Plaintiff Sues Magic Mountain Over Alleged Brain Injuries from X2 Roller Coaster

A California plaintiff has filed a lawsuit against Magic Mountain alleging that she sustained a traumatic brain injury and other injuries after riding the X2 roller coaster in 2020. Magic Mountain is moving to dismiss the lawsuit. The 53-year-old plaintiff is alleging negligence, strict product liability, negligent product liability, and loss of consortium. She claims her injuries have prevented her from working and she has incurred considerable medical expenses as a result.

Magic Mountain has an expert witness who is testifying on their behalf. He claims that the g-forces involved in riding the roller coaster are insufficient to cause serious brain injury. They claim that the plaintiff was properly secured in her ride seat and did not have any complaints prior to going on the ride. The plaintiff maintains that she suffered a subdural hematoma after going on the ride. Magic Mountain contends that the ride was functioning properly when the plaintiff rode it. There is nothing to explain why the plaintiff suffered a brain injury on the roller coaster.

Magic Mountain further contends that the plaintiff had a history of hypertension. The ride, according to Magic Mountain, explicitly states that those with hypertension should avoid the ride. Ultimately, they contend, the amusement park met its duty of care to the plaintiff by warning her that the ride could be dangerous for those with certain conditions. Since the ride was functioning properly and was safe for most park-goers, they believe they should not be held liable for the plaintiff’s injuries.

Amusement park ride lawsuits are filed under a theory of product liability

 Amusement park lawsuits are generally filed under two theories of legal liability. The first is premises liability, the second is product liability. Product liability lawsuits are filed when a park-goer is injured on a ride. The lawsuit can be filed against both the amusement park and the company that manufactured the ride.

When a park-goer is injured on a ride, the lawsuit generally makes one of three different claims. The plaintiff can claim that the ride was intrinsically defective, that a maintenance issue on the ride led to the plaintiff’s injury, or that the park failed to warn the park-goer about a potential problem that could cause injury on the ride.

In the case mentioned above, the plaintiff is claiming that her brain injury was a direct result of riding the ride. However, she cannot claim that the ride is intrinsically defective because of a lack of other plaintiffs making similar claims. Instead, she would have to claim that the park failed to warn her that the ride was intrinsically dangerous to individuals with certain conditions. Most amusement parks are well aware that their rides can be dangerous to those with cardiovascular conditions and thus, warn patrons about the problem. In this case, the park claims it met its duty of care to warn the plaintiff of potential dangers.

Talk to an Oakland Amusement Park Injury Lawyer Today

Venardi Zurada represents the interests of those who have been injured at amusement and theme parks. Call our Oakland personal injury lawyers today to schedule a free consultation, and we can begin discussing your case right away.

Source:

patch.com/california/northridge/magic-mountain-seeks-toss-x2-coaster-brain-injury-lawsuit