Arizona Theme Park Injury Lawyer

If You Were Partly at Fault: Arizona's Legal Framework for Theme Park and Amusement Park Injuries

Two legal theories usually frame an injury at an Arizona park, and one statute decides how fault is shared.

The first is premises liability: the responsibility an owner or operator has for the safety of people it invites onto its grounds, covering walkways, stairs, queues and pool decks. A claimant generally must show a duty, a breach, causation and damages; whether those are met depends on the facts and Arizona's current law.

The second is product liability: a claim that a ride, a restraint or a piece of equipment was defective and caused the injury. For an injured rider, this matters because Arizona treats a product liability action, as defined in section 12-681 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, as its own category with its own time rule, covered below. An accident on a ride does not by itself prove a defect.

Fault is measured under section 12-2505 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, Arizona's comparative-negligence rule:

"If the jury applies either defense, the claimant's action is not barred, but the full damages shall be reduced in proportion to the relative degree of the claimant's fault which is a proximate cause of the injury or death, if any. There is no right to comparative negligence in favor of any claimant who has intentionally, wilfully or wantonly caused or contributed to the injury or wrongful death."

The "defenses" are contributory negligence and assumption of risk, and each "is in all cases a question of fact and shall at all times be left to the jury." Under subsection B, a claimant's fault includes fault imputed or attributed to the claimant by operation of law. If you worry you did something wrong, such as standing up in a queue or misreading a sign, your share of fault reduces damages rather than ending the action, unless the conduct was intentional, wilful or wanton. Whether the facts point to premises liability, product liability or both is often the first thing worth sorting out in a conversation with an attorney.

What Kind of Accident Happened: Accident Scenarios This Site Covers in Arizona

Each kind of park accident tends to point toward a different legal theory and set of possible defendants, so the type of incident shapes what a claim looks like.

Roller coaster and other ride injuries are the core of this site: a restraint that opens or fails to hold, a mechanical failure, or how staff loaded, dispatched or stopped the ride. Some leave no visible mark; a coaster's forces can affect the brain without a blow to the head, as the page on roller coaster brain injury covers. National figures appear in the site's summary of official ride injury data.

Falls on wet walkways, uneven paths, stairs, ride platforms and crowded queues are usually analyzed as premises liability. Water park injuries on slides, in wave pools and on lazy rivers are also covered; drowning and near-drowning are a separate subject.

When a child is injured, Arizona treats the time limits differently under section 12-502 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, so a parent's timing questions are not the same as an adult's.

A single incident, such as a fall while exiting a ride, can bring both premises and product questions into the same matter. Someone in this position may find it useful to note exactly where the injury happened and what was involved, since that points to which rules apply.

Who May Be Responsible for Your Injury Under Arizona Law

Responsibility often runs through several hands. For an injured guest, that means a claim may involve more than one party, each under a different theory.

The park or property owner is most often examined under premises liability, because it controls the grounds. The ride operator runs a ride day to day, loading guests, checking restraints (the lap bar, harness or belt that holds a rider) and dispatching cars; its conduct is usually analyzed as negligence, a failure to use reasonable care. The ride manufacturer or a component supplier may be examined under product liability, and a maintenance or inspection contractor under negligence. Naming a category is not a statement that any party was at fault; that depends on the facts.

One category changes the procedure. If a defendant is a public entity, a public school or a public employee, section 12-821.01 of the Arizona Revised Statutes requires a written claim, filed with the person authorized to accept service for that entity under the Arizona rules of civil procedure, within one hundred eighty days after the cause of action accrues. The claim must contain facts sufficient to explain the basis for liability and "a specific amount for which the claim can be settled and the facts supporting that amount." A claim not filed within that period "is barred and no action may be maintained thereon." Sorting out who controlled the ride and the grounds is a central part of any conversation with an attorney.

Filing Deadlines and the Rules That Can Shorten Them

Arizona's time rules come from several statutes, and which apply depends on the theory and the defendant.

Under section 12-542 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, except as provided in section 12-551, an action "for injuries done to the person of another" must be "commenced and prosecuted within two years after the cause of action accrues, and not afterward."

Under section 12-551 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, a product liability action follows the section 12-542 period, except that no such action may be brought "if the cause of action accrues more than twelve years after the product was first sold for use or consumption." That limit, often called a statute of repose, does not apply when the cause of action "is based upon the negligence of the manufacturer or seller or a breach of an express warranty provided by the manufacturer or seller." For an older ride, when it was first sold and what kind of claim is made can both matter.

