Summer is right around the corner! Other than our picturesque beaches, perhaps no other locations are more closely associated with the joys of summer than the Southern California amusement park.
Whether at an end-of-the school-year carnival, or a multi-billion-dollar theme park, families of all ages and sizes flock to these locations and have enjoyed the rides, slides, and things deep-fried. In 2023, over 133,000 people visited the major amusement parks in Anaheim, Buena Park, Hollywood and Valencia every day. Such numbers do not even include the seasonal outdoor events like the Los Angeles County FAIR (with nearly 50,000 daily visitors) and the Renaissance Pleasure Faire (with nearly 250,000 every year), both of which opened in early May.
With Great Rides Come Greater Responsibility…
In 1934, the California Courts held that an operator of a roller coaster was a “common carrier” and thus owed a higher duty of care to its passengers. Later, in 1964, that heightened standard was reinforced when the Courts held that the operators of a stagecoach ride at Disneyland owed a duty “to exercise the utmost care and diligence.”
More recently, in 2005, the California Supreme Court decided the case of Gomez v Superior Court. In that case, a person allegedly sustained a serious brain injury due to violent shaking and unpredictable movements of an amusement ride, and died two months later from that injury. The trial court dismissed the claims of the rider’s family on demurrer. However, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s decision to overturn the original ruling. In doing so, the Supreme Court acknowledged that “the operator of a roller coaster or similar amusement park ride” would have the duty “to exercise the highest degree of care for the safety of the passenger.” Such duty “applies equally to the rider of a roller coaster as it does to the rider of a bus, airplane or train.”
At the same time, ride operators “are not… insurers of their passengers’ safety.” Instead, the ride operator’s “degree of care and diligence” is limited to that which “can reasonably be exercised consistent with the character” of the ride and “the practical operation of the business…”
Likewise, in 2020, the Court of Appeal explained in Sharufa v Festival Fun Parks, LLC, that a waterslide is “an amusement ride similar to a roller coaster.” As the Court explained, a person suing a waterslide could not control his or her direction or acceleration while on the water slide, and the park operator “predetermines any ascents, drops, accelerations, decelerations, turns, or twists of the ride” just like any other roller coaster. As a result, the water park operator owed a higher duty of care regarding the safety of its patrons.
…But Not with Every Ride…
However, this “higher duty” does not extend to every ride at a theme park.
In 2020, the California Supreme Court decided the case of Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P. In that case, an amusement park was sued by one of its patrons after she fractured her wrist while riding in a bumper car. The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court’s award of summary judgment for the park owner, finding that the patron had assumed the risk of collisions and related injuries by choosing to ride one of the bumper cars.
The Court explained in Nalwa that bumper cars are different from roller coasters in that “once the ride commences, patrons exercise independent control over the steering and acceleration of the cars,” and that “unlike roller coaster riders, they do not surrender their freedom of movement and actions.”
The Court also acknowledged in the Nalwa case that “low-speed collisions between the padded, independently operated cars are inherent in – are the whole point – of a bumper car ride.” As a result, imposing liability on the park owner would result in “either eliminating the ride altogether or altering its character to such a degree… that the fun of bumping would be eliminated.”
Similarly, in the 2015 case of Griffin v. The Haunted Hotel, Inc., a patron sued the operator of an outdoor Halloween-themed haunted house and trail attraction after he was injured while running away from an actor who chased him from the location’s “fake exit” while wielding a chainsaw (which was running, yet with the chain already removed).
The Court of Appeal affirmed the lower court’s judgment for the haunted house operator, finding that the risk of being lulled into going through a “fake exit” only to go through another “scare event” is exactly the sort of risk assumed and experienced by the patron. The Court also found that because running from such perceived “high impact scares” is part of the risk and fun of the haunted house, and the patron “voluntarily paid money to experience it,” then the operator owed no duty of care to the patron to prevent his injuries.
