Facts
- Cristina Moreno, a 23-year-old honeymoon visitor, rode the Indiana Jones attraction at Disneyland on June 25, 2000.
- The complaint alleged the ride subjected Moreno to violent shaking and stresses, causing serious injuries including subarachnoid hemorrhage and hydrocephalus, requiring hospitalization and multiple brain surgeries.
- Plaintiffs alleged the ride used computer-controlled, jeep-style vehicles with fast, turbulent, unpredictable movements, including jarring jumps and drops.
- Moreno died on September 1, 2000, after medical treatment and surgeries.
- Moreno’s estate representative and heirs sued Disney for wrongful death, including claims premised on common-carrier duties.
Issues
- Whether the operator of a roller-coaster-type amusement park ride can be a “carrier of persons for reward” under California Civil Code §§ 2100 and 2101.
- Whether the ride’s passenger cars qualify as “vehicles” under Civil Code § 2101.
Decision
- The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal’s reversal of the demurrer dismissal of the §§ 2100 and 2101 causes of action.
- The Court held that an operator of a roller coaster or similar amusement park ride can be a “carrier of persons for reward” within §§ 2100–2101.
- The Court held the ride’s passenger cars can qualify as “vehicles” under § 2101.
- The case was returned for further proceedings; the Court did not decide liability, only that the complaint stated viable statutory claims.
Legal Principles
- A “carrier of persons for reward” under Civ. Code § 2100 must use the utmost care and diligence for passengers’ safe carriage.
- Civ. Code § 2101 requires such carriers to provide vehicles that are safe and fit for their intended use.
- Common-carrier status in California turns on a functional analysis: whether the operator, for compensation, carries members of the public in a manner that places passengers under the operator’s control and dependent on the operator’s safety measures, not on whether the service primarily provides transportation between destinations.
- Devices not associated with traditional transit may fall within common-carrier statutes when they carry paying passengers and the operator controls the instrumentalities creating risk.
- The heightened common-carrier duty is a stricter negligence standard, not strict insurer liability.
Conclusion
The court ruled that plaintiffs could pursue statutory claims treating a roller-coaster-type amusement ride operator as a common carrier owing passengers the utmost care, and treating the ride cars as vehicles under Civil Code § 2101, making dismissal on demurrer improper.