Under section 12-502 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, if a person entitled to bring an action, other than those set forth in article 2 of that chapter, is under eighteen or of unsound mind when the cause of action accrues, "the period of such disability shall not be deemed a portion of the period limited for commencement of the action," and the person has "the same time after removal of the disability which is allowed to others."

The public-entity notice is a separate, earlier requirement. Under section 12-821.01, a cause of action accrues "when the damaged party realizes he or she has been damaged and knows or reasonably should know the cause, source, act, event, instrumentality or condition that caused or contributed to the damage." A minor or an insane or incompetent person may file within one hundred eighty days after the disability ceases. A filed claim is deemed denied sixty days after filing unless the claimant is told of the denial in writing before then. How these rules fit together for a particular injury is a question a conversation with our attorney can help a family work through.

Signed a Waiver? What Waivers and the Recreational-Use Rule Do and Do Not Decide

Injured guests are sometimes told that a form they signed, or a ticket they bought, settles everything. Arizona's statutes are more specific.

A waiver is a document agreeing in advance to give up or limit claims for injuries. Whether one is enforceable depends on its wording, the circumstances of signing, who signed it, the facts of the injury and Arizona's current law. Separately, section 12-2505 makes assumption of risk "in all cases a question of fact" that "shall at all times be left to the jury," and if applied it reduces damages rather than barring the action.

Arizona's recreational-use rule is section 33-1551 of the Arizona Revised Statutes. A public or private owner, easement holder, lessee, tenant, manager or occupant of premises "is not liable to a recreational user or educational user except on a showing" of "wilful, malicious or grossly negligent conduct that was a direct cause of the injury." A recreational user "accepts the risks created by the user's activities and shall exercise reasonable care in those activities." In plain terms, subsection B means such a party is not liable for unknown conditions on the land, and a posted warning or safety change does not by itself create liability if there is no other basis for it. Subsection D adds that the section "does not create a duty of care or basis of liability."

Whether section 33-1551 reaches a park visit turns on whether the injured person was a "recreational user" as the statute defines it, and on the facts. For someone told a form ends their claim, the stake is that neither a waiver nor this rule decides a claim on its own. Keeping a copy of any signed form or ticket lets those documents be reviewed with an attorney.

Evidence That Often Matters in Arizona Theme Park Injury Cases

Records made close to the incident often carry the most weight, because they show what was known before memories and conditions changed.

If you were hurt, the records that usually matter include:

• Medical records, from the first-aid station or emergency room through follow-up care, which connect the injury to the event.
• Photos and video of the ride, restraint, walkway or slide, warning signs and the injury; guests' phone footage sometimes captures details no one else recorded.
• An incident report filed with the park, which shows what was reported and when, though it does not by itself establish cause.
• Witness names and contact information, including other riders, guests in the queue and companions.
• Physical evidence, such as torn clothing, a broken personal item or equipment handed over, and a note of which ride, car or seat was involved. The ride usually stays in the park's control, which is why its identity and the time of the incident are worth recording.

For someone sorting out which records exist and which are missing, it may help to request a case evaluation to talk through the incident reports, photos, medical records and dates involved.

When a Family Loses Someone: Wrongful Death Claims Under Arizona Law

When a park visit ends in a death, Arizona gives the family a distinct claim, a wrongful death action, brought by survivors when a death is caused by another's wrongful act, neglect or default.

For a family, section 12-611 of the Arizona Revised Statutes means the death does not erase the claim. When a death is caused by wrongful act, neglect or default that would have entitled the injured person to sue had they lived, the person or corporation that would have been liable "shall be liable to an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured."

Under section 12-612 of the Arizona Revised Statutes, the action "shall be brought by and in the name of the surviving husband or wife, child, parent or guardian, or personal representative of the deceased person for and on behalf of the surviving husband or wife, children or parents, or if none of these survive, on behalf of the decedent's estate." Either parent may maintain the action for the death of a child, and a guardian for the death of a ward. A personal representative includes anyone granted letters testamentary or of administration by competent authority under the laws of Arizona or any other state, and may maintain the action without further letters.

Section 12-612 also provides that the amount recovered is distributed to those parties "in proportion to their damages," and that if recovery is on behalf of the estate, it is an asset of the estate. What damages may be allowed depends on the facts and each survivor's loss. The statute disqualifies a party convicted of, or who pled guilty or no contest to, certain listed offenses involving the death.

Section 12-542 treats an action for injuries "when death ensues" as "accruing at the death of the party injured," so the clock is tied to the date of death, not the date of the incident. A grieving family may weigh who among the survivors will bring the action and whether a personal representative has been appointed, questions a conversation with an attorney can help sort out.