For riders catastrophically injured on an amusement attraction — and for attorneys researching how to hold a global web of operators, manufacturers, and component makers accountable in a California court. These cases are won on a high duty of care and lost on jurisdiction. We litigate both.
An amusement-ride injury case looks simple from the outside and is anything but. The legal duty is favorable to the rider. The hard part is that the parties who actually built and maintained the ride are frequently scattered across other states and other countries — and getting them into a California courtroom is where most cases stall.
Thrill rides owe the highest duty of care
Most personal-injury cases are governed by ordinary negligence — reasonable care. Amusement rides are different. In Gomez v. Superior Court (2005) 35 Cal.4th 1125, the California Supreme Court held that roller coasters and similar thrill rides are common carriers under Civil Code § 2100, which requires operators to use "the utmost care and diligence for [passengers'] safe carriage." That is a heightened standard. The operator who chooses to strap the public into a machine that hurls them through the air is held to the highest duty the law imposes — not the ordinary, reasonable-person standard a defense team will try to apply.
It is rarely one defendant
Responsibility in these cases is layered. The operator owes the common-carrier duty. The manufacturer of the ride — and the makers of its restraints, brakes, and control systems — can be held strictly liable for design or manufacturing defects under the rule announced in Greenman v. Yuba Power Products (1963) 59 Cal.2d 57. Inspection and maintenance contractors may share fault. Identifying every responsible party, and the defect or failure each is answerable for, is what turns a single-defendant claim into a case that can actually fund a lifetime of care.
The real difficulty: out-of-state and international defendants
Here is what makes these cases hard, and why many firms decline them. The manufacturer that designed the ride is often based in another state — or another country. Two obstacles follow. First, personal jurisdiction: a California court can only adjudicate claims against a foreign defendant if that defendant has the constitutionally required connection to California (Code of Civil Procedure § 410.10 reaches to the limits of federal due process; the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court (1987) 480 U.S. 102 — which arose from a California case — frames the "stream of commerce" debate over foreign component makers). Second, service of process abroad: a foreign defendant generally must be served under the Hague Service Convention, a formal, slow, country-specific process that defeats lawyers who treat it as an afterthought. Add choice-of-law questions and the logistics of coordinating defendants across time zones, and you have a case that rewards preparation and punishes improvisation.
What this looks like in practice
In a case our firm handled arising from a ride injury, we faced numerous out-of-state and international defendants. The fight was less about the injury than about reaching foreign manufacturers, establishing a California court's authority over them, and holding an interlocking group of companies accountable across jurisdictions. We achieved a substantial recovery for our client. Results depend on the unique facts of each case. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter.
Frequently asked questions
Is the park liable when a ride injures a rider?
Often, and under a high standard — operators are common carriers owing the "utmost care" under Civil Code § 2100 (Gomez v. Superior Court).
Can I sue a foreign ride manufacturer?
Sometimes — if a California court has personal jurisdiction (CCP § 410.10; Asahi) and the company is served abroad under the Hague Service Convention. This is the hard part, and it is doable with the right preparation.
I signed a waiver. Is my case over?
Not necessarily. A common carrier cannot contract away its duty to operate and maintain the ride safely; boilerplate waivers and ordinary assumption-of-risk arguments do not excuse that failure.
How long do I have to file?
Generally two years from the injury under Code of Civil Procedure § 335.1. Preserve evidence early — rides get repaired and records disappear.
The bottom line
The law puts a thumb on the scale for the injured rider through the common-carrier duty. Winning the case means doing the part others avoid — chasing the manufacturer wherever it sits in the world and forcing it to answer in California.
Catastrophic ride or product injury? Let's talk.
Free, confidential consultation. We take complex, multi-defendant product and premises cases — and we welcome co-counsel and referrals from other attorneys (fee splits honored under Rule 1.5.1).
Request a ConsultationResults depend on the unique facts of each case. Prior results do not guarantee or predict a similar outcome in any future matter. This article is general information about California law, not legal advice, and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Responsible for content: Tom Vertanous, Esq., The Vertanous Firm, P.C., SBN 330760 — (626) 888-2223.