Wisconsin Theme Park Injury Lawyer

How Wisconsin Law Looks at an Injury at a Park

When someone is hurt at a Wisconsin park, two legal theories usually frame the claim. Premises liability is the duty a property owner or operator owes to the people on its property. In a park, that covers the walkways, the queue lines, the stairs and the grounds. Product liability applies when a ride, a ride restraint or another piece of equipment is alleged to be defective. A ride restraint is the lap bar, harness or belt that holds a rider in place. A product-liability claim asks whether the product had a defect and whether that defect caused the injury.

The ride operator also matters. That is the business or employee that runs the attraction, by loading riders, checking restraints and starting and stopping the ride. Depending on who controlled what, a claim may rest on premises liability, product liability or both.

Wisconsin also has a recreational-activity immunity. Section 895.52 of the Wisconsin Statutes relieves certain property owners of "a duty to keep the property safe for recreational activities" and "a duty to inspect the property, except as provided under s. 23.115 (2)." The section lists exceptions and definitions that limit whom it protects. Whether it reaches a commercial park, a ride or a particular injury depends on the facts and on the section's text.

None of these theories treats an injury as proof of fault. The law asks whether a duty existed, whether it was breached, and whether the breach caused the harm. For a product, it asks whether there was a defect that caused the harm. For an injured person, the theory that fits shapes which parties a claim can reach and what has to be shown. People in this position often start by asking whether the injury came from the grounds, the equipment or how the ride was run, and whether the immunity could come into play. The site's general guide to theme park injury claims explains these theories in more depth.

What Kind of Incident Happened to You

Theme park injuries tend to fall into a few broad groups, and each points toward a different legal theory.

Roller coasters and other mechanical rides produce the incidents people picture first: a restraint that opens or fits poorly, a sudden stop or jolt, or a rider partly or fully thrown from a seat. Forces on a ride can also cause injuries that are harder to see; the site's page on roller coaster brain injury covers that subject. When equipment is involved, both the operator's conduct and the equipment's design or condition may be examined.

Water attractions are a second group. On slides, in wave pools and along lazy rivers, injuries can come from collisions, from the slide's surface or structure, or from the way an attraction is supervised. Drowning and near-drowning are not addressed here; this page is about the other injuries.

Slips, trips and falls on park grounds are a third group: wet surfaces near water attractions, uneven pavement, and crowded queue areas with steps or railings. These usually raise premises questions about the condition of the property and what the owner knew or should have known. Falling objects and structural hazards, such as loose fixtures, signage or parts of a structure, are a fourth.

Children face their own risks. Height and weight restrictions exist because restraints are built for certain body sizes, so when a child is hurt, questions about restraint fit and how restrictions were applied often come up.

The type of incident matters to you because it points to which rules and which parties may be in play. The facts that tend to matter across all of these are the same: where the injury happened, what equipment was involved, what the hazard was, and who controlled it. Writing those details down while they are fresh is something many injured guests and families weigh early. The site gathers official injury figures on its page of ride accident statistics.

Who May Be Responsible for Your Injury at a Wisconsin Park

Responsibility in a Wisconsin amusement park accident is often shared, so the first task is to identify each party and what it controlled.

The park operator or owner owes the premises duty for the grounds and attractions it controls. A ride manufacturer or designer may face a product-liability claim if a ride or restraint is alleged to be defective. A maintenance or inspection contractor may face a negligence claim if its work on equipment is at issue. A staffing or ride-operation company, where it is separate from the park owner, may be examined for how the ride was run. For each, negligence asks about duty, breach, causation and damages. Product liability asks about a defect and causation.

When more than one party may share the blame, Wisconsin's comparative-fault rule decides how it is divided. Comparative fault means the law compares the fault of everyone involved, including the injured person. Under section 895.045(1) of the Wisconsin Statutes, contributory negligence does not bar recovery "if that negligence was not greater than the negligence of the person against whom recovery is sought." Any damages "shall be diminished in the proportion to the amount of negligence attributed to the person recovering." The injured person's negligence "shall be measured separately against the negligence of each person found to be causally negligent."

The split among defendants also affects what an injured person can collect from each one. If a party's share of causal negligence is less than 51 percent, it is liable only for its own percentage. If a party's share is 51 percent or more, it "shall be jointly and severally liable for the damages allowed." Product claims based on strict liability follow a separate rule in subsection (3), discussed below.

For someone hurt on a ride, this means a claim against an operator and a claim against a manufacturer can be measured differently. People in this position often list every business that touched the ride or the area, from owner to contractor, so each one's role can be examined.

Filing Deadlines and the Notice Requirement Under Wisconsin Law

A statute of limitations is the period the law allows to start a lawsuit. Under section 893.54 of the Wisconsin Statutes, except as provided in sub. (2m), the actions that "shall be commenced within 3 years or be barred" include, under (1m)(a), an action to recover damages for injuries to the person, including one arising from an accident involving a motor vehicle. Exactly when that period begins turns on when the claim accrues under Wisconsin law, and that can depend on the facts.

Children are treated differently. Under section 893.16 of the Wisconsin Statutes, a person who is under 18 when the cause of action accrues may start the action within two years after the disability ceases. This does not apply to actions against health care providers. The same rule covers a person who is mentally ill, but where the disability is due to mental illness, the period may not be extended for more than five years. Subsection (2) adds that the rule "does not shorten a period of limitation otherwise prescribed."

