Massachusetts Bill Would Criminalize Enforcement of Amusement Ride Safety Requirements (Really ... It's True).

In Massachusetts, this sign could soon be illegal.

On May 16, 1999, a 37 year old man was ejected and injured while riding the Superman Ride of Steel roller coaster at Darien Lake.  "Park officials say that the passenger restraint system was working properly, and that the weight of the rider, which was in excess of 300 pounds, could have been a factor." 

On September 21, 2002, a 40 year old woman fell to her death at Knotts Berry Farm while riding the Perilous Plunge.  According to the coroner's report, "the woman weighed 292 pounds, had a 58-inch abdomen, and ... her hips were about 50 inches around." The seat belts on the ride only extended 50 inches.



On May 1, 2004, a man was ejected from Six Flag's New England's Superman roller coaster and killed.  Investigators found that a contributing factor to his death was that the "girth of the victim's lower torso was incompatible with the "T" bar restraint" on the ride."

And just a few weeks ago, on July 19, 2013, Rosy Esparza, a 52 year old woman, was ejected from the Texas Giant and fell to her death.  Her weight may have been a factor in her death.  While Six Flags has not released the findings of its investigation due to pending litigation, a statement issued by Six Flags on September 10 states that the ride was being reopened with modified restraints and a test seat at the entrance because "as with other rides in the park, guests with unique body shapes or sizes may not fit into the restraint system." 

Meet the man trying hard to make your next amusement ride more dangerous.

Weight clearly can be a problem on some amusement rides.  The fact is that rides are simply not designed to safely accommodate everyone of every size.  That's the reason manufacturers establish height requirements and, less frequently, weight requirements for amusement rides.  And while every operator has faced, on numerous occasions, the wrath of a parent who vociferously insists that his child be allowed to ride notwithstanding the height requirement or the guest that only JUUUUUUUST fits into the restraint but steadfastly insists on riding, whenever anyone is injured or killed a central theme in the inevitable ensuing lawsuit is that the operator should not have allowed the rider to board if the ride could not safely accommodate him.  But what if it was actually against the law for an operator to enforce height requirements?  What if it was actually a crime to turn someone away from a ride due to their weight?  Well, if State Representative Byron Rushing (D., Boston) has his way, that might soon be the case in the fine Commonwealth of Massachusetts. (Thanks to my colleague Paul Cavanaugh, of Daly Cavanaugh LLP for bringing this one to my attention!).   

Click "read more" for the rest of the story....

In Favor Of Federal Amusement Oversight? Why Pennsylvania Proves It Won't Work

In the weeks following the tragic death of Rosy Esparza on the Texas Giant at Six Flags Over Texas, there has been a great deal of debate and scrutiny of amusement regulation, or lack thereof, at the state and federal level in United States.  One state, though, has emerged as the poster-child for "what's wrong with amusement regulation" in this country - Pennsylvania.  Research conducted by Pittsburgh-based PublicSource has revealed holes and systemic weaknesses in Pennsylvania's amusement industry oversight - holes and systemic weaknesses that should be fixed.  But beyond the obvious issues raised by the PublicSource investigation, I think the experience in Pennsylvania must be viewed as a microcosm for the problems that would certainly be encountered if federal oversight of the amusement industry were to become a reality.

Special Report - Tragedy On The Texas Giant: A Call For Focus Amid Distraction

Its been a bad weekend for the amusement industry.  First, an incident on Friday evening at Cedar Point's Shoot the Rapids ride resulted in several minor injuries, with one guest treated and later released from a local hospital.  Luckily, all indications at this point in time are that this incident looked worse than it actually was.  Unfortunately, the same can not be said for the incident at Six Flags Over Texas, occurring just a couple of hours later, that tragically ended the life of Rosy Esparza after a fall from The Texas Giant roller coaster.  Understandably, these incidents, particularly the death of Ms. Esparza, have garnered a huge amount of attention from the local and national media, not to mention social media, over the last 36 hours.  That's to be expected when an event like this occurs.  Over the next few days, there will be a plethora of media reports, tweets, Facebook posts, and editorials opining about what happened in Texas, how it could have been prevented, and what is "wrong" with the amusement industry that such an event could occur.  In the midst of this maelstrom, I think it's important to keep some perspective and to keep a few things in mind so that the important work ahead of us can get done and get done right:

Planes, Trains, & Waterslides? Missouri Imposes Heightened Liability Standard On Amusement And Water Parks

The Missouri Court of Appeals this week issued a stunning decision in Chavez v. Cedar Fair L.P. holding that a water slide operator (or, in that case, a family raft ride operator) owes the same duty of care as a so-called “common carrier,” i.e. operators of mass transportation – airplanes, trains, ships, etc., to safeguard guest safety.  In so holding, Missouri has become the first state in the country to impose this heightened standard of liability on water park operators.  The Court’s analysis is fundamentally flawed both in its application to the allegations in this case and in providing guidance to future courts in future cases.  Even accepting the Court’s suspect legal analysis, the result ignores the plaintiff’s own allegations of liability – allegations which should have resulted in a lower standard of care than that which the Court imposed.  Moreover, and more importantly, the Court failed to undertake the case-by-case analysis the court claims is required to reach the result it did, thus sending the wrong message to future courts.  If permitted to stand, this decision will increase liability exposure to Missouri amusement operators (both water park and otherwise) and sets a dangerous precedent for amusement industry cases filed in other jurisdictions.  More on all of this after the jump.**

New Study Confirms That Children Are Safe On Amusement Rides (You Didn't Hear?)

