) Ltd.
In opposing the claim, the company denied that the incident ever occurred. It said if the court did find that there was such an incident, Goodwin then contributed to it by, among others, not remaining in a safe position.
Besides this, the company said in its notice to defend, which was filed at court, that there was a clear disclaimer stating that it did not take any responsibility for injuries suffered on the ride.
On the day of the alleged incident in January last year, Goodwin yet again rode on the Anaconda, which she had described as one of her favourite rides.
Things went wrong, according to her, when the ride went up the steep slope and her one leg got stuck when the seat in front of her moved back. Her leg got stuck between the two seats and she tried her best to free her limb.
When the front seat moved forward again, she was able to free her leg, but it appeared that the pressure on her limb was so great, that her shin bone fractured below the knee.
In immense pain, Goodwin barely managed to get off the ride. She was taken to hospital, where her leg was operated on. A plate and screws had to be inserted, and it is anticipated that she will have to receive a knee replacement in future.
The theme park, in papers filed in its defence, denied the incident, but said if the court accepted Goodwin was injured during a ride, it denied that it was caused due to any negligence from its side.
It also said that Goodwin must have changed position after she was secured in her seat and that she tried to put her feet on the seating mechanism in front of her seat.
The theme park operator meanwhile also said it could not be held accountable, as Goodwin should have seen the notice board displaying the long disclaimer about injuries suffered.
It said it was made clear that it was not responsible for any loss, injuries or death of anyone who partook in the rides.
In response to this, Goodwin’s lawyer, Cheri Rudd, filed papers in which she said her client had a right in terms of the Constitution to seek redress with the court.
Rudd added that in terms of the Consumer Protection Act, Goodwin, in any event, had the right to claim compensation.
She said the theme park is a “supplier” or a “service provider” and the damages suffered by Goodwin constitute “harm” as envisaged in the Consumer Protection Act.
Besides this, Rudd said, when her client entered the theme park on this and previous occasions, she did not notice or read the disclaimer, at or near the entrance.
Rudd said any reasonable person in the position of her client would not have expected that there would be a disclaimer to indemnify the park from any liability if anyone got hurt.