Family files lawsuit against Six Flags Magic Mountain alleging X2 roller coaster killed son

Hmmmmm

https://abc7.com/post/garde...rw7vvq8cvg

[article text removed... please don't copy/paste it here]

A wrongful death lawsuit filed against the theme park and the ride manufacturer

Can you sue a company that purchased the IP of the bankrupted company that built the ride?

You sue everyone. They may not end up being held liable or settling, but you let the process sort that out.

PhantomTails:

Can you sue a company that purchased the IP of the bankrupted company that built the ride?

It took me a minute to figure out whether you were talking about S&S/Arrow or Cedar Flags

Having to join a defendant to case down the line can delay the case. So you typically sue anyone who could possibly be liable. Its easy to dismiss a defendant later if its determined they are not liable/have a valid defense. Plaintiff may not know the circumstances of the sale. But totally common to sue manufacturer as well in this type of case.

Seems odd the defendants haven't heard anything from SFMM. Would expect there would have been some settlement discussions before the case was filed. May just be posturing by plaintiffs knowing the park is likely to have no comment in response. And any type of settlement discussions didn't result in compensation the family is seeking.

Sounds like case could bring up eggshell plaintiff rule. Remember some of it from Torts class 3 decades ago. Basically take plaintiffs as the come to you. If someone has a pre-existing condition that means they suffer more extensive injuries than what would normally be expected, you are liable for full extent of their injuries. There is no indication that the ride was malfunctioning that day from what they assert. Or others who were injured seriously that day on the ride. Just one person who died shortly after riding it.

Yea, if it was only one person who died that particular day and no one else was injured, how is it the rides or anyone’s fault??

That’s essentially the eggshell victim rule. An easier case would be if you punch someone, and they turn out to have an especially fragile skull (an “eggshell” skull), the fact that you didn’t know that is no defense. You have to assume anyone you punch might have an eggshell skull, and you’re liable if they do.

Of course, that’s a case of doing intentional harm. In the case of a rollercoaster, do you have to assume everyone has whatever condition may have caused this person’s death? That would eliminate all but the most gentle rides. But, that’s also why you see signs about heart conditions, back conditions, etc. - if you have a heart attack after a ride, and you knew you had a weak heart, it’s on you and not the park.

hambone:

But, that’s also why you see signs about heart conditions, back conditions, etc. - if you have a heart attack after a ride, and you knew you had a weak heart, it’s on you and not the park.

Exactly. I figured the parks have their bases covered pretty well there.

I'm trying to think of something conceivable from a neuroscientific perspective tying in with "blunt head trauma".

It's rare, although not unheard of, that such trauma could lead to the rupture of an intracranial aneurysm. That will kill you more often than not.

Unless one has (literally) had one's head examined, one is not going to be aware of such a thing, nor would it display itself in any way...until it's too late.

I'm not sure if that fits into this "eggshell" discussion.

I am totally not a lawyer, but* I would think an important consideration is that the few articles I looked at were specific to tort law. It's not obvious that allowing someone to ride a roller coaster that millions of other people have ridden without incident (other than, say, vomiting) is exactly a tort, so much as just very, very bad luck for the victim.

*Everything that comes before the word "but," etc.

I am an attorney. But not a plaintiff's attorney (or even a litigator). Took torts class first year of law school but it was required. Avoided classes that would have friends/family asking me questions about their personal lives. No criminal law or family law classes either.

My recollection of eggshell plaintiff theory was this. Take a situation where you push someone over and they fall and hit their head. For the vast majority of people, that would cause just a minor bruise with no lasting complications. If you were sued, you could be held liable for that but liability would be very small (more likely no suit is ever brought). Now, you do the same thing to someone, who for whatever reason and it doesn't matter if you or they know about it, has a skull that easily cracks, and as a result of your push, the person suffers a permanent brain injury. Eggshell plaintiff theory holds you liable for all of their injuries. You aren't just liable for the injuries that would reasonably be expected to result for a normal person (ie, essentially nothing).