Some Wisconsin parks, fairgrounds and attractions are run by public bodies, and that changes the first step. Section 893.80 of the Wisconsin Statutes requires written notice "within 120 days after the happening of the event giving rise to the claim." The notice must describe the circumstances of the claim and be signed by the party, agent or attorney. It must be served on the "volunteer fire company, political corporation, governmental subdivision or agency" and on the officer, official, agent or employee. The section also addresses situations where the body had actual notice and the time to sue after a claim is disallowed. How those provisions apply depends on the section's current text and the facts.

No Wisconsin product-liability period is stated on this page. Whether the operator is a government body, which period governs, and when it started are the questions people in this position often weigh first, along with the date of the incident and the injured person's age at the time.

How Your Own Actions, Signs and Waivers May Be Weighed

Riders who have been hurt often ask whether something they did will be held against them. Under section 895.045(1), it may reduce what the law allows, and if the rider's share of negligence is greater than the share of the party being sued, it bars recovery from that party. A defense might point to a posted warning, a height or weight restriction, or how a rider behaved on a ride. Those are arguments a defense may raise, not proof of fault. A jury or court weighs them against the conduct of the operator and others.

Product claims based on strict liability follow their own comparison. Section 895.045(3) of the Wisconsin Statutes provides that if "the injured party's percentage of total causal responsibility for the injury is greater than the percentage resulting from the defective condition of the product," the injured party may not recover damages based on the defect. That bar applies to recovery from "the manufacturer, distributor, seller, or any other person responsible for placing the product in the stream of commerce."

A waiver is a document a park may ask guests to sign before entry or before a ride, saying the guest gives up certain claims. What a waiver does and does not decide depends on the exact words of the document, the circumstances of signing and Wisconsin law. It is not settled by the fact that a guest signed something.

If you are wondering how your own actions, a sign you passed or a form you signed may be weighed, a conversation can help sort out how Wisconsin's rules treat them. Our attorney can talk that through when you request a case evaluation.

Damages Wisconsin Law May Allow

Compensatory damages, the term section 895.043 of the Wisconsin Statutes uses, are meant to make up for harm a person suffered. In injury cases they are commonly described in categories such as medical expenses, lost earnings, and pain and suffering. Which categories apply, and in what amount, depends on the proof and the law, not on the fact that someone was hurt.

Punitive damages are an additional award meant to punish serious wrongdoing, not to repay a loss. Wisconsin caps them. Under section 895.043(6) of the Wisconsin Statutes, "Punitive damages received by the plaintiff may not exceed twice the amount of any compensatory damages recovered by the plaintiff or $200,000, whichever is greater."

The cap has one exception. It does not apply to a claim against a defendant whose actions included operating a vehicle while under the influence of an intoxicant to a degree that made the defendant incapable of safe operation. The statute lists the covered vehicles: a motor vehicle, an off-highway motorcycle, a snowmobile, an all-terrain vehicle, a utility terrain vehicle and a boat.

For an injured person, two points follow. The cap limits punitive damages only, so it does not reduce compensation for medical bills, lost earnings or pain and suffering. And under subsection (5), joint and several liability does not apply to punitive damages, so any punitive award is not shifted among defendants the way compensatory damages can be. People in this position often keep bills, pay records and notes on how the injury affects daily life, since compensatory categories depend on proof. Death claims are covered in the next section.

If Someone You Love Died After a Theme Park Accident in Wisconsin

When a family loses someone at a park, two legal questions come before almost anything else: when the action must be brought, and who may bring it. Neither question makes the loss smaller. Both shape what is possible.

A wrongful death claim is a lawsuit over a death caused by another's wrongful act, neglect or default. Section 893.54(1m)(b) of the Wisconsin Statutes requires "an action brought to recover damages for death caused by the wrongful act, neglect or default of another" to be commenced within three years or be barred. A separate rule in section 893.54(2m) applies when the death arises "from an accident involving a motor vehicle." That action "shall be commenced within 2 years after the cause of action accrues or be barred." The official annotations note that the discovery rule lets wrongful-death claims accrue when the injury is discovered by the wrongful-death beneficiary, or with reasonable diligence should be, whichever comes first (Donald Christ v. Exxon Mobil Corporation, 2015 WI 58).

Under section 895.04 of the Wisconsin Statutes, "An action for wrongful death may be brought by the personal representative of the deceased person or by the person to whom the amount recovered belongs."

Two limits from the annotations can affect whether a family has a Wisconsin claim at all. The claim depends on the person who died having had an actionable claim at the time of death (Miller v. Luther). And the Wisconsin cause of action applies only to deaths caused in Wisconsin (Sharon R. Waranka v. Wadena Insurance Company, 2014 WI 28). Families in this position often weigh who will serve as personal representative, where the incident occurred, and when the death and its cause became known.

Records and Information That Often Matter in These Cases

Every question above, from which theory applies to how fault is divided, is answered from records of what happened. What a claim can show depends on what those records capture, so they can affect whether a duty, a defect or a share of fault can be proved. If you were hurt, the records that usually matter include the incident or accident report made with the park, the medical records of treatment, and photographs and video of the scene, the equipment and the injury.

Families and injured guests commonly gather the names and contact details of people who saw the incident. Where a restraint or other equipment was involved, whether it was preserved, and its condition, can bear on a product-liability claim. So can the posted warnings, height and weight signs and safety instructions visible at the time, because the comparative-fault rule may turn on them.

What records exist, who holds them and how they can be obtained are questions a conversation about the incident can cover.