Just Published: Theme Park Insider: 2016 Year in Review
Written by Robert Niles
Published: June 17, 2005 at 12:29 PM
Disney, a defendant in the suit, asked the court to exempt amusement rides from that classification, which would have voided one claim brought against the company over the death of a Spanish woman from brain injuries sustained on the Indiana Jones ride in 2000.
A trial court went for it, but an appellate court overturned that decision. And now the Supreme Court has agreed with the appellate court. That decision shouldn't have surprised anyone. California courts have traditionally held that amusement rides qualify as "common carriers," even applying the standard in a 1995 decision to Disneyland's Pirates of the Caribbean ride.
In this ruling, the court majority outlined this tradition, from stagecoaches to ski lifts, to airplane pilots taking visitors on sightseeing trips, to scenic railways and, finally, to roller coasters and flume rides. The majority wrote:
Certainly there is no justification for imposing a lesser duty of care on the operators of roller coasters simply because the primary purpose of the transportation provided is entertainment. As one federal court noted, “amusement rides have inherent dangers owing to speed or mechanical complexities. They are operated for profit and are held out to the public to be safe. They are operated in the expectation that thousands of patrons, many of them children, will occupy their seats.” (U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Brian (5th Cir. 1964) 337 F.2d 881, 883.) Riders of roller coasters and other “thrill” rides seek the illusion of danger while being assured of their actual safety. The rider expects to be surprised and perhaps even frightened, but not hurt. The rule that carriers of passengers are held to the highest degree of care is based on the recognition that “ ‘[t]o his diligence and fidelity are intrusted the lives and safety of large numbers of human beings.’ ” (Treadwell v. Whittier, supra, 80 Cal. 574, 591.) This applies equally to the rider of a roller coaster as it does to the rider of a bus, airplane, or train.
So does that mean theme park operators will have to design rides no more turbulent than a city bus ride? Industry spokespersons would have the public believe that.
"Under an extreme interpretation, it would take the thrill out of thrill rides," John Robinson of the California Attractions and Parks Association told the L.A. Times. "It puts roller coasters out of business."
But Robinson's hyperbole overlooks a rather large loophole in the law. California's Civil Code section 2101 requires common carriers to provide “vehicles” that are “safe and fit for the purposes to which they are put.”
A roller coaster is put to the purposes of rolling people up, down and around a twisting track at high speed. A simulator-based ride like Indiana Jones is put to the purpose of tossing people around as it maneuvers through a show building.
Indeed the court agreed that "it is of course true that not all the statutes pertaining to carriers of persons for reward apply to every form of transportation."
In other words, a roller coaster or a thrill ride does *not* have to be like a bus. The decision didn't raise a legal bar. It left it right where it was.
That said, parks must still bear responsibility that their rides are safe. If Indiana Jones is designed in such a way that it puts riders at unacceptable risk for injury when compared with other thrill rides that toss folks around, then Disney can be, and should be, held responsible under the law.
Yesterday's decision does not determine if the Indiana Jones ride is unsafe. It doesn't force Disney, or any other ride operator to change a thing. All the ruling did a reject an attempt to loosen regulation of theme park rides within the state of California, clearing the way for the Indiana Jones case to go on to trial.
Walt Disney World
Tokyo Disney Resort