Case Background
In a significant victory for our client, a leading amusement ride manufacturer and its affiliated companies, Edlin Gallagher Huie + Blum (EGHB) attorneys successfully obtained summary judgment in a complex personal injury case involving allegations of design defects in a popular theme park roller coaster. The case centered around claims that the plaintiff suffered a traumatic brain injury while riding a roller coaster at a Southern California theme park. Caitlin Wiley-Walker stated, “This ruling demonstrates when the consumer expectations test is not applicable in a product liability case.”
Led by Michael E. Gallagher, James F. Warren IV, and Caitlin B. Wiley-Walker, our legal team employed a multi-faceted defense strategy that effectively dismantled the plaintiffs’ claims of negligence, strict products liability, negligent product liability, and loss of consortium. The case presented several unique challenges, including complex questions of successor liability and technical engineering aspects of roller coaster design and safety systems.
One of the key strategic decisions in our defense was to focus on the fundamental element of causation. Rather than becoming entangled in technical debates about roller coaster design specifications, our team successfully demonstrated that the plaintiffs failed to establish a causal link between any alleged defect in the roller coaster and the claimed injuries. Through careful examination of expert testimony and ride safety data, we showed that the forces generated by the ride were insufficient to cause the type of traumatic brain injury alleged by one of the plaintiffs.
The defense team also effectively countered the plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on the consumer expectations test for product liability. While the plaintiffs argued that ordinary consumers understand how headrests should function, our attorneys successfully demonstrated that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence supporting their theory that the headrest caused the alleged injuries. Additionally, we presented evidence showing that the roller coaster was operating as designed and properly maintained.
Key legal arguments and tactics used by EGHB attorneys to secure summary judgment
Primary Legal Arguments:
- Challenged causation as a fundamental element, demonstrating that plaintiffs couldn’t establish a link between the headrest on the ride and alleged injuries.
- Contested successor liability claims by showing they were irrelevant to the actual case focus.
- Demonstrated that the product liability claims failed both under consumer expectations test and design defect theories.
- Established that the loss of consortium claim must fail as it was derivative of the other claims.
Key Defense Tactics:
- Expert Testimony Strategy:
- Successfully challenged plaintiff’s expert testimony as speculative.
- Presented expert evidence showing ride forces were insufficient to cause claimed injuries.
- Highlighted that plaintiff’s expert didn’t conduct direct testing of the ride.
- Evidence Management:
- Used plaintiff’s own deposition testimony to contradict injury claims.
- Presented technical data showing the ride was operating as designed.
- Successfully defended against plaintiffs’ attempts to use circumstantial evidence.
- Procedural Strategy:
- Filed targeted evidentiary objections, with many sustained.
- Focused on burden-shifting in summary judgment context.
- Successfully argued that plaintiffs failed to meet their burden after defense made prima facie case.
- Focus Management:
- Kept attention on the specific components relevant to the injury claim.
- Avoided getting sidetracked by irrelevant historical issues about ride ownership.
- Maintained focus on the warranty period’s expiration.
- Technical Defense:
- Demonstrated lack of evidence regarding:
- Specific train involved.
- Condition of relevant headrest.
- Maintenance and inspection records.
- Required durometer readings.
- Demonstrated lack of evidence regarding:
- Legal Precedent Application:
- Successfully argued against application of res ipsa loquitor doctrine.
- Effectively applied product liability case law regarding burden of proof.
- Used relevant case law to defeat circumstantial evidence arguments.
Key Findings
- The Court’s ruling highlighted several key findings that supported our client’s position:
- The plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish causation between the ride and the alleged injuries.
- No evidence was provided to support claims of design or manufacturing defects.
- The plaintiff’s expert testimony was found to be largely speculative.
- The timing of the alleged injury, as described in the plaintiff’s own testimony, contradicted the proposed mechanism of injury.
Conclusion
This methodical approach resulted in summary judgment being granted on multiple grounds and the victory demonstrates EGHB’s ability to handle complex product liability cases involving technical engineering aspects while maintaining focus on fundamental legal principles. Our success in obtaining summary judgment saved our client the considerable time and expense of a full trial, which had been scheduled for February 2025.
The case also sets an important precedent for future amusement ride litigation by reinforcing the principle that plaintiffs must establish clear causation and cannot rely solely on speculation or general consumer expectations when alleging design defects in complex mechanical systems. This ruling is currently on appeal with the California 2nd District Court of Appeal.
This outcome reflects EGHB’s commitment to providing strategic, efficient, and effective legal representation for our clients in complex product liability matters. By focusing on key legal elements and leveraging our technical expertise, we continue to achieve favorable results in challenging cases across various industries.
For more information on our services or to discuss your legal needs, please contact our office today.