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.  

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.

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. 

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....

The Strong Arm Of The Law: How Judges Use Appeal-Proof Decisions To Push Settlements

One of the most frustrating things about litigation for a client to understand is that sometimes, especially early in a case, you can be 100% right on the law and 100% right on the facts, and still lose – and there’s really nothing you can do about it.  Why?  Because judges, generally, are quite practical and they know precisely how and when to flex some judicial muscle to pressure you into a settlement that will bring the entire case to a close quickly and finally.  No difficult legal questions to answer.  No long trials taking up the Court’s time and costing a lot of money for the client.  No appeal and (more importantly from the judge’s perspective) risk of reversal on appeal.  The whole case just goes away.  And if all it takes to make all this a reality is a decision on a preliminary issue that might not be in line with controlling law and that will never be appealed, from the judge’s perspective, its worth it every time. 

I recently saw a perfect example of this in a recent case involving Cedar Fair’s soon-to-be-former property, California’s Great America in Santa Clara, California. The case is called Griffin v. Cedar Fair L.P., and it involves allegations that the park is in violation of the Americans With Disabilities Act.  The decision mostly concerns a rather ordinary pleading issue that normally would not warrant much attention, however, the end of the case contains a prime example of a judge ignoring the facts and the law in an attempt to induce a quick settlement by, effectively, forcing Cedar Fair to air its dirty laundry in front of all its guests. 

A Picture Ruins A Thousand Warnings: How Marketing Makes Liability More Likely

I saw a particularly troublesome example of the collision between marketing and operations yesterday when I read a newspaper article on the Internet concerning ride safety at a large amusement park.  In the interest of not drawing any negative attention, I’m going to use an alias for the park, Happy Funland, and I’m not going to link to the article, so you’ll have to trust me on what it said.  At the top of the article was a photograph of a roller coaster descending down a drop.  Sitting in the car were two people, both clearly wearing name tags of the facility, both obviously enjoying their ride screaming and smiling, and both with their hands flailing about up in the air.  Under the picture was a caption reading, to paraphrase, “Employees test riding the WonderCoaster at Happy Funland Amusement Park.”  As if this wasn’t bad enough was this paraphrased quote from a park official:

“Our staff is extremely knowledgeable in what is required to run our rides incredibly safely and safety is our top priority when it comes to operating any ride in the park.”

Really?  ‘Cause the picture of the employees violating the safety rules sure doesn’t indicate to me that at least these employees are “extremely knowledgeable in what is required to run” this ride “incredibly safely.”  Worse, if someone ever gets injured on this ride because they weren’t holding on, this is exactly the kind of thing that plaintiff’s lawyers will jump on and that makes my job defending the facility a whole lot tougher.  This one highly publicized picture or other similar shots in marketing brochures or television commercials can (and will) come back to bite you (in that place that’s supposed to remain in the seat the whole ride) in the event of a lawsuit.  “Do As I Say, Not As I Do” is simply not a ticket to guarding against legal liability or building a solid liability defense.

"Cause" for Alarm: 3 Ways To Reduce The Chance Of A Public Interest Lawsuit

Two news items that, on the surface at least, do not seem to have much in common caught my eye this week.  First, USA Today reported that Cedar Point has decided to change the names of two of its Halloween attractions, apparently due to complaints from the National Alliance on Mental Illness (“NAMI”).  According to media reports, NAMI took issue with a haunted house called “Dr. D. Menteds Asylum for the Criminally Insane” and a musical show entitled “The Edge of Madness:  Still Crazy,” claiming that they promoted false stereotypes of the mentally ill.   

Second came news yesterday about the temporary closure of Rye Playland due to a disturbance that occurred when a Muslim woman wearing a head scarf, or hijab, was not allowed to board a ride due to a rule prohibiting any kind of headwear while riding.  The park reportedly had many Muslim guests in attendance celebrating Eid-ul-Fitr -  the holiday marking the end of the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.  While some guests at the park, not to mention the president of the Council on American-Islamic Relations - New York, believe this to be an example of Islamic intolerance, the park maintains (quite reasonably I believe) that this is a safety issue of general applicability to prevent hats and other headwear from becoming projectiles that could presumably hit other guests, become entangled in machinery, or cause shutdowns. 

Was Cedar Point right to change the names of its attractions to placate the protestations from NAMI?  Should Rye Playland have altered its headwear policy after hearing claims of perceived religious intolerance?  The answers to these questions highlight the fine line an amusement facility must walk when dealing with a “cause.”  Whether they be social, religious, human rights, animal rights, or any other “cause,” the legal, financial, and public relations impact of these interactions must be handled appropriately to avoid potentially disastrous results.

Curing The Crisis Of Credibility And Kicking The "Carnie" Connotation

 A few days ago, my friend and former colleague, Matt Heller, posted some interesting and spot-on thoughts on professionalism on his excellent leadership blog.  Matt makes the point that “the perception of safety is largely determined by what we see and experience,” and to support this point he attached this photo capture from a travel channel program on amusement parks, asking the question, “is this really how you want your facility portrayed on TV, or at all?”  

Matt’s point is very well taken.  Appearance and professionalism matter when it comes to the perception of safety. However, it doesn’t just stop at the perception of safety.  Rather, these same issues – appearance, cleanliness, and professionalism - also have a real impact on the perception of credibility – and this is a crucial issue to getting the best result possible in every form of legal proceeding.

What The Mother Of A Two Year Old Can Teach Us About Avoiding Litigation

Yesterday, a Pennsylvania television station ran a story about Isabella Prescott, a 2-year old little girl with Downs Syndrome that was not permitted to ride the "Road Rally" ride at Dorney Park's Planet Snoopy.  According to the story, the ride attendant informed Isabella's mother that Isabella could not ride because she was "an infant" and because she couldn't walk (an assessment Isabella's mother, and the television reporter, dispute).  Isabella's mother believes that Dorney Park discriminated against her daughter and, according to the story, she plans to pursue legal action against the park.

But it wasn't the potential discrimination or the intention to pursue legal action that caught my eye.  It was this:

"Prescott said she is taking legal action against the park, but said she really just wants an apology."

I don't know if she really means it, but this request for a simple apology underscores the often discounted importance of guest service in preventing costly litigation.