Stephanie Mencimer
The Sizzler: One Ride That’s Not So Amusing
Cross-posted from The Tortellini
Sorry for the blog neglect of late. Occasionally I have to do work that pays the bills, and unfortunately, blogging for Google ads just doesn’t do it! To catch up, today I’ve got several items that have been sitting on my desk for a while, but seem interesting if not so timely at this point…
The first comes via law prof and amusement park safety expert Bill Childs. He wrote an interesting post last week on his TortsProf blog about “The Sizzler,” an amusement park ride that has killed an injured some kids, including a 9-year-old in Texas who was thrown from the ride. While there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that the ride is defective (particularly the restraints that should have kept the girl in her seat), the people of Texas won’t be able to sue over any associated injuries, Childs writes, because the 2003 tort reform law there creates a 15-year statue of repose. So even though the Sizzler is in active use in many places, it is at least 15 years old, and thus its owners and operators are largely immune from lawsuits. Childs writes
[T]here are dozens or hundreds of Sizzlers in operation (it is, I have read, the most popular carnival ride in existence), with the same restraint system. But due solely to its age, its manufacturer is immune from suit, and the operators will generally be effectively immune from suit. Where’s the appropriate deterrence and motivation to (for instance) urge ride owners to update the restraints?
Posted at 9:54 AM, Jan 17, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
If the Sizzler is really defective, shouldn't that defect have resulted in some injuries during the first 15 years it was in use at each park? (Which would have resulted in lawsuits and, presumably, the Sizzler being shut down for fear of more such lawsuits.)
If no one gets injured on a Sizzler that is less than 15 years old, maybe the fault lies not with the Sizzler but with park operators who don't maintain it. (Nothing in the Texas law would bar such a suit against the park owner for failure to maintain; only the manufacturer gets the benefit of the 15-year statute of repose, as I understand it.)
Posted by: Elliot | January 17, 2007 02:17 PM
I've responded to Elliot's comment (which he also posted at my site) here:
http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/tortsprof/2007/01/statutes_of_rep.html
Posted by: Bill Childs | January 18, 2007 07:35 AM