Innovate and Improve Through One Simple Change In How You Ask Legal Questions

As I write this, I’m sitting in the United Club at Orlando International Airport (a perk of the constant travel I seem to do) and am reflecting back on a truly fantastic week at the IAAPA Expo 2018.  This year, for the first time, International Ride Training exhibited and had a booth in the Exploration Station – to the left of the ninjas and across from the dinosaur (you have GOT to love this industry).  The booth was a monumental success as it gave us the opportunity to meet with countless clients, potential clients, and new friends just discovering us for the first time.  I was also privileged to be a featured speaker for two seminars on the Americans With Disabilities Act and to actively participate in other sessions and meetings. In short, I met A LOT of people and, being a lawyer, got a lot of questions about compliance and best practices, whether it be with respect to the ADA or ride operations safety or business issues.  Most often, these questions started with a familiar clause:  “Do I have to ….”  Now, in reflecting back on these conversations, I’m wondering if that’s not exactly the right question.  Maybe the better question is “How do I ….” Or “What’s the most reasonable way to ….”  What’s the difference?  Read on, friends.  

The Eleventh Circuit Ruling That Calls Autism Policies Across The Industry Into Question

Well, it has now been just over two years since my last entry on The Legal Roller Coaster.  Much has happened since then, and I’ll tell you about a lot of it very soon, but suffice it to say that it has never been my intention that The Legal Roller Coaster would be shelved permanently.  A brief (or not so brief, depending on your perspective) hiatus was, however, required.  Nonetheless, I’m pleased to say that I’m back and that there will be some changes (for the better) coming soon.  But in the meantime, a new long-awaited decision has been issued that makes now the best time in two years to return to the blogosphere. 

In mid-August, the 11^th Circuit Court of Appeals issued its ruling in A.L. v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts US, Inc..  A copy of the decision can be found here in case you are interested in reading it.  I wrote about this case before on a number of occasions (and I encourage you to read at least this piece before you read the rest of this one as it contains a much more fulsome explanation of the lower court ruling than I’m going to provide here), and I’ve been waiting for quite some time for the Court of Appeals’ ruling.  And now, having read it, I regret that I’m not sure its much help to the industry.  Why?  Let’s get into it.

Interaction Reaction: The Impact of Interactivity On An Amusement Operator's Liability Exposure

A few days ago, I read an interesting article on LinkedIn about the

rise of interactivity in the attractions industry and something it said got my lawyer-brain thinking.  Here’s what it was:

Interactivity doesn’t stop with great-looking, immersive technology.  There is a still a need for pure physical interaction. 

“Pure physical interaction.”  As a fan of amusements, that phrase puts a grin on my face and starts the adrenaline pumping.  As a former operator, that phrase equals “repeat business” and additional revenue - something that the article emphasized.  But as a lawyer, that phrase made me pause for a minute and think about whether the rising popularity of interactivity could change the liability calculus for owners and operators of these attractions.  I thought that question deserved a closer look.

IAAPA Is Over, So What's Next? How Does A Couple Of Days In New Orleans In February Sound?

IAAPA 2014 in Orlando was a huge success!   From talking to my clients and peers that were there, I think all agree that the quality of the educational sessions and networking opportunities was, as usual, consistently fantastic.  But what now?  Well I have a suggestion.  How about a trip to New Orleans in the dead of winter?  Sound good?
 
Recently, the American Conference Institute reached out to me about being a media partner for an upcoming, and first of its kind, conference on Recreation, Leisure, and Amusement Park Compliance and Litigation.  Now, over the years, I've had a few whispers from various people about setting something like this up, but nothing that has either been backed by someone like ACI, who has A LOT of experience with quality business conferences on a variety of topics, or that I thought would be of interest to a broad swath of the industry.  Well, that's all about to change.

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? 

Here & Now (Pt. 1): Is Immediate Ride Boarding For Autistic Guests Really Necessary?

