RULES OF THE RIDE
A thrill-seeker is killed trying to stand up on a speeding Pennsylvania roller coaster. A teenager ignites a cigarette lighter inside a New Jersey fun house, starting a blaze that kills eight people. A boy falls to his death and injures six others at a South Carolina amusement park after rocking his Ferris wheel car upside down in defiance of warnings from the ride operator.
Rider fatalities at amusement parks are rare, but these high-profile cases underscore what government safety studies have revealed about even the most minor scrapes: The majority are linked to the misconduct or inattention of patrons, who often turn around and sue the parks.
“It’s a cause for concern in our industry . . . particularly in a litigious state like California,” said Don Troudy, an executive at Knott’s Berry Farm. “Why should [parks] be held responsible when guests fail to follow the rules?”
Following the lead of other states, industry heavyweights in California are now pushing for “rider responsibility” legislation that would set down rules of conduct for patrons of the state’s amusement parks and theme parks. Such laws are already on the books in 10 states and are being pursued in 15 states other than California.
The state Assembly last week overwhelmingly approved the California Rider Responsibility Act, which is now on its way to the Senate. The bill was introduced by Assembly Speaker Curt Pringle (R-Garden Grove), sponsored by his district constituent Knott’s Berry Farm and supported by other major theme parks including Universal Studios Hollywood, Disneyland and Sea World.
Proponents of the measure say it is common-sense legislation that will improve industry safety by forcing riders to take park rules more seriously. Under the proposed legislation, patrons who misbehave could be charged with a misdemeanor punishable by fines and jail time.
“This is about public safety and awareness,” Knott’s attorney Boyd Jensen said. “We want people to have fun. We also want them to follow the rules and know that there are consequences if they don’t.”
But legal watchdogs argue that it’s really about shielding park operators from litigation rather than protecting patrons from injury. The proposed legislation would shift the assumption of risk from the amusement park owners to the riding public, making it tougher for injured consumers to win damages in court, says Mary Alexander, president of the Consumer Attorneys of California.
“This has nothing to do with safety” Alexander said. “These big corporations are basically telling consumers to ride at their own risk.”
*
Rider responsibility legislation is just the latest in a series of laws emerging in the recreation industry to hold consumers accountable for their own actions.
The movement traces its roots to the 1970s, when a Vermont jury smashed the $1-million barrier in granting an award to the plaintiff in a ski injury case. The industry mobilized to protect itself from similar suits and today more than 26 states have skier responsibility provisions. Similar laws have emerged to put the onus on consumers in inherently risky activities such as go-carting, bungee jumping and in-line skating.
Industry watchers can’t point to any single jackpot verdict that ignited the move toward rider responsibility in the amusement business. Rather, they describe it as something of an evolution, driven by the industry’s desire to continually improve safety and staunch a steady flow of personal injury lawsuits, many of which legal experts consider to be frivolous.
“[These suits] aren’t difficult to win, but they’re expensive to win,” said Lary Zucker, a Philadelphia attorney who helped craft rider responsibility legislation in Pennsylvania and New Jersey. “Over time, it adds up to real money.”
Zucker and others view park safety as a three-legged stool, supported by equipment manufacturers, park operators and patrons. A host of regulations already govern the first two legs, but industry watchers say the laws are fuzzy when it comes to the conduct of park patrons--whom they contend are the biggest safety hazards of all.
According to the federal Consumer Product Safety Commission, as many as 75% of injuries sustained on amusement park rides in any given year stem from horseplay or inattention on the part of riders, with the remainder attributable to equipment defects or errors on the part of ride operators.
Knott’s Troudy says legislation that spells out the specific duties of park patrons is a way to shore up the weakest link in the safety chain.
“The last gray area [in the law] is how a guest behaves on an amusement ride,” Troudy said. “Rider responsibility puts them back into the equation.”
Under the proposed California Rider Safety Act, amusement park patrons would have to:
* Obey posted safety rules and oral instructions from ride operators.
* Refrain from acting in a manner that could result in injury to themselves or others.
* Abstain from drugs and alcohol.
* Make a written report of their injuries before leaving the park unless they’re too badly hurt.
The law would allow park management to:
* Detain patrons suspected of breaking park rules, and claim “probable cause” as a defense in any civil lawsuits stemming from the detentions.
* Ask rule-breakers to leave the park and press charges against those who don’t.
Violation of the law would be a misdemeanor, punishable by fines of up to $1,000 and a year in jail. The law does not apply to traveling carnivals and fairs.
*
Although the industry is plugging the proposed law as a public safety measure, critics fume that the “safety” moniker is just a smoke screen for tort reform.
Mark O’Connell, a personal injury lawyer in Santa Ana, says theme park operators currently possess the very rights they claim to seek through the new state law. O’Connell says parks already have the power to enforce their own safety rules and to eject scofflaws from their property. Likewise, he says patrons who are injured through their own carelessness can already be denied damages by a jury.
O’Connell contends the law’s real purpose is to change the standard of liability as it applies to amusement parks. Currently, park rides are classified as “common carriers” just like subways, city buses and other public conveyances whose operators are held to the strictest standards of care.
O’Connell says the proposed law would relax that standard for theme park operators and shift much of the liability to patrons, making it tougher for consumers to win personal injury suits.
“They should call it the Amusement Park Immunity Act,” he said. “It would basically eliminate a majority of personal injury cases because the burden of proof [on consumers] would be too high.”
Industry officials don’t deny that the law would provide them some added defense in personal injury cases. But they dispute that it is tort reform since the law doesn’t attempt to cap damages or prevent anyone who’s injured from filing a lawsuit.
Park operators insist it would merely help to even the sides in an industry that has become a magnet for petty litigation, and they contend that it will provide a measure of protection for a key component of the state’s all-important tourist trade.
