Over the last couple of years, I have told you about a very
important case in our industry called Castelan
v. Universal Studios. Castelan
was the first decision of its kind to shed some light on the standards
applicable to amusement rides under the Americans With Disabilities Act. I won’t re-hash what I said about the Castelan
case again (you can click here
and here
to read my coverage of that case), but suffice it to say that a big takeaway
from Castelan was its holding that, in states that required operators to
follow ride manufacturer recommendations, the Americans With Disabilities Act
allowed amusement ride owners and operators to use a ride manufacturer’s
accessibility restrictions as, in effect, a proxy for proof that allowing
disabled guests to ride created an “actual risk” of injury to that guest that satisfied
the “legitimate safety requirements” exception to the ADA. (If you didn’t understand that sentence, I
highly recommend reading this
for some clarification.) Well, a
federal court in Texas has recently weighed in on the issue and has reached a
very different result – ruling against Six Flags Over Texas in a nearly
identical case to Castelan and, in fact, rejecting much of the Castelan
decision in the process. The decision is
certainly a bad result for Six Flags in that case, but is it a bad decision for
the industry as a whole? Many will
undoubtedly say it is. I don’t
necessarily agree. 
About Me
- Erik H. Beard, Esq.
- I am a consultant and general counsel to International Ride Training LLC as well as a practicing attorney in Avon, Connecticut. A particular focus of mine is the legal needs of the amusement and tourism industry. My focus on the amusement industry derives from my pre-law career as an operations manager with Cedar Fair Entertainment Company and Universal Orlando. Having started my career as a ride operator at Cedar Point in 1992, I progressed through the seasonal ranks and ultimately became the Manager of Ride Operations and Park Services at Worlds of Fun in Kansas City. I also worked in Universal's operations department during the construction and development of Islands of Adventure. Today, I am an active member of the New England Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions and the International Association of Amusement Parks & Attractions. I have been invited to speak at amusement industry meetings and seminars and have worked on a variety of matters relating to this industry.
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Why Six Flags' Loss In A Recent ADA Decision Might Ultimately Be Good For The Amusement Industry As A Whole
Over the last couple of years, I have told you about a very
important case in our industry called Castelan
v. Universal Studios. Castelan
was the first decision of its kind to shed some light on the standards
applicable to amusement rides under the Americans With Disabilities Act. I won’t re-hash what I said about the Castelan
case again (you can click here
and here
to read my coverage of that case), but suffice it to say that a big takeaway
from Castelan was its holding that, in states that required operators to
follow ride manufacturer recommendations, the Americans With Disabilities Act
allowed amusement ride owners and operators to use a ride manufacturer’s
accessibility restrictions as, in effect, a proxy for proof that allowing
disabled guests to ride created an “actual risk” of injury to that guest that satisfied
the “legitimate safety requirements” exception to the ADA. (If you didn’t understand that sentence, I
highly recommend reading this
for some clarification.) Well, a
federal court in Texas has recently weighed in on the issue and has reached a
very different result – ruling against Six Flags Over Texas in a nearly
identical case to Castelan and, in fact, rejecting much of the Castelan
decision in the process. The decision is
certainly a bad result for Six Flags in that case, but is it a bad decision for
the industry as a whole? Many will
undoubtedly say it is. I don’t
necessarily agree. 
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)