An amusement park accident may result in serious injuries, emotional distress, and substantial financial losses. If a ride was unsafe or a park failed to follow proper safety precautions, injured visitors and surviving family members may have a cause of action under California law. This may also apply when a park fails to fulfill its legal obligations to protect visitors. Multiple areas of law may be applicable in these cases, including premises and product liability, as well as the common carrier doctrine.
Understanding who may be held liable, what compensation may be available, and how California law applies to an accident claim is crucial. Significant court decisions, including Gomez v. Superior Court and Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., have also influenced the interpretation of these cases. California also has strict deadlines for filing a claim, making it essential to recognize when to take legal action. Read along to understand these crucial legal considerations and how they may affect your case.
Understanding the Heightened Legal Duties Owed by California Theme Park Operators
California law imposes a very high legal duty on theme park owners and operators to provide protection. As a guest at an amusement park, you should always follow strict safety measures. To establish liability in court, it is necessary to demonstrate the violation of these specific duties of a premises owner and common carrier.
The Common Carrier Doctrine and the Heightened Duty under Civil Code 2100
California Civil Code 2100 provides that persons who are engaged in the business of carrying passengers for hire shall exercise the utmost care and diligence in their safe carriage. Theme parks have high-speed attractions, such as roller coasters and monorails, that require an admission fee. As a result, state courts under the law classify these operators as common carriers.
This is a specific type of liability under state law, and the theme park is not permitted to treat the situation as a typical, reasonable case. Rather, it should be extremely careful, offer safe transportation, and have the utmost skill to avoid harming passengers.
The common carrier is under a non-delegable obligation to make vehicles safe and fit for use, pursuant to Civil Code 2101. A critical structural failure of a roller coaster cannot be excused simply because the operator performed a routine visual inspection of the equipment.
Premises Liability and Safe Property Maintenance Under Civil Code 1714
If you are injured on park property while you are not actively riding, your case is based on premises liability. Under California Civil Code 1714(a), property owners are required to keep their property in a reasonably safe condition. Routine, diligent safety sweeps and hazard clearance are required at the theme parks and should be conducted promptly. Some of the most frequent causes of serious slip, trip, and fall accidents in California theme parks are:
- Wet and slippery walking surfaces close to water attraction boarding areas
- Concrete pathways that are not level and torn carpet in high-traffic corridors
- Unlit stairs and unlit queue walkways at nighttime operations
- Cracked structural pavement, broken safety handrails, and blocked pathways
Failure by the park owner or hired operator to address these conditions or post warning(s) constitutes negligence. Your lawyer will need to establish that the park was negligent, that its negligence directly caused your severe physical injuries, and that the park had a duty to act reasonably to protect you.
Cal/OSHA Safety Regulations and the Doctrine of Negligence Per Se
The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has strict regulations for permanent theme park attractions in California. California enforces amusement ride safety inspection requirements under Labor Code Sections 7920–7932. In addition, park owners should submit an annual Certificate of Compliance as required by Title 8, Section 344.7 of the California Code of Regulations.
If an amusement park fails to comply with a Cal/OSHA safety order, your legal team may be able to invoke the doctrine of negligence per se. This doctrine establishes a legal presumption of negligence arising from the park’s failure to comply with a statute intended to safeguard the public.
When Cal/OSHA finds worn locking pins on a ride, the violation may establish that the park failed to meet its legal safety obligations. In such cases, there may be no need to determine what a reasonably careful operator would have done because the applicable safety regulations already establish the required standard.
Key Legal Differences between Roller Coasters, Interactive Rides, and Bumper Cars
California personal injury law does not treat all theme park attractions equally. The applicable laws in an amusement park lawsuit depend on the type of attraction involved and the rider's level of control over their own safety. The California Supreme Court has issued two important decisions that help define the legal distinction between interactive park attractions and traditional roller coasters.
How Gomez v. Superior Court Impacts Roller Coaster Accident Claims
The California Supreme Court addressed the crucial issue of amusement ride liability in the case of Gomez v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. 4th 1125 (Cal. 2005). The case came up because a Disneyland patron died after being hit in the head by a roller coaster at the Indiana Jones Adventure ride at Disneyland. The main legal question was whether the simulated transit ride or a roller coaster was a common carrier.
The court determined that the operators of the roller coaster are common carriers when they carry the public for a fee. The court concluded that the riders on these thrill rides give up any claim to physical safety to the mechanical aspects of the ride.
