Page 1
Magic Mountain Bore No ‘Heightened Duty’ to Woman Injured While Waiting in Line
Hoffstadt Says Roller Coaster Is ‘Common Carrier’ but Requites for Boosted Obligation to Would-Be Patron Who Had Not Yet Been Accepted as Passenger Were Absent
By a MetNews Staff Writer
A Los Angeles Superior Court judge did not err in declining to instruct a jury on the general rule that a heightened duty of care is imposed on common carriers that charge fees for their services, the Court of Appeal for this district has held in a case where a woman sued the owners of Six Flags Magic Mountain in Valencia based on an injury she incurred while waiting in line to board the Twisted Colossus rollercoaster.
Prior to the Nov. 5, 2016 mishap, an employee of the park had cried, “stand clear” of airgates that were opening so that riders could exist. Yet, plaintiff Tessa Smith failed to move and her right hand was injured.
Writing for Div. Four, Justice Brian M. Hoffstadt, in an opinion upholding a judgment pursuant to the jury’s verdict, did not question that a roller coaster is a common carrier, but concluded that other requisites for the heightened-duty instruction, which Los Angeles Superior Court Judge James E. Blancarte would not render, were absent.
Hoffstadt’s Opinion
Hoffstadt wrote, in the published portion of the opinion, filed Thursday:
“At first, common carriers included the operators of stagecoaches and railroads….But as technology evolved, the universe of common carriers evolved to encompass operators of streetcars, airplanes, buses, taxicabs and rideshares like Uber….These days, the ‘expansive’ universe of common carriers includes those who operate elevators and escalators, ski lifts, and mule trains….Of critical importance here, common carriers include amusement parks owners while operating their rides.”
Smith, he noted, does not come under any exception to the general requirement that one suing a common carrier for personal injuries under a heightened-duty theory must have been aboard a conveyance when the harms were incurred. Those exceptions, Hoffstadt set forth, as relevant to Smith, are that the person had been accepted as a passenger and had come under control of the common carrier.
Employee’s Ascertainment
The jurist recited that before a person is admitted to the Twisted Colossus—which features “many fast drops and quick turns”—an employee of the park must ascertain that the would-be rider is of minimum height and doesn’t display symptoms signaling unsuitability for the experience. Hoffstadt said:
“The undisputed evidence indicated that, until that final check occurred, Magic Mountain had not accepted a passenger for transit.”
He added:
“It is also undisputed that plaintiff had not yet placed herself under the control of Magic Mountain for purposes of being transported on the ride….At the time plaintiff was injured when the airgates opened, plaintiff could still take the exit from the boarding platform and not board the rollercoaster train cars.”
Earlier Cases Differentiated
Hoffstadt pointed out, distinguishing fact situations in earlier cases:
“This case does not present a scenario where plaintiff was injured while the carrier slowed its still-moving vehicle for her to board. Nor does it present a scenario where plaintiff was injured while the carrier undertook to escort plaintiff to the boarding area. And it is not a scenario where the carrier required plaintiff to wait in a boarding area beset by the hazards or dangers of the mode of transportation at issue. Indeed, the alleged mechanism of plaintiff’s injury—that is, Magic Mountain’s failure to remove a bracket protruding into a space between the railing of the queue line—is not characterized by any of the ‘hazards incident to the journey’ on the ride itself or to the dangers of the mode of transportation (i.e., a rollercoaster).”
The case is Smith v. Magic Mountain LLC, 2024 S.O.S. 3705.
Copyright 2024, Metropolitan News Company