So, did you hear about the new amusement ride safety report published today in the journal Clinical Pediatrics that actually demonstrates scientifically that amusement ride injuries to children under the age of 17 are exceptionally rare?  How about the scientific study that shows that amusement ride related injuries to this population dropped by an estimated 50% between 1991 and 2003?  Well, surely you must have seen the study, which received institutional review board approval at The Research Institute at Nationwide Children's Hospital, showing that, of those extremely few guests under the age of 17 that are injured on amusement rides, 97.8% are either treated and released or examined and released without treatment?  No?  You didn't see that either?  Yeah ... me neither.  But here's what I did see today:

A Response To Consumers Digest's Waterslide Safety Report (a belated Part 2): Federal Oversight Is No Answer

My last post was a response to a recent article in Consumers Digest magazine that suggested that waterpark injuries were on a sharp rise and that the best solution to solving that problem was implementing new federal regulation that would require reporting of waterpark injuries to federal authorities.  My initial response took on the factual underpinnings of this article, showing that even the very injury-data Consumers Digest relied upon failed to support the central thesis that waterparks were dangerous and becoming more so.  Now it’s time for the second issue raised both in the Consumers Digest piece and, more generally, in the media every time an unfortunate incident occurs:  Is federal regulation the answer?

A Response To Consumers Digest's Waterslide Safety Report (Part 1): The Numbers Don't Lie

A story was published today in Consumers Digest entitled “Waterparks:  Is Public Safety Going Down the Tubes” that paints an extremely unflattering and misleading picture of the safety of the waterpark industry as a whole.  Authored by Sara Bongiorni, the piece makes a number of disturbing assertions to suggest that injuries at waterparks in the United States are increasing at an alarming rate and that the best solution to countering this trend is federal regulation of the fixed site amusement industry.  The piece takes great issue with the so-called “patchwork” of state regulations governing the amusement industry and even goes so far as to portray the industry as expending hundreds of thousands of dollars per year specifically to avoid federal regulation.  I’ve seen other pieces like this – usually in the wake of a tragic accident at a park or carnival.  Rarely, though, have I seen a piece that goes to the extent that this piece does in mis-characterizing the facts and ignoring gaping holes in the logic and reasoning underlying its conclusions.  I thus feel compelled to address some of the more troubling aspects of Ms. Bongiorni’s piece.  The article though is rather lengthy, so I thought the best way to address it was in two parts.  Today, I’ll discuss the problems with Ms. Bongiorni’s injury statistics, and how they were manipulated to paint a far direr picture than exists in reality.  In Part 2, I’ll address her contention that federal regulation is the answer to all the industry’s problems.

He Said / She Said: A Conversation About The ADA’s Applicability To The Amusement Industry

A week or so ago, news broke of another ride-related ADA lawsuit alleging that a park’s disabled guest access policy is unlawfully discriminatory.  As those of you who read the blog or who know me can attest, I think these kinds of lawsuits are going to be more frequent and more important to our industry for a host of reasons, most of which are discussed below.  After hearing about this latest filing, I took the opportunity to run some thoughts through a fellow lawyer, Julie Mills, of Columbus, Ohio.  Julie has a mobility disability after a vehicle accident, and more than a decade of experience “living and lawyering” the barriers and accessibility portions of the ADA.  She authors a blog, The ADA:Titles II and III.  

Given her background and experience, I was very interested to get her take on the recent lawsuits and the ADA’s application to the amusement industry.  Our conversation raised some interesting issues that I thought would be worthwhile to share. 

New ADA Regs Proposed That Would Allow Temporary Lifts In Pools (Courtesy of Julie Mills)

Julie Mills, an attorney and blogger who writes about ADA issues in the hospitality industry, wrote a piece this week on HR 203 - a new bill that has been introduced in Congress that, if passed, would permit pools to use temporary lifts instead of incurring the expense and potential safety issues that arise from the ADA's current requirement for fixed lifts in most pools.  Julie does a nice job of summing up the issue so, with her permission, I've reprinted her piece below.  Julie's Blog, "The ADA:  Titles II and III," can be found here.  
(read her piece and my thoughts after the jump)

Happy New Year From The California Supreme Court! A Home Run Ruling In Nalwa v. Cedar Fair

In the law, there aren’t many things that can rightfully be called a home run.  The vast majority of “big” decisions out there are not total wins for one side, but are judged to be “big” because, in the main, their result effects a shift in the law or undoes a prior bad result even while, in some modest measure, containing a small victory for the “loser.”  The recent Supreme Court Obama-care decision is a perfect illustration: the Court upheld the individual mandate (the big win for liberals all over the country) while making clear that the individual mandate is, in reality, a tax (a small victory for conservatives).  On New Year’s Eve, though, the California Supreme Court issued a rare home run opinion in Nalwa v. Cedar Fair – an opinion that eviscerates the prior poorly-reasoned decision of the California Court of Appeals and unambiguously establishes the right of amusement and recreation facilities to assert the primary assumption of the risk defense to avoid costly and uncertain trial practice.  Even more remarkable, although the decision was a 6-1 majority (a strong victory to be sure), the Court of Appeals reasoning – that California’s public policy precludes the applicability of the assumption of the risk doctrine to the recreation industry entirely – was unanimously rejected.  There is simply no way to view this decision as anything but a complete home run for both Cedar Fair and the amusement industry in general.