There is no control of the roller coaster and no brakes. This complete lack of control requires the utmost care and diligence on the part of the operator. This decision greatly increases your likelihood of winning a case in the event of a mechanical failure.
The standard of care is high, making it easier to establish a breach of duty in this type of claim than in a typical negligence case. This case has been cited in every California amusement park accident case and has barred amusement parks from claiming they owed only an ordinary duty of care to their patrons.
Bumper Cars and Primary Assumption of Risk Under Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P.
On the other hand, common carrier liability was restricted in Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 55 Cal. 4th 1148 (2012). The plaintiff suffered a wrist fracture as a result of a bumper car accident at Great America. She filed a lawsuit claiming that bumper cars are required to meet the common carrier standard of care.
Under California Civil Code Section 2100, the common carrier doctrine does not apply to interactive, participant-controlled rides where collisions are an inherent part of the activity. Instead, the court held that the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to these types of recreational rides. Under this principle, a defendant is generally not responsible for protecting participants from risks inherent in an active sport or recreational activity.
The court said that bumping is the core of bumper cars. Low-speed bumping is a natural consequence of riding that riders willingly accept when they choose to ride the bike. So the park’s only legal duty is not to increase the ride's risks unreasonably.
A bumper car operator has only an ordinary duty of care, while a roller coaster operator has a higher duty to ensure that there are no bumps or sudden stops. Recognizing these differences is crucial for your claim because injuries on interactive attractions should be proven to have been intentionally amplified by the park.
Common Causes of Theme Park Injuries and Defective Ride Claims
There are multiple operational failures, design errors, or hazardous property defects that can cause injuries in a roller coaster or theme park. Understanding the underlying structural cause of your injury can help identify all potentially negligent defendants. There are three primary operational and physical safety failures that are the root of California personal injury claims.
Defective Mechanical Components and Strict Product Liability Lawsuits
If a roller coaster has a physical failure, the manufacturer or designer could be held strictly liable. In Soule v. General Motors Corp., 8 Cal. 4th 548 (1994), a manufacturer, distributor, or retailer is strictly liable in tort if a defect in the manufacture or design of its product causes injury.
A design defect occurs when the ride’s design is unsafe. A manufacturing defect occurs when a particular part is not made according to the intended design, such as when a low-grade steel bolt is used instead of the specified material. A warning defect may occur when the park fails to provide adequate safety warnings or disclosures about known risks.
A worn mechanical pin causing an unlocked restraint latch during a loop is a product liability claim. Your attorney will obtain maintenance logs and engineering reports to establish that the component failed to meet the manufacturer’s expectations during its normal operation, and that the manufacturer is liable for the catastrophic injuries you sustained.
Ride Operator Negligence, Inadequate Training, and Respondeat Superior Liability
Many roller coaster accidents occur because of negligent and simple human error by the park’s employees. Ride attendants are legally obligated to check that the safety harness is locked before launching the coaster. California’s doctrine of respondeat superior holds that the corporate owner is vicariously liable for the negligent acts of its employees.
The park is legally responsible if an attendant does not check a child’s height limit or ignores an automated warning light. Also, you can claim against the corporate theme park company for negligent hiring, training, or supervision.
When the park hires seasonal employees for safety-sensitive roller coaster controls who are not trained in those duties, it is failing in its duty of care. Your lawyer will obtain employee training documents and witness statements, all of which will demonstrate that the staff member’s actions directly led to your severe traumatic injuries so that the park is held fully accountable.
Premises Hazards, Slippery Walkways, and Inadequate Crowd Security
High-speed roller coasters are not the only source of serious injuries at theme parks. Structural hazards throughout the park can also cause severe injuries to visitors. Culpable theme parks are liable for:
- Wet walkways near water flumes with severe slip and fall injuries
- Head and neck trauma in dark queues at night
- Broken bones due to broken safety handrails or uneven pavement
- Negligent security and crowd surge assaults or trampling injuries
- The park is responsible for negligent security if it does not have enough security staff
Your lawyer will want to see maintenance request logs and internal security video to establish that the park was aware of the unsafe condition and did not take steps to rectify it. The amusement park should not skimp on the essentials of security, and you should not have to endure unsafe premises during your family outing.
Types of Damages and Compensation Recoverable in an Injury Lawsuit
If you are injured on a high-speed thrill ride, the effects can permanently change your physical health and financial stability. Under California law, victims can obtain full financial damages for their economic losses and personal injuries. In a successful lawsuit, you will recover damages in three categories of legal damages.