Click here to read Here & Now (Prologue): The Question of Autism In Amusement Parks Under the ADA
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 2): Is Immediate, On-Demand Ride Access For Autistic Guests Reasonable?
Click here for Here & Now (Pt. 3):  Isn't Standing In Line An Essential Rule Of The Park ... Even For Autistic Guests?

Is it really necessary for autistic guests to have immediate access to rides?  It’s a question that really has two meanings depending upon your point of view.   From a lay-person’s perspective, the question of necessity is a loaded one, potentially involving overtones of insensitivity or intolerance.  To even question necessity is itself socially taboo.  After all, who are we, as guests without disabilities and their consequent life challenges, to question whether an autistic person or his family really “needs” something that will, regardless of literal necessity, make lives easier and a day in the park more pleasant?  Given the challenges inherent in being the parent of an autistic child, who would be so callous as to deny, or even question, an additional convenience during a day in the park?

The SeaWorld / OSHA Ruling: How It Happened & What It Means (UPDATED 4/14/14)

SeaWorld’s killer whale trainers are out of the water, at least for performance purposes, seemingly for good.  So says the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in SeaWorld of Florida, LLC (see update below) v. Perez – the SeaWorld OSHA appeal that I have written about previously and that featured prominently in Blackfish.  As you may recall, following the death of trainer Dawn Brancheau at SeaWorld Orlando, the Occupational Health & Safety Administration (“OSHA”) investigated and issued citations requiring, as relevant to this case, that SeaWorld immediately stop allowing its trainers into the water with orcas during performances.  Pursuant to OSHA’s ruling, SeaWorld’s trainers could only interact with the whales during performances if separated by a physical barrier that would, in effect, prevent a whale from dragging a trainer into the pool as had occurred with Ms. Brancheau.

(more after the jump)

The One Thing No One Is Telling You About Disney's New Disabled Guest Access Policy

As most of you probably already know, Disney has made some waves recently with the announcement of its new access policy for guests with disabilities  Although the change to the policy was announced a couple of weeks ago, I decided not to comment on it until I could see something official from Disney itself explaining how the new policy would work.  Until such an announcement, I simply could not be sure that the media and blogosphere reporting was accurate (imagine that?).  Well, Disney has now officially unveiled its new access policy and published an F.A.Q. on the ins-and-outs of its mechanics.  And having taken a look at Disney's official materials, I am left wondering why a critical component of the policy has been almost completely overlooked by both the national media and, it seems, by the people expressing dismay and anger about the new system.  Contrary to what you may have read in news reports or online petitions, Disney's new policy appears to simultaneously curtail the abuses it encountered under its prior system while still maintaining enough flexibility to address the individual needs of its disabled guests. That's good, right?  Read on to find out more...

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.**

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. 

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. 

The Most Important Amusement Industry Lawsuit In Years May Have Just Been Filed In California

Do disabled guests have an absolute right to ride amusement rides under the Americans with Disabilities Act?  That's the question posed in what could be one of the most significant amusement-related lawsuits to be filed in years.  Assuming this suit does not settle, and this is the kind of suit that might not, the result of this lawsuit could have significant ramifications on our industry from both a liability perspective and a guest-service perspective.  It could affect the way rides are designed and manufactured.  It could affect operational protocols and procedures.  In short, I do not believe it is an understatement to say that this is a lawsuit that every member of our industry needs to watch.  It is one of the rare legal decisions that could equally impact the day-to-day operations of a small FEC and a huge multi-park resort.  It is potentially that big.

A Photo Is Worth A Thousand Words, But Then What?

A really cool video produced by Coke has been flying around the internet recently.  It's a good-natured spin on hidden camera stories that is supposed to demonstrate that bad things are not the only thing captured on hidden cameras. Hidden cameras are just as likely to catch all of us at our best as at our worst.  Its a pretty entertaining little video that admittedly makes you feel all warm and fuzzy.  If you haven't seen it yet, here it is.

