On a Roll: Cedar Fair Wins A Major Victory For The Industry In The Missouri Supreme Court

Cedar Fair has done it again.  In 2011, Cedar Fair came out on the losing end of a surprising California Court of Appeals decision, Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., a case that stunningly held that guests riding a bumper car ride do not assume the risk of injury caused when the cars bump.  In 2013, the California Supreme Court reversed that decision in a decision that represented a major victory for the entire industry.  In November 2013, Cedar Fair again suffered defeat in a case called Chavez v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (“Chavez I”), this time in the Missouri Court of Appeals.  That case broadly expanded the standard of care applied in negligence cases against amusement parks, likening their operation of amusement rides to the operation of airplanes, explosives or firearms.  I strongly criticized the Chavez I decision as not only bad in result, but bad in the flawed reasoning required to reach that result.  Well, the Missouri Supreme Court seems to have agreed (although I won’t go so far as to surmise that any of the justices read this blog necessarily).  In a decision issued on November 12 called Chavez v. Cedar Fair, L.P. (“Chavez II”), the highest court in Missouri not only overruled the Court of Appeals ruling in Chavez I, but also took the remarkable step of undoing more than sixty years of case law defining the negligence standards applied to amusement parks in Missouri.  Whereas, before Chavez II, it could safely be said that some, not all, amusement operators would be held to a heightened degree of “utmost care” in preventing injuries to their guests, after Chavez II, the law in Missouri is the more appropriate “ordinary care” standard in every amusement case.  This is a big win for the industry.  And once again, we have Cedar Fair to thank for it.

Here & Now (Pt. 2): Is Immediate, On-Demand Ride Access For Autistic Guests Reasonable?

Click here for Here & Now (Prologue): The Question Of Autism In Amusement Parks Under The ADA
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 1): Is Immediate Ride Boarding For Autistic Guests Really Necessary?
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 3):  Isn't Standing In Line An Essential Rule Of The Park ... Even For Autistic Guests?

A recent lawsuit filed against the Walt Disney Company has put before a Federal Court in California the question of whether amusement parks have a legal obligation under the ADA to allow autistic guests to skip the line and board rides immediately upon arrival.  It’s a question that the industry has struggled with for years without much guidance in the legal literature.  This series is taking a closer look at that question.  Last time, I looked at the question of whether it was “necessary,” in ADA parlance, for anautistic guest to have immediate boarding privileges.  Today, I’m tackling what I believe to be the central question raised in the Walt Disney lawsuit:  Is it reasonable to allow guests with disabilities to have on-demand, immediate boarding on amusement rides?  Put another way, is it reasonable to provide guests with disabilities with an appointment time at which immediate boarding will be granted?

As I mentioned in the first piece in this series, public accommodations, like amusement parks, are only required to make “reasonable modifications” under the Americans With  Disabilities Act.  But what does "reasonable" mean in the context of an amusement park? 

GameChanger? (Part 2) - Can Ride Owners Rely On Manufacturer's Recommendations To Satisfy The ADA?

In my last piece, I told you about a recent ruling from the District Court for the Central District of California in a case called Castelan v. Universal Studios which granted judgment in Universal’s favor in a case alleging violation of the ADA brought by two disabled guests that were not permitted to ride The Mummy because they did not meet the minimum ride requirements of one functioning arm / hand and one functioning leg.  The court premised its ruling on two independent grounds.  The first, which was the subject of my last piece, was that the ADA did not require amusement ride access to guests with disabilities.  That part of the ruling is, in my opinion, as questionable as it potentially game-changing and should be taken with the proverbial grain of salt for the time being.  But the second basis for the court’s judgment was both exactly what I would have argued in Universal’s place and finally gives us some long awaited guidance.  So, let’s talk about that one and what it could mean for the industry moving forward.  A little preview – This holding might not be perfect, but I think it has a lot more legs than the first one.

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.

3 Reasons To Be Optimistic For A Reversal In Nalwa v. Cedar Fair

Yesterday, October 3, 2012, the California Supreme Court heard argument in Nalwa v. Cedar Fair - a case I've already written about on a few occasions (like here, here, and here) and one the most closely-watched amusement industry cases in years.  Due to the miracle of modern technology, I was able to observe the argument over the Internet and, while we will not know for about three months which way the Court is going to go, I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court may reverse the Court of Appeals and hold that the primary assumption of risk doctrine may, in fact, be applicable to amusement park rides in California.

Could the Disney Segway Issue Be Headed To The Supreme Court?

In my last post, I discussed Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., a class-action lawsuit in Florida challenging Disney's "no Segways" policy in its Florida properties.  To quickly recap, the judge in Florida approved a settlement in the case finding that that Disney was likely to prevail under the ADA if the case actually went to trial because it could probably prove that Segways constituted an actual safety hazard in its parks.  

Yesterday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit affirmed the trial court's ruling.  Read more after the jump. 

Disney Probably Won't Have To Allow Segways ... But What About Other Parks & FEC's?

The Ninth Circuit's decision in Baughman v. Walt Disney World, Inc., has gotten a lot of attention over the last couple of weeks. Disability advocacy groups are touting it as a big win for accessibility.  However, I do not really see it that way.  In fact, as I've already written, I think this was the WRONG case for the Ninth Circuit to have even reached the issue, given that Ms. Baughman can't seem to decide whether she uses a wheelchair because she cannot stand or uses a Segway because she cannot sit.  But, putting that aside, I also do not think the case will ultimately result in Disney being required to allow Segways in its parks.  The bigger question is what, if any, effect the decision might have on other parks and family entertainment centers - particularly those that lack the seemingly limitless resources of Disney.

The Outrageous Reason The Disneyland Segway Ruling Should Never Have Occurred

On Wednesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California issued a ruling in a case called Baughman v. Walt Disney World ordering Disney to study the use of Segways at Disneyland.  The opinion is rather glib from start to finish.  Its opening line:  “Segways at Disneyland?  Could happen.”  Its ending line:  a quote from Walt Disney himself, “Disneyland will never be completed as long as there is imagination left in the world.”  While I seriously doubt that Walt was talking about the possibility of never-ending accessibility modifications under federal regulations, the bottom line is that the Court ordered Disney to determine whether “Segways can’t be operated safely in its parks.”  Whether Disney, the industry, or I agree with the Court’s legal analysis of the ADA or not is, at this point, largely irrelevant – in all likelihood, it is not going to change.  However, I did want to address a genuine and disturbing issue that this case raises; one that I have seen no coverage about or commentary on in any of the media reporting on this story:  the fact that, in issuing this decision, the Ninth Circuit essentially condoned the practice of abusive ADA litigation brought by plaintiffs who may, or may not, actually have the disability they claim.