MOOR vs. MOOR: Should amusement parks be held liable for injuries?

YES
As every hair follicle on my skin rose from excitement to get onto a 100 mph beast that takes its riders up for a rush of adrenaline, I realized I was putting my life on the line. At that moment, I feared for my safety; what if the entire roller coaster malfunctioned and broke down?
Every year, approximately 300 million people spend their leisure times at amusement parks and thousands are reported injured; a fraction of those are fatal. Of those people, none of them wanted to get injured; all they wanted was a great time.
Obviously Disneyland’s slogan of “Where Dreams Come True” didn’t mean sending their customers to incapacitation or their deathbed, but fearing for safety after being put in high-risk situations suggests the violation of trust in a business transaction.
For a safe environment, maximum attention to the details is vital for limiting the chances for accidents. Rides are supposed to be built with safety in mind, and it becomes the fault of the amusement parks to allow riders to enter after paying for their ticket that their only obligation is not upheld.
In a recent California Supreme Court case where a woman was injured while being on bumper cars, I agree with the court’s decision that liabilities are limited; however, the court made a valid point that amusement parks are “not to unreasonably increase the risk of injury.” How would one even define unreasonably when any injuries are possible within amusement park premises? Though some tickets have disclaimers in fine print absolving amusement parks of any liability issues, disclaimers themselves are too vague that it is considered “patently unreasonable” in the courtroom.
In spite of the fact that some injuries occur because of consumer behaviors, serious injuries caused by mechanical mishaps and operation failures should make the amusement parks legally responsible for those injured.

——————————————————————————————————————————–
NO
People from around the world flock to amusement parks to experience the thrills and excitement of heights and speed that would otherwise never be experienced. However, in the same way that people flock to these rides, it seems that inevitably, some of these visitors bring with them lawyers and unwarranted litigation.
Although amusement parks are responsible for maintaining and caring for their rides, the park-goers themselves must fully understand that, in the pursuit of adrenaline and thrill, the riders assume many risks and hazards that are inherent to the nature of the attractions they ride. Consequently, these individuals cannot expect amusement parks to compensate them for the injuries that might be sustained on amusement park rides.
In the same way that parks have an obligation to maintain and design the rides with safety in mind, those who visit the park have their own obligation to understand the limits of their physical bodies and to understand the risks associated with getting on the attractions that parks offer to them.
If a rider has even a slight history of heart issues, then they should probably think twice before hopping on the new rollercoaster with the flamethrowers and pretzel loops. Moreover, as ruled by a 6-1 California Supreme Court decision this past December, amusement parks cannot be held liable for injuries resulting from risks inherent to the nature of the rides.
However, the risk of injury is not limited to mega-coasters and frail senior citizens. In the aforementioned court case, a woman broke her wrist while riding the bumper cars. The court ruled against her simply because, whether a person chooses to engage in low-speed bumper car mayhem or a gravity-defying coaster, it is ultimately the rider, not the theme park, who makes the decision to assume the related risks.