Court: Amusement Parks Liable for Safety

[Chase24]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20050617/D8AP45100.html

Found this article this morning. The California Supreme Court Ruling against Disney in favor of a 23 year old woman you suffered a brain injury in the Indian Jones Ride and eventually died. The Ruling says the park ride are "common carrires" like trains, elevators, and ski lifts and are legally liable to provide the same degree of care and safety required by other common carries.

Please See the link for the full story.

 

[PeeplMoovr]

I went on the Califonia Courts website but didn't see the decision posted there. Can anyone supply a link to the actual decision, please?
Thanks.

Edit: It also seems that the result of this decision is that there will be different standards for theme park operators (such as Disney and Universal) in California than exist in Florida. In other words, they're held to a higher standard ("utmost care and diligence") in California than they are in Florida ("reasonable care"), even for the same cloned rides.

 

[wannab@dis]

I would love to see some stats for comparisons. What is the number of deaths in "common carriers" and the number of deaths on theme park rides based on riders?

This is going to far and is just another step of the liberal california judges to impose their goofed up ideals on today's business and consumer. It's in Disney's (and other theme parks) best interest to have safety as a top goal. Nothing good can possibly come from a death or injury at their park. This is an entertainment choice and not a necessity and resulting bad press will reduce patrons which will hurt earnings.

 

[tigsmom]

Didn't see any "official site" link.

California court rules on rides

State's theme parks now face a higher standard for ride safety

By Maura Dolan and Kimi Yoshino
Los Angeles Times

June 17, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO -- In a decision that could force amusement parks to redesign or remove some thrill rides, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that operators of roller coasters and similar attractions have the same duty to ensure safety as those who run buses and passenger trains.

The 4-3 decision, which found that thrill rides could be classified as "common carriers," said operators must use "the utmost care and diligence" for the safety of riders rather than mere "reasonable care." Most states require operators of amusement rides to use only "reasonable care," industry lawyers said.

The ruling, which deals only with parks in California, is expected to make it easier for people injured on rides to prevail in lawsuits against amusement parks. In response to the heightened liability, officials of California theme parks said Thursday that they may have to change their operations, although the exact nature of any changes has yet to be decided. Park officials insisted they already adhere to the highest safety standards.

About 20 million people visit amusement parks in California each year, generating $20 billion annually for the state's economy, according to the industry. In Southern California last year, 350 accidents at amusement parks were reported to the state, but none resulted in serious injury or death.

Thursday's ruling came three days after a 4-year-old Pennsylvania boy, Daudi Bamuwamye, died after riding the Mission: Space attraction at Walt Disney World in Orlando.

In its ruling, the California Supreme Court said riders are entitled to safety on thrill rides just as they are on trains and buses.

"Riders of roller coasters and other 'thrill' rides seek the illusion of danger while being assured of their actual safety," Justice Carlos Moreno wrote for the majority. "The rider expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened, but not hurt."

Theme park industry leaders said the ruling could mean the demise of thrill rides.

"Under an extreme interpretation, it would take the thrill out of thrill rides," said John Robinson, head of the California Attractions and Parks Association, an industry group.

But attorney Barry Novack, who represents the family of a 23-year-old woman whose death in 2000 after riding the Indiana Jones Adventure at Disneyland was the subject of the high court's ruling, said the decision would make rides safer. Theme parks could reduce the threat of lawsuits by posting more explicit warning signs and designing better harnesses, he said.

Thursday's ruling sent the lawsuit back to a lower court for trial. The woman's family is seeking unspecified damages.

The state of Florida regulates and inspects rides at fairs and small attractions. Large attractions with 1,000 or more employees, such as Walt Disney World, Universal Orlando and SeaWorld, are exempt.

In 2001, the major parks agreed to voluntarily report basic details of ride "incidents," or cases severe enough to require someone to be transported and admitted to a hospital. Cases where people are treated on site for scrapes, bumps or bruises are not reported.

 

[peter11435]

Only a moron would define an attraction as a "common carrier". This now means that in California any attraction including a roller coaster is considered a form of transportation. The problem is a form of transportation is meant by law to get you from here to there in the safest possible way. A roller coaster on the other hand is meant to go fast and wildly, in other words the exact opposite of what transportation should be. Under this law it would be conceivable for government to remove all forms of "Thrill" from rides. The very thing that the common carrier law avoids is what roller coaster rider’s want. There is a huge conflict here and this will almost certainly be overturned. Think about it, under this law there is no place for a ride like Indian Jones as the sudden movements and simulation are not the "safest possible way" to get people to the unload station on this from of "transportation." It think this proves that Americans need to examine just who they are electing as their law making and interpreting officials.

 

[tigsmom]

Well, this ruling only deals with parks in California. I'm sure it will be fought.

 

[Shaman]

This ruling is rediculous. I hope the Florida courts don't get any funny ideas....

 

[PeeplMoovr]

liberal california judges to impose their goofed up ideals

While I understand what you're saying and you're entitled to opinions on the subject, I'm not quite sure why you need to bring up broad political ideologies ("liberalism") and react in a judgmental way.
Besides, Disney a pretty darn liberal organization. With Goofy-ed up ideals!

