Unbuckled 6-year-old fell to her death on an amusement park ride. Who's responsible?

I think the operators of the rides have the duty of care to see that all riders are properly secured with the safety gear. If the child was not properly belted in, then that duty of care was breached. I also think the operators breached that duty when they overrode the warning light. It was foreseeable that improper use of the safety gear could result in serious injury or death -- that's why the warning light was there. The overriding of the warning light brings to mind the terms "willful negligence" and "flagrant disregard" of their duty of care.

I also think whoever was responsible (the owner of the ride?) for hiring and training of the operators on the ground was guilty of negligence for not assuring that the operators knew how and could be depended upon to properly use and secure the safety equipment, including not disregarding the warning light.
 
Tragic !

This past week, a young mother and her 2 year-old, fell 6 stories from Petco Park in San Diego.
Both were instantly killed. Authorities are still looking for any CCTV film that may shed some light on how this happened.
 

Butterfly said:
I think the operators of the rides have the duty of care to see that all riders are properly secured with the safety gear. If the child was not properly belted in, then that duty of care was breached. I also think the operators breached that duty when they overrode the warning light. It was foreseeable that improper use of the safety gear could result in serious injury or death -- that's why the warning light was there. The overriding of the warning light brings to mind the terms "willful negligence" and "flagrant disregard" of their duty of care.

I also think whoever was responsible (the owner of the ride?) for hiring and training of the operators on the ground was guilty of negligence for not assuring that the operators knew how and could be depended upon to properly use and secure the safety equipment, including not disregarding the warning light.
Click to expand...
According to Colorado Statute 8-20-1001:

(8) "Operator" means an individual, corporation, or company or agent thereof who owns or controls, or has the duty to control, the operation of an amusement ride.

Probable Joint liability here?
 
Once as a young kid I went on some sort of ride there an airplane went around and around. I got sick and have never gone on these rides again. My life has been more than exciting so why should I pay money to get sick or scared. I suppose that many people are bored with their lives so they need these kinds of trills. Not this kid. Regarding the question, the parents are responsible but then the people who run the amusements are also responsible that the darn thing is safe to operate. Maybe, both parties are partially to blame.
 
Verisure said:
True. An adult that would allow a child to be dropped from any height must be a moron or a psychopath. As a ten-year-old, my parents took me with them to see the film "Psycho". I'm not going to tell you the anguish I still feel to this very day.
Click to expand...
I saw it when I was 10. Didn't bother me. Are you blaming your parents for something?
 
Verisure said:
True. An adult that would allow a child to be dropped from any height must be a moron or a psychopath. As a ten-year-old, my parents took me with them to see the film "Psycho". I'm not going to tell you the anguish I still feel to this very day.
Click to expand...
My mom dropped us off at the movies whenever she didn't feel like having her kids around (which was often). She didn't care what movie was playing & there were no ratings or restrictions back then.
When I was 8, I saw "Ben Hur" and "The Pit And The Pendulum." Much worse than "Psycho."
 
I would really like to know WHO was with this child on the ride. The story is carefully worded so as not to tell you any info whatsoever about that one point. Was it her parents, just siblings, surely they wouldn't put the child on that kind of ride by herself. If the parents were on that ride with her they absolutely should have ensured she had the seat belts on properly. The paper slants this story to be all the park's fault. According to the article, the parents are using the lawsuit to ensure this never happens again. Hypocritical. If the people with this child would have cared about her safety enough this would never have happened.
 
Uptosnuff said:
I would really like to know WHO was with this child on the ride. The story is carefully worded so as not to tell you any info whatsoever about that one point. Was it her parents, just siblings, surely they wouldn't put the child on that kind of ride by herself. If the parents were on that ride with her they absolutely should have ensured she had the seat belts on properly. The paper slants this story to be all the park's fault. According to the article, the parents are using the lawsuit to ensure this never happens again. Hypocritical. If the people with this child would have cared about her safety enough this would never have happened.
Click to expand...
That's exactly right. The parents bear ultimate responsibility for not keeping an eye on their six year old child. The media always takes the side of the parents, who I'm sure feel like crap about the whole thing, but if they sue the ride company, I hope they're asked why they left it up to the operators to make sure their child was safely strapped in. That was completely irresponsible of them.
 
ohioboy said:
According to Colorado Statute 8-20-1001:

(8) "Operator" means an individual, corporation, or company or agent thereof who owns or controls, or has the duty to control, the operation of an amusement ride.

Probable Joint liability here?
Click to expand...

I misused the word "operator" in my first posting. By "operator" in the first paragraph, I meant the guys who were actually on the ground running the ride that day. But on reflection, the actual "operator," per your above post would also be ultimately responsible for the actions of the employees (rather than the employees themselves) due to the doctrine of respondeat superior, assuming they have that in CO.

There's much fuss above about it being all the parents' fault, but the parents would have relied on the ride's explicit or implied representations that children could go on the ride safely if they met a certain height or weight restriction, so I'm not sure a court would hold them liable at all. Maybe a poor judgment on the part of the parents, but I'm very skeptical it would rise to child abuse.
 
I understand BF, the accepted understanding of Operator is the one manning the controls. I was just pointing out, by definition, there could be Joint-liability.
 
Irwin said:
..... The parents bear ultimate responsibility for not keeping an eye on their six year old child. .....
Click to expand...
When all is said and done, yes. Never mind the rules of the "ride". You can debate with a teenager whether or not he/she ought to be allowed to do this or that .... but a child? I wouldn't put my child on a ride that would drop him/her 110 feet to the ground and I don't give a xxxxxx 🤬 xxxx what the rules are.
 
Butterfly said:
There's much fuss above about it being all the parents' fault, but the parents would have relied on the ride's explicit or implied representations that children could go on the ride safely if they met a certain height or weight restriction, so I'm not sure a court would hold them liable at all. Maybe a poor judgment on the part of the parents, but I'm very skeptical it would rise to child abuse.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that we are not all talking explicitly about legal culbablity. There is also that other factor: The one that affects the family personally. The one that friends and relatives will be discussing for the next 100 years: PARENTING.
 
ohioboy said:
I understand BF, the accepted understanding of Operator is the one manning the controls. I was just pointing out, by definition, there could be Joint-liability.
Click to expand...

I know, ohioboy, I wasn't crabbing at you, you were right. I was just clarifying what I had meant. You're right, there is probably joint liability. A smart lawyer might even throw in the amusement park, for allowing a ride with under trained employees to operate there. Or even the manufacturer of the ride/safety features.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top