Attorney Michael Rehm — (800) 978-0754

Attorney Michael Rehm represents amusement park and attraction injury victims throughout San Jose and Santa Clara County. California's Great America — located in Santa Clara, approximately five miles from downtown San Jose — is one of the largest amusement parks in Northern California, drawing millions of visitors annually. Injuries at amusement parks and attractions range from ride malfunctions and restraint failures to slip and falls in queuing areas, falling objects, and inadequate crowd management. The legal framework governing these claims involves both general premises liability principles and the specific duties California imposes on commercial operators of rides and attractions.

Operator Duties Under California Law

Civil Code § 1714(a) imposes a duty of ordinary care on every person in the management of their property or person. For a commercial amusement park, that duty extends to the design, maintenance, and operation of every ride and attraction, the condition of walkways and common areas, and the adequacy of warnings given to guests. A commercial operator that invites the public onto its premises for a fee owes those guests a duty of reasonable care that encompasses the foreseeable risks of the experience it provides.

Labor Code § 7920 et seq. governs the inspection, permitting, and operation of amusement rides in California. The Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) regulates fixed amusement rides, requiring annual inspection and permitting before a ride may operate. A ride operating without a current permit, or a ride that has not passed required inspections, is operating in violation of California law. Whether a regulatory violation establishes negligence per se in a particular case depends on whether the plaintiff belongs to the class the statute protects and whether the harm is the kind the statute was designed to prevent — the standard under CACI No. 418.

Assumption of Risk

Amusement park operators will often raise assumption of risk as a defense — arguing that a guest who chooses to ride a roller coaster assumes the inherent risks of that activity. California courts have recognized that the primary assumption of risk doctrine applies to recreational activities with inherent risks — contact sports being the clearest example. However, assumption of risk does not bar claims for injuries caused by the operator's negligence that increase the risks beyond those inherent in the activity. A restraint that fails, a ride that operates outside its design parameters, or a maintenance failure that causes a mechanical malfunction are not inherent risks of riding a roller coaster — they are the product of the operator's negligence.

Signed waivers at amusement parks are a defense operators will raise. Under Civil Code § 1668 and Tunkl v. Regents of the University of California (1963) 60 Cal.2d 92, a waiver purporting to release liability for gross negligence or willful misconduct is void as against public policy. Whether a waiver bars a specific claim is a fact-specific legal question that depends on the nature of the negligence alleged and the scope of the waiver.

Product Liability — Defective Ride Components

Where a ride injury results from a defective component — a failed restraint system, a defective track section, a malfunctioning control system — the manufacturer of that component may face strict products liability under Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57. Product liability and operator negligence claims may be pursued simultaneously where the facts support both theories.

Damages

Civil Code § 3333 provides that damages include all detriment proximately caused by the defendant's negligence, whether anticipated or not. Civil Code § 3283 allows recovery for future losses reasonably certain to occur. Recoverable damages include past and future medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life.

Filing Deadline — Statute of Limitations

Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1 sets a two-year statute of limitations for personal injury claims. Missing this deadline can potentially bar a lawsuit. Tolling doctrines may apply depending on the facts — contact Attorney Michael Rehm to assess the specific timeline in your case.

Santa Clara County Superior Court

Amusement park injury cases filed in San Jose are heard at the Santa Clara County Superior Court, 191 N. First Street, San Jose, CA 95113. All limited and unlimited civil cases must be filed at the Downtown Superior Court under Local Civil Rule 1(C). E-filing is mandatory for represented parties. Cases estimated to take more than one day at trial require a Mandatory Settlement Conference before the trial assignment hearing, with the MSC Statement due no later than five court days before the conference.

Related Pages

• San Jose Personal Injury Attorney
• San Jose Premises Liability Attorney
• San Jose Defective Product Attorney
• San Jose Wrongful Death Attorney
• San Jose Traumatic Brain Injury Attorney
• San Jose Spinal Cord Injury Attorney

Attorney Michael Rehm handles amusement park and attraction injury cases throughout San Jose and Santa Clara County on a contingency fee basis. No fee without a recovery. Call (800) 978-0754 for a free consultation.

The information on this page is general legal information, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every case turns on its own facts. The law can change — statutes are amended, cases are decided, and regulations are revised; nothing on this page should be relied upon as a statement of current law without verification. Deadlines and legal bars discussed on this page are general guides — whether a particular deadline applies, has run, or is subject to tolling, and whether a particular doctrine bars or limits recovery in your case, requires individual analysis. Contact Attorney Michael Rehm to discuss the specific facts of your situation.