As a result, a theme park operator presenting the latest, comic-book-themed thrill ride with a rider firmly strapped into their seat for a 130-foot drop would likely owe a higher duty of care to its riders in relation to their safety. By contrast, a carnival operator presenting a hall of mirrors or customer to explore, or a carousel ride with World War I-style biplanes that a patron could “fly” up and down on their own with a lever that they control, would have less control over the rider’s experience, and thus have a lower duty of care.
… And Not While You’re In Line for a Ride…
Just last year, the Court of Appeal decided the case of Smith v. Magic Mountain LLC. In that case, the Court held that, although an amusement park operator owes a higher duty of care to people on a ride, the operator only owes a duty of reasonable care to the people in line for that ride.
In the Smith case, a patron was waiting to board one of the more popular roller coasters at the park, and leaned over one of the swiveling gates on the boarding platform immediately next to the roller coaster track. Although the ride operator clearly announced that the gates would be opening and instructed people to stand clear of them, the patron allowed her hand to dangle and then become smashed in one of the gate doors as it opened.
The Court of Appeal found in Smith that the park operator did not owe the patron any legal duty higher than that of reasonable care, as she had not yet surrendered her freedom of movement by getting onto the ride itself. There was also evidence that the park operator’s employees made clear warning to the waiting ride passengers about the gates, and also used employees as line monitors to ensure that patrons who did not meet the height requirements were not attempting to board. Based thereon, the park operators acted with reasonable care, and were not liable for this patron’s injuries.
…And Not Every Kind of Ride Can Be Used To Travel Inside The Theme Park.
In addition to cases involving rides at theme parks, California courts determined that the refusal to allow the use of a certain type of mobility-assisting device within such parks did not violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”).
In Baughman v. Walt Disney World Co., a patron with muscular dystrophy wished to bring in a “gyroscopically stabilized transportation device” – commonly known as a “Segway” – to use inside the theme park. The patron wrote to the park operator in advance to ask for permission to use the Segway on an upcoming visit. The park operator declined this request, based on its policy of prohibiting the use of similar two-wheeled devices inside the park for safety reasons.
The theme park operator won summary judgment against the patron, and the Court of Appeal affirmed this ruling. The operator provided expert evidence that such two-wheeled devices that required riders to stand vertically on them were inherently more unstable than four-wheeled devices like wheelchairs or mobility scooters on which users are seated. In addition, such two-wheeled devices are capable of speeds over 12 miles per hour. Thus, given the typically crowded conditions at the theme park, it was not reasonable to prohibit the use of such devices to protect the safety of both the patron and other visitors at the park.
Takeaways
The saying “there’s no such thing as a free ride” is a fairly obvious one, especially in the big business world of amusement and theme parks. While a rider of a rollercoaster or similar ride can trust that an amusement park operator will act with the utmost care to protect his or her safety on a ride, both the park operator and the patron need to act with reasonable care in all other aspects of such activities.
If you are actively involved in such recreational and tourism fields, and have the any questions as to how these rulings might affect your business, feel free to contact Bradley, Gmelich + Wellerstein LLP so we can help you with your specific needs.
About the Author
Mark Melo is Special Counsel at Bradley, Gmelich + Wellerstein LLP and heads the Firm’s Law and Motion Department. Mr. Melo has over 24 years of litigation experience, including substantial experience in premises liability, products liability, and public entity defense. He has represented grocery and department store operators, restaurant franchisors and franchisees, security guard companies, and commercial landlords and property managers in cases involving slip-and-fall and trip-and-fall accidents, as well as injuries caused by third-party criminal conduct. Mr. Melo collaborates with other attorneys in the Firm in the initial assessment of incoming cases, and development of pre-trial strategy. He coordinates motions in limine for our trial teams and supervises attorneys in the preparation of discovery motions and dispositive motions. Mr. Melo has successfully argued before the California Court of Appeal in the Second Appellate District in Los Angeles, and also trains and mentors law clerks employed by the Firm.
