My answer was specific to causation because that's what the post I was responding to addressed.
However, please look up res ipsa loquitur. It typically disposes of the first three elements of a negligence cause of action, including breach of the duty of reasonable care. In fact, the existence of the duty of care by park operators like Disney to guests is well-settled as a matter of law, and wouldn't even need to be submitted to the jury.
We're really talking about all the same things. I'm just pointing out that the burden of proving each element is not as onerous and complicated as many posters seem to believe, because applicable legal doctrines allow negligence to be inferred. If the factfinder is convinced by a preponderance of the evidence that plaintiff sustained a kind or degree of injuries on the waterslide that would not be expected to occur in the absence of negligence (by the operator, an employee, the guest, a third party, or some combination thereof), then they can conclude that the plaintiff has established the initial elements of her claim. Florida's modified comparative negligence standard also comes into play, but that goes way beyond the subject at hand.
