Tourist breaks back on Sentosa ride
An Australian tourist suffered a fall and broke his back in a possible ride malfunction while on a flying fox ride in Sentosa last Sunday.
38-year-old Michael McCarthy was concluding his turn on the MegaZip flying fox adventure ride alongside his wife when he realised he was approaching the landing platform at a much greater speed than her.
“I started going faster and my wife (who was on the zipline beside him) was wondering why she was not. She was holding up her hands asking, where are you going?” he said to The Sunday Times.
At that point, he was travelling at 50km/h, and his 100kg frame made a painful crash landing on the platform in front of his stunned relatives, breaking several vertebrae in his back from the impact.
The accident happened at 1:45pm, after some 140 others made it down the ride safely. His 14-year-old son and 17-year-old daughter also took the ride and arrived at the end unharmed before him.
“It was incredibly painful,” he said. “I couldn’t breathe for a minute and a half.”
More than an hour before being sent to hospital
He said he spent about half an hour waiting for assistance, as there was no medical staff on-site to attend to him, and was finally taken to the Singapore General Hospital at about 3pm.
After receiving 35 stitches to his back and spending five days in and out of the intensive care unit, he is in stable condition and can now move his legs, although he is still hospitalised.
McCarthy, who is from Adelaide, added that he was relieved that it didn’t happen to his wife or children, who are still in Singapore with him, although his wife’s relatives have returned to Australia.
He doesn’t quite understand how it could have happened, however, saying, “Why didn’t the safety personnel say ‘That guy’s going too quick’ and have a net or something to stop me?”
McCarthy is well within the safety limit of 0.7 metres in minimum height and 140kg in maximum weight, being 1.78 metres tall.
Ride suspended
The ride has been suspended in the wake of the accident, the first time in its two-year history of operation. Some 200,000 visitors made it down the 450-metre long zipline there before last Sunday.
The MegaZip flying fox ride costs $29 per person, and takes up to six harnessed riders on a scenic trip over treetops, Siloso Beach and the ocean from a 72-metre height.
Riders start the journey fast and are slowed down by a braking mechanism as they approach the landing platform at the end.
Alexander Blyth, managing director of Flying Dragon Adventures, which runs the ride, said he had reported the case to the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), the regulating body for amusement rides.
“Nothing failed and nothing snapped. Please do not speculate. It is up to the BCA to comment,” he said, adding that he believed all safety procedures had been carried out correctly.
With regard to compensation, Blyth said that the company would cooperate with the outcome of BCA’s investigation into the case, which is ongoing.
On whether compensation can be sought for McCarthy’s injuries, it is a common practice for ride operators to get their customers to sign indemnity forms that protect the companies’ interest in the event of such accidents.
However, a lawyer has said that these agreements are not legally binding and it is still possible for him to seek compensation, reported ChannelNewsAsia.
JTJB Lawyers attorney Steven Lam said that the indemnity form could be raised by a ride operator in defence, although he raised the Unfair Contract Terms act of 1977, which he says will not allow companies to protect themselves from instances of death or personal injury.
“The indemnity form contains an exemption clause, essentially saying that they’re not responsible for any deaths or personal injuries unless through gross negligence,” he said, highlighting that Singapore’s Unfair Contract Terms act will prevent companies from being able to do so validly.
“What it simply means is this: in the event of death or personal injuries, the victim or the person suffering the damage must still prove that the business has been negligent or has been in breach of contract in taking care of them. But the business cannot rely on the exemption clause and say, ‘regardless of what happened, I’m not responsible’.”
