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:
Pages
▼
Sunday, July 21, 2013
Friday, July 19, 2013
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.**