A carnival ride with many people on it

Can I Sue for Injuries at a Water Park or Amusement Park?

Water Park Personal Injury Cases

There are many family-centered attractions in Dallas and Fort Worth. Often families visit local water parks in order to escape the Texas heat. Unfortunately, these days of family fun can turn tragic in a split second. For example, ten-year-old Caleb Schwab was killed as a result of a neck injury on a water slide at a water park in Kansas City. The sad reality is that these water park injuries could often be prevented. 

What are Common Water Park Injuries?

Common water park injuries include:

Amusement Park Personal Injury Cases

Thousands of people visit amusement parks in the Dallas Fort Worth area every year. There are many different types of amusement parks including theme parks, fairs, carnivals, and animal and safari parks. Normally a trip to the amusement park is an enjoyable experience. But, accidents happen at amusement parks, and when they do, the injuries are often serious.

What are common Amusement Park Injuries?

Common amusement park injuries include:

  • Broken Bones
  • Traumatic Brain Injuries
  • Whiplash
  • Heart Attack
  • Wrongful Death
  • Loss of limbs
  • Cuts and Lacerations

Who can be Held Liable for Water Park and Amusement Park Injuries?

Both the owner and operator can be held liable for water park injuries and amusement park injuries. There are three main causes of action that owners and operators of a water park and amusement park can be held liable for.

The first is negligence. In order to prove negligence, the plaintiff must prove that the defendant had a duty, that duty was breached, the breach caused the plaintiff’s injury, and that the plaintiff suffered damages. There are several things that operators of water parks and amusement parks do or fail to do that could constitute negligence.

First, the owners could fail to post signs that warn riders about possible consequences of going on a ride. There should be signs that warn of possible heart attacks, back problems as well as signs that detail how rides affect pregnancies.

Another way that water and amusement park owners could be negligent is if the park does not maintain the rides in a safe operating condition and if they do not regularly inspect the rides. Lastly, water and amusement park operators could be liable if they do not properly train employees.

The owner and operator can also be liable under the doctrine of respondeat superior. In order to invoke the doctrine of respondeat superior, the plaintiff must prove that an employee was acting within the scope of his employment and that the employee was negligent. Employees of amusement parks could act negligently by failing to provide instructions to the riders or by improperly operating a ride, among other things.

Lastly, the owner or operator of an amusement park or water park can be liable under a premise liability cause of action. The doctrine of premise liability determines who is liable when a condition on a piece of land caused injury to a plaintiff.

Normally, a defendant can be liable under a premise liability cause of action when the defendant owned or controlled the land where the condition that caused the injury was located. In an amusement park, the condition that could result in a premises liability cause of action may be a ride or activity located at the park.

A third party can also be liable for a water park injury. Normally this third party is another patron at the water park or amusement park. If another party failed to follow directions at the park or intentionally injured the victim the third party can be liable.

What Damages are available for Water Park and Amusement Park Injuries?

The damages that victims of amusement park injuries can obtain are very similar to the damages that victims of water park injuries can recover. Both economic and non-economic damages are available in a water park and amusement park personal injury cases. The economic damages that water park victims can recover for include:

  • Medical Bills
  • Hospital Bills
  • Lost Wages
  • Cost of Rehabilitation

The non-economic damages that a water park injury victims can recover include:

  • Physical pain and suffering
  • Loss of consortium/ loss of companionship and society
  • Disfigurement and physical impairment
  • Awareness of loss and lack of enjoyment of life

Should I hire a Lawyer in Water Park or Amusement Park Personal Injury Case?

Often, the injuries that victims of a water park and amusement parks suffer are very serious. It may be necessary to hire a lawyer in a water park or amusement park personal injury cases when the injury the victims suffered are severe. When injuries are severe, the other side is going to fight very hard against the claim.

The other side will fight against the claim in three different ways.

First, the other side may try to blame others for the injury that they negligently caused.

Second, the other side may claim that the injury is not as severe as the victim claims the injury is. This argument stems from the fact that injuries suffered in water park and amusement park cases are long-term injuries. These types of injuries are often hard to prove because it is hard to tell how a long-term injury will affect a plaintiff’s quality of life.

An experienced personal injury attorney can assist you in proving that you deserve adequate compensation for your amusement or water park injury. The lawyer can assist the plaintiff in developing a strategy to ensure that all injuries are accounted for. The attorney will be able to obtain medical records and consult with expert witnesses to prove that your injury deserves a large amount of compensation.

Lastly, an owner or operator of a water park or amusement park may claim that they are not liable for injuries because the injury was caused by a negligent employee who was not acting within the scope of her employment.

Experienced Fort Worth personal injury lawyers are very familiar with the doctrine of respondeat superior and can assist the plaintiff in proving that the negligent employee was acting within the scope of her employment.