 

My reaction to this video was two-fold.  First, I was pretty darned impressed and a little moved.  Assuming its genuine (and heck, even if its not), the video did a nice job at making me feel good about humanity - and  strangely I am suddenly thirsty for a Coke too.  But then the lawyer in me kicked in and I wondered:  What happened just before and after each of those little snippets?  How do we know that all of these heartwarming moments really were heartwarming moments?  While it's true that, today more than ever, someone is always watching.  And taping.  And posting.  Are they really getting the whole story?  I don't think so.

A Slippery Slope? Massachusetts Just It Made It Easier For New England Waterpark Operators To Lose A Lawsuit

If you’re operating a water park in New England (or, most likely, any other amusement facility for that matter), a recent decision from the Massachusetts Appeals Court just made it easier for you to lose a law suit.  Even when I try hard to set aside any "pro-industry" bias I may occasionally have and look at this from a purely objective legal viewpoint, I can only reach one conclusion:  Massachusetts got this one wrong.  The case’s potential impact on the New England amusement industry really cannot be overstated.  So what is the issue?  Read on to find out....

PETA’s Frivolous Suit Against SeaWorld Alleging Orca Slavery: It Doesn’t Get Much More Black and White Than This (UPDATED 2/9/12)

On Monday, a federal magistrate judge heard argument on whether to dismiss a relatively recent lawsuit brought against SeaWorld by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (“PETA”) that raises an unprecedented and patently frivolous claim – even for an organization known for taking some pretty unreasonable positions.  The lawsuit is captioned Tilikum v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment, Inc. and it is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California before Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr..  Now, I suspect many of you who read my blog (and thus, presumably have an interest in the amusement industry) will immediately recognize the named plaintiff despite the fact that he is not, in fact, a human being.  Tilikum is an orca – the very orca that killed SeaWorld trainer Dawn Brancheau last year after a performance at SeaWorld in Orlando.  Tilikum and four other orcas, speaking (not surprisingly) through actual human beings (a procedure that I won’t get into in this article), “claim” that they are being held against their will and subjected to slavery and involuntary servitude in violation of the 13^th Amendment to the United States.  The basis of such a claim?  The 13^th Amendment never specifically says that it only applies to “people” so, naturally, it must also apply to orcas.  The breadth of the Plaintiffs’ argument is as utterly astounding as it is facially foolhardy and frivolous.  This is the very definition of a lawsuit brought for no other purpose than to bring publicity to the plaintiff and to harass SeaWorld.   

UPDATE: Wallace v. SeaWorld's Roadmap For Reversing Nalwa v. Cedar Fair

Last week I attended IAAPA Expo 2011 in beautiful (and much warmer than Connecticut) Orlando, Florida.  I think all who attended can agree that it was a great time and a fantastic networking opportunity.  To all of you who I met there, I hope to see you soon.  To all of you who I didn't, I hope to meet you soon.

While at IAAPA, I had the opportunity to speak with several of my colleagues, both in and out of any one of the kazillion educational sessions IAAPA offers, and specifically to speak with some of them about last summer's decision from the California federal court in Wallace v. Busch Entertainment.  I've previously written about this case to express my belief that it could contain a subtle signal that at least one federal judge in California does not believe that the Nalwa decision is long for this world.  (I've also written on the Nalwa decision previously - you can find that here).  I continue to believe that the absence of any mention of the Nalwa ruling in Wallace may speak volumes about its perceived persuasiveness.  However a colleague of mine, who practices in California, was not as convinced that there was any message or implication in the Wallace ruling.  According to my colleague, the absence of Nalwa in the Wallace decision is not attributable to the federal court's potential belief that Nalwa is a poor decision, but is simply a product of a California appellate rule that prohibits any court from citing the Nalwa decision once the California Supreme Court has agreed to review the decision.  Well - not being versed in California appellate rules (remember folks, I practice in Connecticut and the two states are PRETTY different), this stopped me in my tracks ... momentarily.  After all, if the Wallace court didn't cite to Nalwa because it wasn't allowed to - where does that leave my entire premise.  Well, I'm happy to report that my premise is safe and sound, and in fact, even assuming my colleague is correct about this rule, even stronger than it was before I knew about the rule.  Keep reading after the jump if you want to know why.