Here you have a ride that the vast majority of people ride (myself included) without issue. Apparently for this individual (unfortunately) that was not the case and an absolutely horrible outcome resulted. Does the park take its guests as they find them? As noted above, there wasn't clearly a tort here (the push in the example above). If you establish a tort (park was negligent), park is likely liable (I would expect) for full extent of injuries/death. But there may be disputes about that which need to be determined at trial.

https://www.audacy.com/knxn...llegations

Six Flags was dismissed from this suit (claiming injuries on X2 as well). One, the plaintiff didn't dispute the dismissal so there wasn't really a decision on the merits of the issue. Case against other defendants moved forward. Two, she had a medical history of hypertension though and signs outside the ride warned people with hypertension not to ride. Different from the current situation in that the plaintiff did not have any known condition for which the park had warnings not to ride X2. Could be different if there were known symptoms/issues that were likely to cause significant injury (likely leads to additional warning for new group of people not to ride).

https://www.dailyjournal.co...ival-rides

This indicates that California courts have ruled that amusement park rides make parks common carriers under the law. There is a higher standard of care owed in those situations. Disneyland argued (unsuccessfully) that it was not a common carrier (in part at least because their rides didn't take you anywhere: you ended up in the same place as you started). Duty of care owed is more than ordinary negligence standard. For common carriers its the utmost care and diligence for guests' safety. How much of a difference is there between those two standards? Not sure but case wouldn't have been taken to the California Supreme Court if the distinction wasn't meaningful. Enough to make a difference in this case? Seems likely not. Though being a common carrier does not mean you are strictly liable.

Parks presumably keep some records of injuries that are reported to them. Is there some evidence that shows in the days/weeks leading up to the incident at issue that more people were stopping at first aid stations reporting severe headaches, sore necks, etc. after riding X2? Did those incidences return to normal range when the park made a repair/performed maintenance shortly after the incident at issue? Could be possible to establish negligence on the part of the park. California is one of the friendliest states for plaintiffs in terms of tort law. Not saying the family wins but would need to see whatever evidence they have to determine that. And from the article in the OP, doesn't sound like family has any info from the park in terms of what happened. Just know that outwardly appearing/from everything known healthy person rode the ride and died from injuries apparently suffered while riding. Sometimes horrible things happen with no one to blame. Feel bad for the family (and for the person who died as well) who may just be looking for answers and to pursue whatever remedies exist for their child (or may just be looking for money or a mix of all of that).

https://www.dailyjournal.co...ival-rides

These guys want to talk with you if you had a heart attack on an amusement park or carnival ride. Signs at ride entrances be damned.

TL; DR. I am not a plaintiff's attorney. :)

Armchairing this, natch, but it's interesting to me how the courts seem to use a series of variables that depend on context. I don't imagine that intent matters, since no park wants to hurt people. Negligence comes up a lot, but it seems to have more weight if the plaintiff can demonstrate an institutional pattern of negligence. Liability seems to depend on the "source" of the problem, meaning the manufacturer or park to an extent, but then you figure in existing conditions. How strange that a park should be liable for a health condition of a customer. Actual damage seems a little more straight forward, as death or dismemberment aren't difficult to prove.

Maybe what I'm getting at is that I don't see what the pattern is to win, even though some other flavors of lawsuits have clear tests to follow. Maybe I need to take a torts class.

Not a lawyer, but I rode X in 2003 and thought it was the greatest thing I've ever done, and when I rode it 2 years ago I thought I was gonna die. It's really that bad, and I can see how you'd get injured on it.

That being said, I didn't. And if you go on with a preexisting condition you're taking chances.

^As they said, I love X2 but it can really slam you around. It's one of my favorite rides anywhere - it's one of the very few rides that actually intimidates and scares me (in a good way). I wish they could make it a little smoother. It's horrible this guy died.