 

[Always_Disney]

This is just another case that the 9th District in CA has goofed up. I mean, I can be very liberal at times, but come on. CA is becoming WAY to liberal and to say that a roller coaster is a common carrier...I mean when was the last time you saw a matterhorn car on the highway?

 

[MichelleBelle]

What sort of "brain injury" did the Indiana Jones ride inflict? I can't think of how a brain injury could occur on that ride. It's not enough that rough. Was it something she had that the ride aggravated?

 

[PeeplMoovr]

9th District in CA has goofed up.

Do you mean 9th Circuit or 9th District? This is a state court decision, not federal. 9th Congressional district is near the bay area (Oakland, etc.), but 9th Circuit the Federal circuit to which California belongs.

But even without having read the actual decision to get the reasoning, I do agree that it's a bad decision.
With all the money Disney and Universal have in California, it wouldn't surprise me if this decision is overturned one way or another.

 

[wannab@dis]

While I understand what you're saying and you're entitled to opinions on the subject, I'm not quite sure why you need to bring up broad political ideologies ("liberalism") and react in a judgmental way.
Besides, Disney a pretty darn liberal organization. With Goofy-ed up ideals!

Call it like I see it. There's no arguing the fact that CA judges have been making extreme liberal decisions for a long time. There's also no argument that a Small World boat is in no way a common carrier. Let's use a little COMMON sense here!

What sort of "brain injury" did the Indiana Jones ride inflict? I can't think of how a brain injury could occur on that ride. It's not enough that rough. Was it something she had that the ride aggravated?

That would my guess. I remember reading about this case a while back. It's been a while and I don't remember the specifics.

 

[Always_Disney]

Sorry...9th Circuit Court of Appeals. They have a vast effect on how the state judiciary rulings go...It almost seems like their judicial beliefs filter into all parts of California. I think the checks and balances are off in the state of CA. While I am 3000 miles away in Atlanta, we can still read and see the effects that circuit has had on the entire country. I think this current judge made the ruling knowing it would probably end up in the 9th circuits hands. So, if this case is appealed, expect it to go to the 9th Circuit and not be over-ruled.

 

[PeeplMoovr]

There's no arguing the fact that CA judges have been making extreme liberal decisions for a long time. There's also no argument that a Small World boat is in no way a common carrier. Let's use a little COMMON sense here!

I agree with your conclusion about the decision and I do think California judges are more liberal than many places, but seeing as how California itself is more liberal than many other places, it's only fitting. It was your passing judgment on liberalism itself I was commenting on. Getting into political debates, I thought, was frowed upon in the forums. Making critical comments about those ideologies only seems to fuel those debates.
But again, I do agree that the decision is flawed and probably won't stand too long anyway.

 

[ClemsonTigger]

Yes and this is the same court that considers the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional and a whole litany of other "controversial" rulings.

 

[netenyahoo]

This is just ridiculous any way you look at it. I hope it gets overturned some how.

I also do not think it is Disney's fault about that lady's brain ambolism. If she knew she had some sort of condition then she rode at her own risk as they warn you. If it was some unknown condition then it is a sad tragedy with no one to blame. The lawyers probably sought out those specific judges as they knew thay would rule in their favor as those judges have made odd decisions before.

 

[ToTBellHop]

This is absolutely absurd, and just a way to make up for the state's own incompetence. Rides need to be inspected more, to ensure that they are safe (which Disney does a pretty good job of doing, but other parks don't), not made to go 5 mph to be safe with shoulder harnasses added to Mr. Toad. Gimme a break. It's a cop-out--instead of spending money to make sure the rides are in good working order (i.e. set to do what they should be doing) they want to make rides so tame that they don't have to inspect them as much. It's a way for the state to save money while the parks themselves lose billions, and the state would quickly see the vast decrease in tax revenues as not worth the change. This will be overturned.

 

[ScrapIron]

Yes and this is the same court that considers the Pledge of Allegiance unconstitutional and a whole litany of other "controversial" rulings.

No it is not, this was the state supreme court, not the federal district court.

Cheers

 

[tazhughes]

Without providing you with a full lecture on the roles of State Courts vs. Federal Courts and the legal process in general, here is some information that you need to be aware of.

That ruling was the California Supreme Court, not any Federal court so don't blame a federal judicial body for this ruling, they were interpreting State laws.

The only appelate options would be to challenge this decision to teh US Supreme court, but they will not touch this. States are sovereign so there would have to be a constitutional violation or a major federal question in this decision, which based upon the article there is not.

The only recourse that the company's have (and will likely take quickly) is to have the state legislature draft or amend legislation to correct this issue.

This has nothing to do with your perceived belief that the entire California judiciary is extremely liberal, that has only really applied to the 9th circuit and certain lower federal courts in that area, not the entire judiciary. Your broad generalization (which is based upon the media and politicians taht disagree telling you it is so) is the same as when someone says to you that Walt Disneyworld is only for little kids.

 

[PirateJ]

This ruling is rediculous. I hope the Florida courts don't get any funny ideas....

Although the article said it only applies to parks in CA, since Disney is headquarted in CA couldn't someone sue Disney in a CA court no matter where their accident occured? Wouldn't CA court still have jurisdiction over an incident that happened in FL or anywhere else??

Any law experts out there?