Economic Damages
Economic damages are the actual and quantifiable monetary losses you suffer due to an accident. This compensation will ensure you are not put in a financial situation that is detrimental to you because of another party’s negligence. All medical costs associated with your recovery may be included, from emergency transportation and diagnostic imaging to orthopedic surgery and physical rehabilitation.
If your injury requires future medical care or home modifications, you may be able to recover those anticipated expenses. You may also be entitled to compensation for lost wages during the period you are unable to work while recovering from your injuries.
If your physical injuries cause you to be permanently disabled, you may be able to claim loss of earning capacity. Your lawyer will work with forensic economists to determine your total lifetime financial losses, so you can concentrate on your physical recovery without worrying about any of the unfair financial costs, which the theme park will cover.
Non-Economic Damages
Non-economic damages are awarded to cover the non-financial, intangible losses resulting from a traumatic accident. These damages are not worth a specific dollar amount, but they can be the largest component of your recovery. This category covers compensation for extreme physical pain, chronic pain, and severe emotional distress.
The victims of many roller coasters have developed post-traumatic stress disorder, chronic anxiety, and depression from a terrifying ride malfunction. If you have permanent scarring, disfigurement, or loss of a limb, you may be able to recover significant non-economic damages.
If your injuries have kept you from enjoying your favorite hobbies, you can also seek damages for the loss of enjoyment of life.
Your attorney will present personal journals, medical and psychological evaluations, and intimate family testimony to the court. These will help establish significant personal losses so a jury can appreciate the extreme difficulties you have faced.
Punitive Damages and Wrongful Death Recoveries
If the misconduct is extreme, you may be able to claim punitive damages under California Civil Code 3294. These damages are meant to be punitive and to prevent other theme parks from skirting safety regulations. To recover punitive damages, clear and convincing evidence should be presented of the park’s malice, oppression, or fraud.
As an example, a park that ignored a number of safety reports on a cracked roller coaster track was being negligent. Moreover, if a roller coaster accident results in death, surviving family members may have a cause of action for wrongful death under Civil Procedure Code 377.60. This lawsuit is to recover funeral costs, loss of financial assistance, and loss of companionship and emotional support.
Shared Fault and Crucial Time Limits for Filing Theme Park Claims
There are strict deadlines and possible comparative fault defenses to consider when seeking compensation after a roller coaster accident. Culpable parks and their insurance adjusters will often try to point the finger back at you. Recognizing the details of shared responsibility and statutory filing deadlines is key to obtaining your recovery.
Pure Comparative Negligence Rules and Shared Liability Under California Law
Amusement parks and their defense teams may argue that your own actions caused or contributed to your injuries. In California, these arguments are subject to the pure comparative negligence rules.
This standard, set forth in Li v. Yellow Cab Co., 13 Cal.3d 804, allows you to obtain damages even if you are partially responsible. The jury will consider all evidence, and a percentage of responsibility will be given to each party. If you are awarded $80,000 but held 20% liable, you recover only $64,000.
Two-Year Statute of Limitations Under CCP 335.1
Under California’s statute of limitations (CCP 335.1), an accident victim has two years from the date of the injury to file a personal injury lawsuit. Failure to meet this deadline may be fatal in terms of the right to seek compensation; however, some exceptions may extend the deadline. The two-year period usually starts at age 18 for minors. Prompt action can also help preserve evidence, witness recollections, and security footage.
The Six-Month Administrative Deadline Under the California Government Claims Act
If the injury occurred on government property, an administrative claim should generally be filed within 6 months of the injury before a lawsuit can be filed against the public entity. If the claim is rejected, you typically have six months from the date of rejection to file a lawsuit.
Find a Personal Injury Lawyer Near Me
A serious theme park or roller coaster accident can disrupt your life, leaving you with physical pain, medical expenses, lost income, and other challenges. Theme park companies and their insurance carriers may act quickly to protect their interests. They may offer low settlements or deny liability altogether. Acting quickly can help safeguard your rights and seek the compensation you are entitled to.
The LA Personal Injury Law Firm is dedicated to representing accident victims and seeking justice for the negligent theme park operators. Our experienced attorneys are well-versed in personal injury and premises liability law. We are also ready to fight for the compensation you deserve. Contact us today at 310-935-0089 to discuss your legal options.