“It’s not going to solve all our problems,” said Ted Whiting, vice president of general services for the Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk,one of the state’s oldest amusement parks. “But it’s a step in the right direction.”
Although no one knows the exact figures, it’s estimated that personal injury litigation costs the amusement industry tens of millions annually in insurance premiums, lawyers fees and settlements.
Superior Court records in Santa Ana show that over the last 10 years, Knott’s was slapped with more than 50 lawsuits, many of them personal injury claims. Disneyland was sued more than 150 times over the same period. And that doesn’t include suits from municipal, federal and out-of-state courts.
“The financial impact is substantial,” said R. Wayne Pierce, a Maryland lawyer who represents the amusement industry. “It is a very big deal.”
But although costs keep rising, statistically the industry is as safe as it ever has been.
*
Consumer Product Safety Commission data show injuries related to amusement park rides have changed little over the last five years, averaging about 7,500 incidents every year out of the millions of riders sent looping and spinning. Since 1973, fewer than 100 patron deaths have been related to amusement park rides in an industry that now generates more than 250 million guest visits a year.
But a fatality just last week at Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia, in which a 25-year-old employee was struck and killed by a roller coaster car, is a grim reminder of the potential dangers.
Legal watchdogs say the very threat of personal injury lawsuits has forced park owners to remove hazards and improve safety standards. They worry that rider responsibility laws will allow parks to simply post warnings and absolve themselves of further accountability.
But attorney Pierce says it’s in the amusement industry’s interest to create a secure environment for customers, who won’t return to parks where they don’t feel safe. He says rider responsibility will simply restore some fairness to what he sees as a one-sided system.
“Studies have shown time and again that the great majority of injuries are the direct result of patrons doing something foolish,” he said. “Their folly becomes our fault. . . and we have to pay for it. It’s a fundamental frustration.”
*
The big question is whether rider responsibility laws will do what theme park operators want them to do--make patrons behave, cut down on injuries and reduce personal injury litigation. Meaningful statistics are hard to come by in the 10 states with rider responsibility laws on their books, but anecdotal evidence suggests the laws may hold some benefit for park operators.
At the Cedar Point amusement park in Sandusky, Ohio, signs are posted throughout the park alerting patrons that breaking park rules means breaking Ohio law.
Park spokesman Robin Innes says most patrons tend to think twice before violating a state statute. Typically a warning is enough. But he estimates the park presses charges against “a couple dozen” troublemakers every year, most of whom have are found guilty and forced to pay fines.
“It gets their attention,” Innes said. “It drives home the seriousness of the law.”
Pennsylvania officials recently began handing out brochures at amusement parks and welcome centers, informing patrons of the conduct required under the state’s rider responsibility act.
“We’re trying to build an atmosphere of socially expected behavior at the parks,” said Charles Bruckner, director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of Ride and Measurement Standards. “Public awareness helps.”
Whiting of Santa Cruz Beach Boardwalk said the proposed California provision that would require injured patrons to file a report before they leave the park would be a great help to park managers.
“Right now people can call us up and say they were injured months ago and we don’t even know whether they were in the park,” Whiting said. “[The proposed law] would be a big help in the investigation process.”
*
Privately, however, some theme park officials wonder if the proposed law will do much good. It falls well short of a failed measure introduced last year by Pringle. That bill sought to prevent riders from recovering damages for injuries “resulting from the ordinary and expected use of the ride”--which would have provided parks significant protection from personal injury suits.
“The thing has been watered down so much that I’m not sure it matters,” said one theme park official who declined to be named.
Others question the wisdom of trying to legislate behavior at theme parks when the judicial system is already overflowing with murderers, drug dealers and other dangerous felons.
Meanwhile, consumer attorneys say the amusement park business isn’t the hapless victim of sue-happy lawyers that officials make it out to be. Knott’s and Disneyland in particular have developed formidable reputations for defending themselves in personal injury lawsuits.
“A lot of attorneys won’t even look at a case against them,” said Warren Fox, a Century City attorney who won a settlement for a woman whose thumb was injured on a Knott’s ride in 1993. “They are very vigorous, very tough.”
But Knott’s Troudy insists rider responsibility is a concept whose time has come, and that the park will continue pushing for the new legislation.
“I don’t mind being Don Quixote on this,” he said. “We’re trying to protect the industry.”
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
RIDE AT YOUR OWN RISK
Under the proposed California Rider Safety Act, amusement park patrons would have to:
* Obey posted safety rules and act responsibly
* Abstain from drugs and alcohol
* Make a written report of their injuries before leaving the park.
(BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX / INFOGRAPHIC)
Ride Injuries and Deaths
Amusement park injuries nationwide averaged more than 7,500 annually between 1991 and 1995, but just 10 deaths occurred:
*--*
Injuries Deaths 1991 7,700 3 1992 7,550* 1 1993 7,800 2 1994 7,200 2 1995 7,500 2
*--*
*estimate
Rider Safety Act
Under the proposed California Rider Safety Act, amusement park patrons who violate rules would be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by fines of up to $1,000 and a year in jail. Other management options:
* Detain patrons suspected of breaking park rules and claim “probable cause” as a defense in civil lawsuits stemming from detainments.
* Ask rule-breakers to leave the park and press charges against those who don’t.
*
States Taking Steps
*--*
Existing Laws Year Passed Idaho 1972 New Hampshire 1982 Indiana 1986 Wisconsin 1987 Wyoming 1989 New York 1990 Ohio, New Jersey 1992 Nevada 1993 Pennsylvania 1994
*--*
Pursuing Legislation
California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Virginia and Washington
Sources: California State Legislature; Amusement Ride, Tramway and Ski Life Safety Standards Annotated; Researched by MARLA DICKERSON / Los Angeles Times
