106 Cal.App.5th 1128
Cal. Ct. App.2024Background
- Plaintiff Tessa Smith was injured while waiting in the holding area to board the Twisted Colossus rollercoaster at Six Flags Magic Mountain, specifically when airgates opened and crushed her hand against a metal bracket.
- Smith had not yet been subject to the ride’s final safety inspection and could still have exited the boarding area, bypassing the ride.
- Smith sued Magic Mountain for negligence and premises liability, seeking over $8 million in damages.
- The trial court instructed the jury on ordinary negligence but declined Smith’s request for a heightened common carrier duty instruction.
- The jury found Magic Mountain not negligent, and the court denied Smith’s motions for a new trial, including on grounds of alleged jury misconduct.
- Smith appealed both the refusal to give the common carrier instruction and the handling of jury misconduct allegations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of heightened common carrier duty before boarding ride | Magic Mountain owed utmost care as a common carrier once Smith was in the holding area, seeking to board | No heightened duty applied until after final acceptance for boarding; Smith retained control and could exit | Heightened duty does not apply until the carrier accepts the passenger and control is surrendered; here, that had not yet occurred |
| Right to common carrier jury instruction | Substantial evidence supported a factual dispute; jury should have been instructed | Undisputed facts showed only ordinary premises liability applied; no such instruction warranted | No instruction required as a matter of law where evidence is not in dispute |
| Juror Mayberry’s incomplete litigation disclosure | Non-disclosure was intentional and biased the jury | Omission was unintentional, questions were imprecise, no evidence of bias | No abuse of discretion; omission was unintentional and no demonstrable bias was found |
| Pre-deliberation juror discussions as misconduct | Discussions were prejudicial and required new trial | Comments were innocuous, excused juror Karlu, and gave opportunity to address evidence | Minor misconduct was not prejudicial and provided no basis for new trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Nalwa v. Cedar Fair, L.P., 55 Cal.4th 1148 (Cal. 2012) (describes general and heightened duties of care, including in amusement contexts)
- Gomez v. Superior Court, 35 Cal.4th 1125 (Cal. 2005) (expands common carrier duties to amusement park rides)
- Falls v. San Francisco & N.P.R. Co., 97 Cal. 114 (Cal. 1893) (explains rationale and boundaries of heightened carrier duty)
- Sharufa v. Festival Fun Parks, LLC, 49 Cal.App.5th 493 (Cal. Ct. App. 2020) (heightened duty for amusement water rides)
- Hart v. Fresno Traction Co., 175 Cal. 489 (Cal. 1917) (addresses when control is surrendered for common carrier liability)
- Simon v. Walt Disney World Co., 114 Cal.App.4th 1162 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004) (limits of common carrier status at amusement parks)