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.
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.
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.
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.
Often the safety of something for a particular person depends on their knowledge of the danger. For example there is a board that is failing on my deck. It is possible that it could give way leading to someone twisting their ankle or even breaking a bone. Yet I walk on my deck everyday--because I know to avoid stepping on that board until I get around to learning how to fix it and doing so.
Maybe he knew the places where it was more dangerous than well designed and built similar rides, and what to do or not do at those places to minimize the risk?
Surf instructor sends novice who has never surfed before out to surf Teahupoo. In his defense, the instructor was planning on surfing it the same day.
I'm pretty sure you can get involuntary manslaughter for driving recklessly, crashing your car, and killing your passenger. Or failing to maintain your car properly, crashing it due to an avoidable failure, and killing your passenger.
If I'm correct and you can get inv. manslaughter when you're in the same vehicle as the victim, it shouldn't be too hard to prove when the person was only planning to be in the ride later.
(IANAL, though. Legal definitions of those words may not match my intuitive understanding of them...)
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.
[0] https://www.wycocourtks.org/uploads/4/4/1/2/4412070/2018-03-...
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.
http://fox4kc.com/2018/03/26/schlitterbahn-co-owner-arrested...
Edit: remove amp link
Still not understanding why the criminal indictment isn't for the designer or owner who are mentioned several times...
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.