## Facts

- Roxanne Deciutiis and her daughter visited Six Flags America, an amusement park operated by Six Flags America, LP.
- They rode a water attraction in which inflatable rafts are propelled down a water chute and turn as they move through the ride.
- The raft in front of theirs became stuck for an unknown reason.
- The Deciutiises’ raft then collided with the stuck raft, and both plaintiffs claimed they were injured (Deciutiis reported neck and back injuries; her daughter reported hitting her head).
- About two years and eleven months after the incident, Deciutiis filed a negligence action against Six Flags, individually and on behalf of her minor daughter.
- Before jury selection, Six Flags moved for judgment, arguing the plaintiffs needed expert testimony to establish causation (and to support an inference of negligence given the ride’s mechanics).
- The plaintiffs responded that they could proceed under res ipsa loquitur without expert testimony.
- The circuit court granted judgment for Six Flags, concluding the plaintiffs had not met the prerequisites for invoking res ipsa loquitur.
- The plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the plaintiffs could use res ipsa loquitur to submit their negligence claim to the jury without expert testimony after a raft on a water ride became stuck and caused a collision.
2. Whether Six Flags had the “exclusive control” of the instrumentality required for res ipsa loquitur when the raft’s movement could be affected by rider-related factors as well as the ride’s operation.
3. Whether the ride’s operation involved complex mechanical and operational questions such that a jury could not determine negligence and causation from the occurrence alone.

## Decision

- The Court of Special Appeals of Maryland affirmed the circuit court’s judgment for Six Flags.
- The court held that res ipsa loquitur was unavailable because the plaintiffs did not satisfy the doctrine’s conditions, including the requirement that the instrumentality causing the injury be within the defendant’s exclusive control.
- The court agreed that the circumstances involved more than a simple, commonly understood occurrence; determining why a raft became stuck and whether that indicated negligence required proof beyond lay inference.
- Because the plaintiffs offered no expert testimony to explain the likely cause of the incident and to connect that cause to negligence and injury, judgment for Six Flags was proper.

## Legal Principles

- Res ipsa loquitur in Maryland permits (but does not compel) an inference of negligence only when: (1) the accident is of a kind that ordinarily does not occur absent negligence, (2) the instrumentality was within the defendant’s exclusive control, and (3) the injury was not due to an act or omission of the plaintiff.
- “Exclusive control” is not established merely because the defendant owns or operates the premises or equipment; the inference may fail when the instrumentality’s operation can be materially affected by persons other than the defendant, including users.
- When causation and breach depend on technical features of a mechanical or operational process outside ordinary juror knowledge, expert testimony may be required; absent that proof, a jury would be left to speculation.
- A plaintiff’s reliance on the occurrence itself—without evidence explaining why the event is more consistent with negligence than with non-negligent causes—may be insufficient to survive a motion for judgment.

## Conclusion

The appellate court affirmed judgment for Six Flags because the plaintiffs could not invoke res ipsa loquitur to infer negligence from the raft collision, particularly where Six Flags lacked the exclusive control required by the doctrine and where the cause of a raft becoming stuck on a water ride called for expert proof rather than lay inference.


Deciutiis v. Six Flags America, LP, 2017 Md. App. LEXIS 392 (2017)